i believe TV is daydreaming implicitly externalized, and social media is daydreaming becoming explicit: daydream-for-itself, which is why private/public can no longer hold. the base of this pair is a forced distinction between attention-collecting and attention-dispersing, because the two are one. simple evidence: say, when reading a book, in a paragraph, we lose our attention and assume that we now have to gather our attention. but instead of attempting to gather it by intention, we can simply wait, and observe the attention-dispersion turning into an attention-gathering that collects other contexts around that paragraph. i think ‘childhood’ is this self-equivalence of attention-movement, and i see the current historical situation as the becoming-explicit of this self-equivalence by a traversing that goes on between old media and new media.


Lacan’s Seminar 3, page 274, “Thou art the one who wilt follow me”

Persons – since this is what we are interested in today – must come from somewhere. They come first in a signifying, by which I mean formal, manner. Speech is constituted for us by an *I* and a *you*. These are two counterparts. Speech transforms them, by giving them a certain appropriate relationship, but – and this is what I want to insist upon – a distance that’s not symmetrical, a relationship that isn’t reciprocal. In fact, the *I* is never there where it appears in the form of a particular signifier. The *I* is always there in the name of a presence that supports the discourse as a whole, whether in direct or indirect speech. The *I* is the *I* of him who is pronouncing the discourse. Underneath everything that is said there is an *I* who pronounces it. It’s within this enunciation that the *you* appears.

These are first truths, so much so that you are liable to look further than the end of your nose. There is nothing more to understand than what I have just observed. That the you is already within discourse is obvious. There has never been a *you* anywhere else than where one says *you*. Let’s start from there.

As for the *I*, is it, too, a coin, a fiduciary element circulating in discourse?
I hope to answer this a little later, but I raise the question now so that you
won’t lose sight of it and so that you will know what I’m getting at.


the last time zizek & badiou came, i first went to take badiou’s signature. i wrote my name on a paper, three words in three rows and showed him. he asked “is your name all?” joining the three words by a bracket. my reply was “any one..” that meant “however you want”. and then he wrote all of the names.

then in the panel, i asked zizek a question that went “do you think we need….” after which he immediately asked “who is *you*”… i was blocked thinking “do i need to introduce myself?” what does zizek want? after seeing my hesitation, he said “i mean which one of us are you addressing, badiou or me?”. my reply was the same “any one..” that meant “however you want”. and then zizek went on to reply himself :)


i am suspicious about the ending of freud’s text:

The feeling of security with which I follow the hero through his perilous adventures is the same as the feeling with which a hero in real life throws himself into the water to save a drowning man or exposes himself to the enemy’s fire in order to storm a battery. It is the true heroic feeling, which one of our best writers has expressed in an inimitable phrase: “Nothing can happen to me!” It seems to me, however, that through this revealing characteristic of invulnerability we can immediately recognize His Majesty the Ego, the hero alike of every daydream and of every story.

invulnerability=ego or invulnerability=id ? and is invulnerability really “heroic”?

it seems to me that “thrownness” comes before “when a hero throws himself into”


an invulnerable suspicion of an unknown, in other words, a pure wish to know (“pure” = with a pure reference to the context of the unknown. “the” as “context of the”, instead of “the X”)


black hole sun still too explicit an expression of daydreaming-for-itself not to be deleted when posted


from Schelling’s Weltalter (1815), page 218 “The Triad of Principles in What is Necessary of God or the Nature of God”

God, in accordance with the necessity of its nature, is an eternal No, the highest Being-in-itself, an eternal withdrawal of its being into itself, a withdrawal within which no creature would be capable of living. But the same God, with equal necessity of its nature, although not in accord with the same principle, but in accord with a principle that is completely different from the first principle, is the eternal Yes, an eternal outstretching, giving, and communicating of its being. Each of these principles, in an entirely equal fashion, is the being, that is, each has the same claim to be God or that which has being. Yet they reciprocally exclude each other. If one is that which has being, then the opposed can only be that which does not have being. But, in an equally eternal manner, God is the third term or the unity of the Yes and the No. Just as opposites exclude each other from being what has being [vom seyend-Seyn], so again the unity excludes the antithesis and thereby each of the opposites, and, in turn, the antithesis or each of the opposites excludes the unity from being what has being. If the unity is that which has being, then the antithesis, that is, each of the opposites, can only be that which does not have being. And, in turn, if one of the opposites, and thereby the antithesis, has being, then the unity can only retreat into that which does not have being.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s