From: Ariosto Raggo <df803-AT-freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Desire and Being for Death
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 06:20:08 -0400 (EDT)


q> 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEE5CA.2CE03C00
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> I will begin with a little bit of Lacan's seminar book seven, fourteenth > chapter The Paradox of Ethics or Have You Acted in Conformity with Your > Desire"
> 
> The sphere of comedy is created by the presence at its center of a > hidden signifier ... namely, the phallus. Who cares if it is > subsequently whisked away? One must simply remember that the element in > comedy that satisfies us, the element that makes us laugh, that makes us > appreciate it in its full human dimension, not excluding the > unconscious, it not so much the triumph of life as its flight, the fact > that life slips away, runs off, escapes all those barriers that oppose > it, including precisely those that are the most essential, those that > are constituted by the agency of the signifier. (Lucan 314).
>
  You  are giving more than I could  have imagined or wanted. You sound
 like  you  know what you  are talking about and your at times
irritating spelling mistakes  are kicking my interpretive drive which is
not necessarily what I meant by clarity and simplicity.  You see what I
mean? Since my Lacanian know-how is rather dormant as I pursue,
continue to get rid and exhaust some of my  own threads which I am
pretty  attached to since they capture me as much I take them  in, 
seduce them perhaps, by giving myself over to  them without reserve; I
am going to declare open season on a thousand and one question  as  I
work out, come to  terms with  my  own thoughts. 

This flight  of life is  it akin to expenditure without return? What 
does the agency of the signifier do? Why  would  the phallus be
subsequently be"whisked away"? Subsequent to  what? Laughter?  Why is
the barrier of the agency of  the signifier the most  essential?
Because it governs our  desires most?  I don't know,  Lacan is not at
all clear to  me but maybe you can enlighten me.
 
> In an effort to aviod, at least for the present, a digression into the > problems of Phalocentrism, I would like to prepose that a pen, or a > uterus can equally serve the function reserved in psyco-analytic > discourse for the phallus.  What this function represents is a > distention of some feature of the world with what will be determined.  
  Something (an activity? a thing?) is distended,  you seem  to mean, 
this distention takes away a feature (a representation, an idea, a
picture, a notion, an aspect, a thing like a pen, the process of
featuring?) of the world by virtue of something that will be determined
in the future. Isn't this a little hasty?

> What I believe Lacan attempts to point out in the above sited passage is > that although life exceeds its vessel non-the-less such an enclosure > must exist to be exceeded. 

  So this enclosure is the law, barriers, the agency  of the signifier?
Does it have a *how*  that you can describe more precisely?

> What is true for pen and penis, womb and > world is that they all find their fullfillment in their exhaustion.  The > womb as phallus finds its function in becomming full not for its > enrichment but rather as a thing who's purpose it is to be emptied. > Indeed what gives the womb its esteem in the symbolic econemy is this > verry purpose.  The womb finds its rank in its ability to despense its > wealth in a way similar to that in which the chief finds his rank in the > ruinous expenditure of potlatch.
> 
  expenditure to the nth degree, exhaustion (the end of the possible?)
is steemed in some  symbolic economy. How does a symbolic economy
operate, does 'it' exchange token symbols like "pen" and "womb" between two
players?

> What all this has to do with understanding Neitche is that He seems to > advocate an existence where in creating as a hallmark of the subject is, > or seems to be, valued as a virtue.  for example in On Truth and Lying > in an Extar Moral Sense"
> 
 I will have to look at this reference  more closely

> Only by forgetting the primitive metaphor-world, only by hardining and > rigidification of the mass of images that originally gushed forth as hot > magma out of the primeval faculty of human fantasy,only by the > invincible belief that this sun, this window, this table is a truth in > itself, in short, only by forgetting himself as a subject, indeed as an > artistically creative subject, does he live with some calm, security and > consistency.
> 
  Are you talking about active forgetting? Hardening  into  what? Youe
mean  the consciousness becomes hard and starts asking a lot of
difficult  and impossible questions, a thick brick wall  resists your
attempts to find to find  its inner life through metaphors  and images
and you sort of allow them objects to be what they are, a chair, a
window, some grass blowing in the wind. You don't concern yourself with
them anymore.

