Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:02:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Jouissance



At 09:57 AM 10/22/00 -0400, you wrote:

>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

         But, in this age of consumer desire what is "my" desire?  In other 
words, aren't we all encouraged to be consumers, to endlessly desire 
product, and to keep buying product in the insatiable effort to satisfy 
that desire?  So, how do I (if I can) separate "my" desire from 
manufactured desire (like Chomsky's "Manufactured Consent"?)?  I agree with 
the taking responsibility bit, but how does one make/create that distinction?

>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 been but will probably see this film.  Though, I 
absolutely detested "Breaking The waves" and I hear this one is even more 
provocative in exactly the same way, female sacrifice.

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

Ottie

HTML VERSION: