Subject: Re: Jouissance
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 09:57:52 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)



On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:42:30 +0300 (EET DST) Fredrik Hertzberg LIT 
<fhertzbe-AT-ra.abo.fi> wrote:

> Isn't it - i.e. taking responsibility for one's jouissance - 
> something more? [than interpassivity, KM]

Yes, it essentially means feeling guilty for giving up on ones desire. The 
ethical concern of Lacan is this: Have you given up on your desire? And, given 
that the desire of desire is its own reproduction, desire is always compromised 
(since in and of itself it is empty and tautological). See Kant with (or 
against) Sade in The Zizek Reader but also Zupancic's essay in Radical Evil, 
Zupancic's essay in Cogito and the Unconscious, Zizek's third appendix in 
Plague of Fantasies and the section on Kant in The Indivisible Remainder and 
Tarrying with the Negative.

> von Trier's last movie Dance in the  Dark could perhaps ce read along these 
lines - I cried more, not less,  because of the (brechtian epic) 'distance' - 
precisely the irony was  what made the film so sad. 

I haven't seen it - but perhaps Chris, who is also familiar with Zizek, will 
make an effort to say something.

ken