> Returning to Lacan we read:
> 
> There is no other good than that which might serve to pay the price for > access to disire-given that desire is understood, here as we have > defined it elswhere, as the metonymy of our ceing.
> 
  elsewhere? Is this a place? Are you holding something back? Not
exhausted yet? Or did I miss something? Desire is a metonymic( that
means that it slips along, can't hold itself back, it is  taken by  the
minutest suggestion?) displacement of symbols? Are these symbols being
bound up in a story line, a narrative history?

> later he writes:
> 
> Sublimate it as much as you like [desire] you have to pay for it with > something, and this somthing is called Jouissance. I have to pay for > that mystical operation with a pound of flesh.
> 
 How does sublimation work? Paying is expression? You pay because there
is pain or a debt, an obligation?

> Jouissance (enjoyment) has a certain connotation of having(see more > about this in the translaters note for Lacan's Ecrit).  Having flesh, a > body, which forms at least part of the metonymy of our being is an > enjoyment which is always put at risk in any kind of action.  

  So, Jouissance, the having of a body is risked, exhausted in any kind
of action and this is a painful sort of joy, a mixed emotion and/or
thought?

>To act we > must sacrifice some of what we are(I'm thinking of the way a moving > train weighs a little less than on at rest).  everyone knows this but > what gets missed is that one way or another we are always playing a > role.  

  How does "playing a role" get missed?

>If we think of what Neitche says above about how one lives with a > realitive level of contentment we see that in taking ourselves for a > truth in itself we have the perception that we are more than a role > which we play.  Never the less we still sweat and toil for the good of > this truth which we take ourselves to be, we pay for this truth with a > pound of flesh which still slips away from us dispite how stable how > true(objective) we hope to be.  Thus the desire to have one's name > written down in some "book of life"  our thinghood is, could we not say > that what this signifies is that we are a "thing" in the eyes, and > therefore, the lexicon of God.  Otherwise we are pencil shavings.
> 
  

> We can try to be this by serving some "good", some definable parameter > of propriety, we may even succeed in this but only at the expense of > access to desire.  This desire is the desire to express what is in us, > the pleasure principle deflates the enjoyment and thus our enjoyment > ceases the moment we are empty. 

 Your losing me, I feel so far away from all this, I can barely make
any contact. By access to desire you mean what precisely? I don't see
how the pleasure priciple is deflating anything.

>The pen enjoys its ink, it has it, yet > the value of the pen is equally as much in spending its ink, indeed the > value of having ink is predicated on being able to exhaust it.  This is > in some sense what writing is all about, becoming full so you can be > emptied.  You can live without writing, even if you are a pen but what > will you be serving? A place where a share of ink can dry up.
> 
 You think becoming full is a restricted economy and so prior to
general economy. Isn't there a law involved in becoming full? I have
thinking about this lately, but its probably something difficult to
incorporate into Lacanian terms, not  that I have tried very hard.

> I think Neitche, especially in the Three Metamorphoses, is trying to > express the value of an imaginitive life, expressed with purpose.  The > only substantial difference between this and a traditional christian > work ethic is that for Neitche one is called to be an author rather than > merely a scribe. 
> 
> Which position we take really doesn't matter in the long run. Human life > is contingent at best, a verb rather than a noun if you will, a pen can > write but it doesn't have to write.  similarry we can write but we don't > have to(think of Sartre's "live of tell".  Neitche, as well as Bataille > seem to place a high value on living to tell.  To act we must strive > against the natural given, to act is a human trate, to portray an end by > enacting that which brings us to that end, this is the meaning of > purposful, deliberate action.  Because we have language and an ability > to say "why" we are doing a thing all our actions are stained with > purpose unlike those commited by animals which we assume to arise from > somthing we call "instinct".  this is why when we "act like an animal' > we are transgressing, we are "apeing" the behavior of something which > doesn't act but merely is.  Of course in this we are still acting, this > is an immodesty, we are playing something which is outside the domane of > law, however we are also, and this is an even greater immodesty, > creating a way of being, a new law.  There is it seems no breaking of > law only making new ones or at least exceptions to existing ones.  To > act like an animal we can be said to be acting like a child on the one > hand or a god on the other.  In both cases we are playing a game, > creating a thing in the form of a situation, a cycly of drama which > allows us to experience the completion of that thing in our selves.  > What we do is make an effort to bring forth or "come to terms" with what > is inside us.  We pay for this by finishing the game, by the deflation > which follows such an expression.  this is the horror which bataille > returns to in the history of eroticism.  When we arose the desire of the > other we do so by acting this entire performance is designed to end in a > deflation, (we wear the pretty nighty so we can take off the pretty > nighty, or at least inflame the desire for what is beneath this thin > skin.  The saints are no different, they seduce the lord with their > refusal of other suiters and so on.  In this sense the madonna and the > whore are on a par.  Christ is again the exemplary case of this > retaining his pound of flesh for the most exquisit of all releases.  > Make no mistake about the jouissance of Christ was to bring down the > full weight of god's awful purpose upon himself.  What did he know, to > live leads one to some cross.  This is something few christians have the > curage to face: "christ carried the cross for me, I am redeemed".  
> 
> What makes Christ heroic is simply his insistence on a certain role > which he played.  As I have said, it doesn't matter if the man suffered > from the most perverse self delusion, what matters is that he was > willing to stake everything on this passion of his.  Thus his > sovereignty.  What makes Christ different from the average person is > that the average person needs to "{know" that what he does is worth > doing.  They must know this through some irrefutable fact: "I must > continue because I owe it to some one, its my place, my gaurentee of > authenticity.  This need for "objective" certainty illustrates the > poverty of the average  life, it asks for certainty which implies that > it has it not.  The hero says I am certainty itself.  The hero of > tragidy is one who empties themselves because they are rich in > certainty.  The person who is the hero is the one who can afford to be.  > The currency which is sacrificed for such certainty is ones enjoyment, > one's found of flesh.
> 
  Aside from saying Christ couldn't afford his pound of flesh you are
saying he practiced a restricted economy?

> I have been going on and on I know.  

  But you flatter yourself don't you.

>I really suggest that any one > interested should look over Lacan's seminar seven chapter twentyfour.  I > think the importance will be seen better than I can describe it.  

 I'm still trying to figure out if Lacan is important period.

>I will > close with this little thing I like say which says a lot about the > relationship between enjoyment and desire as well as speaking rather > flipanty to Neitche and Bataille.
> 
> In this life you can either save your ass(pound of flesh which you > enjoy) or shake it(which loses your flesh in a rather saturnalian > fashion)  But if you're not shaking it what are you saving it for?
> 
  You make sound like fun.

> Sorry to have taken so much time but I am speaking to failure which > always outlasts sucess.  It is the verry fround on which success > declares its empire.
> 
  Your taking my time alright, I have to find all these juxtapositions
in order to address your version of Lacan, it's your interpretive
ability at work after all. I  am wondering if you ever think outside of
it,  sounds like you don't.



