From: esareto-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Emmanouil Aretoulakis)
Subject: fascism,Lacan,Lyotard
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:47:14 -0500 (CDT)


Miss Bracha Lichtenberg and Friends,

Corcerning the question whether Lyotard's differend "contaminates" the
relationship or utter irreconcilability between ethics and aesthetics, I have
to say that the "differend" lies not only in the fact that the two "faculties"
are incommensurate to each other, but also in the fact that they are also
symbiotic and overlapping with each other. Let us not forget that "differend"
is not an opposition or simple discrepancy, but a dispute, formlessness within
form. Lyotard, as you know, blurs the distinction between ethics and
aesthetics, between politics and aesthetics, if you like. He has been accused
of indifference to urgent political issues at the same time that he comments on
politics through art criticism, for example. Therefore, without merging the
two, he talks about the one through the other. The irreconcilability, thus, is
not a common irreconcilability, but also an uncertainty as to the "true"
existence of this irreconcilability.

Concerning the example I brought up, that of the nazis: nobody could ever claim
that the crimes are attributed to their passion for art and beauty. However, I
am arguing that there is a common element between their political behaviour and
aesthetic preferences.I am arguing against those who wonder:"How could they
adore the humanely artistic and beautiful and torture ruthlessly the human
body?" There is no huge discrepancy between the two tendencies. It could be
explained of course in terms of a kind of overamplification. I am going beyond
that in this case. Kant's transcendental ideals give us a taste of what is
"perfect" and "true"; the "perfect and highly ethical" notions of the ideal. At
the same time, "romantic" and "modernist" art is dominated by
"objective"--because "dissociated--criteria of judging art on the basis of its
mastering, or not, Form. From the above, one could draw the conclusion that
applying idealist, Kantian criteria to political agendas and behaviours may
turn celebrations of beauty to celebrations of the "ugly" and atrocious.

You could say that it is not me who does not respect the irreconcilability
between political activity and aesthetic appreciation, but it's the nazis
themselves! Theirs is the most well-known example of confusing aesthetics and
politics.

Concerning the issue of the relationship between Freud and Lacan, it is
indisputable that Lacan himself is Freudian. However, his readings of Freud, as
you know, explored some aspects of human behaviour and language that Freud
himself was unwilling to explore. There are big differences between Freud and
Lacan. Lyotard has many times declared that he is Freudian. Whoever wants to
believe him believes him.I don't. There are many Lacanian "gaps" in his work
that remain repressed. . . . In my previous message I referred to the
displacement of the ego. The latter notion verges on the deconstruction of
meaning as we know it (in its purely metaphysical sense). Freud's notion of the
unconscious can be well-lit through dreams; dreams that have meaning, positive
or negative. What is Lacan's views on dreams? Does he believe in
"wish-fulfillment"?

Of course, one could retort, we do not care about Lacan. He was demoted,
degraded, expelled, condemned (I have run out of terms) by the French
psychoanalysts of the 60's. The same thing is happening at the biggest
Universities of the U.S currently.
  Still, if the displacement of the ego lurks in Freud's writings, it is more
than celebrated by Lacan's own writings.


Miss Lichtenberg and friends form the list. Due to all the above, I do not
think that I "go too quickly" and carelessly" about the examples that I am
putting forth.

                           thank you for your patience and we could hear more
opinions on what is said in this list.

                        Emmanuel Aretoulakis