> 
> ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEE5CA.2CE03C00
> Content-Type: text/html;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> 
> <META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 > http-equiv=Content-Type>
> <META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I will begin with a little bit of > Lacan's
> seminar book seven, fourteenth chapter <U>The Paradox of Ethics or Have > You
> Acted in Conformity with Your Desire</U>"</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2><FONT size=2>
> <P><EM>The sphere of comedy is created by the presence at its center of > a hidden
> signifier ... namely, the phallus. Who cares if it is subsequently > whisked away?
> One must simply remember that the element in comedy that satisfies us, > the
> element that makes us laugh, that makes us appreciate it in its full > human
> dimension, not excluding the unconscious, it not so much the triumph of > life as
> its flight, the fact that life slips away, runs off, escapes all those > barriers
> that oppose it, including precisely those that are the most essential, > those
> that are constituted by the agency of the signifier. (Lucan 314). > </EM></P>
> <P>In an effort to aviod, at least for the present, a digression into > the
> problems of Phalocentrism, I would like to prepose that a pen, or a > uterus can
> equally serve the function reserved in psyco-analytic discourse for the
> phallus.  What this function represents is a distention of some > feature of
> the world with what will be determined.  What I believe Lacan > attempts to
> point out in the above sited passage is that although life exceeds its > vessel
> non-the-less such an enclosure must exist to be exceeded.  What is > true for
> pen and penis, womb and world is that they all find their fullfillment > in their
> exhaustion.  The womb as phallus finds its function in becomming > full not
> for its enrichment but rather as a thing who's purpose it is to be > emptied.
> Indeed what gives the womb its esteem in the symbolic econemy is this > verry
> purpose.  The womb finds its rank in its ability to despense its > wealth in
> a way similar to that in which the chief finds his rank in the ruinous
> expenditure of potlatch.</P>
> <P>What all this has to do with understanding Neitche is that He seems > to
> advocate an existence where in creating as a hallmark of the subject is, > or
> seems to be, valued as a virtue.  for example in <U>On Truth and > Lying in
> an Extar Moral Sense</U>"</P>
> <P><EM>Only by forgetting the primitive metaphor-world, only by > hardining and
> rigidification of the mass of images that originally gushed forth as hot > magma
> out of the primeval faculty of human fantasy,only by the invincible > belief that
> this sun, this window, this table is a truth in itself, in short, only > by
> forgetting himself as a subject, indeed as an artistically creative > subject,
> does he live with some calm, security and consistency.</EM></P>
> <P>Returning to Lacan we read:</P>
> <P><EM>There is no other good than that which might serve to pay the > price for
> access to disire-given that desire is understood, here as we have > defined it
> elswhere, as the metonymy of our ceing.</EM></P>
> <P>later he writes:</P>
> <P><EM>Sublimate it as much as you like </EM>[desire] <EM>you have to > pay for it
> with something, and this somthing is called Jouissance. I have to pay > for that
> mystical operation with a pound of flesh.</EM></P>
> <P>Jouissance (enjoyment) has a certain connotation of having(see more > about
> this in the translaters note for Lacan's Ecrit).  Having flesh, a > body,
> which forms at least part of the metonymy of our being is an enjoyment > which is
> always put at risk in any kind of action.  To act we must sacrifice > some of
> what we are(I'm thinking of the way a moving train weighs a little less > than on
> at rest).  everyone knows this but what gets missed is that one way > or
> another we are always playing a role.  If we think of what Neitche > says
> above about how one lives with a realitive level of contentment we see > that in
> taking ourselves for a truth in itself we have the perception that we > are more
> than a role which we play.  Never the less we still sweat and toil > for the
> good of this truth which we take ourselves to be, we pay for this truth > with a
> pound of flesh which still slips away from us dispite how stable how
> true(objective) we hope to be.  Thus the desire to have one's name > written
> down in some "book of life"  our thinghood is, could we > not say
> that what this signifies is that we are a "thing" in the eyes, > and
> therefore, the lexicon of God.  Otherwise we are pencil > shavings.</P>
> <P>We can try to be this by serving some "good", some > definable
> parameter of propriety, we may even succeed in this but only at the > expense of
> access to desire.  This desire is the desire to express what is in > us, the
> pleasure principle deflates the enjoyment and thus our enjoyment ceases > the
> moment we are empty. The pen enjoys its ink, it has it, yet the value of > the pen
> is equally as much in spending its ink, indeed the value of having ink > is
> predicated on being able to exhaust it.  This is in some sense what > writing
> is all about, becoming full so you can be emptied.  You can live > without
> writing, even if you are a pen but what will you be serving? A place > where a
> share of ink can dry up.</P>
> <P>I think Neitche, especially in the Three Metamorphoses, is trying to > express
> the value of an imaginitive life, expressed with purpose.  The only > 
> substantial difference between this and a traditional christian work > ethic is
> that for Neitche one is called to be an author rather than merely a
> scribe.  </P>
> <P>Which position we take really doesn't matter in the long run. Human > life is
> contingent at best, a verb rather than a noun if you will, a pen can > write but
> it doesn't have to write.  similarry we can write but we don't have > 
> to(think of Sartre's "live of tell".  Neitche, as well as > 
> Bataille seem to place a high value on living to tell.  To act we > must
> strive against the natural given, to act is a human trate, to portray an > end by
> enacting that which brings us to that end, this is the meaning of > purposful,
> deliberate action.  Because we have language and an ability to say
> "why" we are doing a thing all our actions are stained with > purpose
> unlike those commited by animals which we assume to arise from somthing > we call
> "instinct".  this is why when we "act like an > animal' we are
> transgressing, we are "apeing" the behavior of something which > doesn't
> act but merely is.  Of course in this we are still acting, this is > an
> immodesty, we are playing something which is outside the domane of law, > however
> we are also, and this is an even greater immodesty, creating a way of > being, a
> new law.  There is it seems no breaking of law only making new ones > or at
> least exceptions to existing ones.  To act like an animal we can be > said to
> be acting like a child on the one hand or a god on the other.  In > both
> cases we are playing a game, creating a thing in the form of a > situation, a
> cycly of drama which allows us to experience the completion of that > thing in our
> selves.  What we do is make an effort to bring forth or "come > to
> terms" with what is inside us.  We pay for this by finishing > the game,
> by the deflation which follows such an expression.  this is the > horror
> which bataille returns to in the history of eroticism.  When we > arose the
> desire of the other we do so by acting this entire performance is > designed to
> end in a deflation, (we wear the pretty nighty so we can take off the > pretty
> nighty, or at least inflame the desire for what is beneath this thin > skin. 
> The saints are no different, they seduce the lord with their refusal of > other
> suiters and so on.  In this sense the madonna and the whore are on > a
> par.  Christ is again the exemplary case of this retaining his > pound of
> flesh for the most exquisit of all releases.  Make no mistake about > the
> jouissance of Christ was to bring down the full weight of god's awful > purpose
> upon himself.  What did he know, to live leads one to some > cross. 
> This is something few christians have the curage to face: "christ > carried
> the cross for me, I am redeemed".   </P>
> <P>What makes Christ heroic is simply his insistence on a certain role > which he
> played.  As I have said, it doesn't matter if the man suffered from > the
> most perverse self delusion, what matters is that he was willing to > stake
> everything on this passion of his.  Thus his sovereignty.  > What makes
> Christ different from the average person is that the average person > needs to
> "{know" that what he does is worth doing.  They must know > this
> through some irrefutable fact: "I must continue because I owe it to > some
> one, its my place, my gaurentee of authenticity.  This need for
> "objective" certainty illustrates the poverty of the > average 
> life, it asks for certainty which implies that it has it not.  The > hero
> says I am certainty itself.  The hero of tragidy is one who empties > 
> themselves because they are rich in certainty.  The person who is > the hero
> is the one who can afford to be.  The currency which is sacrificed > for such
> certainty is ones enjoyment, one's found of flesh.</P>
> <P>I have been going on and on I know.  I really suggest that any > one
> interested should look over Lacan's seminar seven chapter > twentyfour.  I
> think the importance will be seen better than I can describe it.  I > will
> close with this little thing I like say which says a lot about the > relationship
> between enjoyment and desire as well as speaking rather flipanty to > Neitche and
> Bataille.</P>
> <P>In this life you can either save your ass(pound of flesh which you > enjoy) or
> shake it(which loses your flesh in a rather saturnalian fashion)  > But if
> you're not shaking it what are you saving it for?</P>
> <P>Sorry to have taken so much time but I am speaking to failure which > always
> outlasts sucess.  It is the verry fround on which success declares > its
> empire.</P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
> 
> ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEE5CA.2CE03C00--
> 
> 
> 



--