“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Fusion Fail
Too Many Disparate Elements
Even a paranoiac-critical geek like me can make heads or tails of it. ;)
Interesting perspective. I agree with your conclusion, but perhaps not in the same way. I suppose mine entails a bit more of a respect for custom and tradition, and a personal prejudicial belief that the vast majority of men are only fit for "slavery". Men who actually CAN freely choose are, IMO, far and few between. You, I believe are one of them.
In other words, I suppose that I agree with Lacan in that masturbation represents the "zero level" of all human sexuality... and that any snd all "partners" in the endeavor are but mastubatory "props".
I don't feel the same way about marriage though. To me, procreation and genetics are far too important a matter to consiser "masturbation" a decisive criterion.
I suppose mine entails a bit more of a respect for custom and tradition, and a personal prejudicial belief that the vast majority of men are only fit for "slavery".
As you know, FJ, i am as much an admirer of Pascal. But, you would agree, that among slaves there exists (or shouls exist) perfect equality. And we are all slaves, be a gay or a straight man - a slave of his 'reality'. :)
Actually, the point that I was trying to make was that whether we are likely attracted to one sex exclusively or both is generally a function of "culture". Yes we may be slaves to "culture", but it is possible, at some point, to do as WEB DuBois put it... "look above the veil" and decide for ones-self.
And so when it comes to "Marriage", I agree with Hecuba... I may be a slave and weak as well, but the gods are strong, and custom too which prevails o'er them, for by custom it is that we believe in them and set up bounds of right and wrong for our lives. Now if this principle, when referred to thee, is to be set at naught, and they are to escape punishment who murder guests or dare to plunder the temples of gods, then is all fairness in things human at an end.
And speaking of Pascal...
Pascal, "Pensees" - The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."
Homosexuality, IMO, is established in early childhood development through the local interaction of the sexes, and an unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex.
Proof of successful resolution of the Oedipus Complex is substantiated through a display of afterwardness.
I love this comment by Zizek from "Excursions into Philosophy"...
Perhaps, this gap between object and cause also explains the popularity of The Brief Encounter in the gay community: the reason is not simply that the furtive encounters of the two lovers in the dark passages and platforms of the railway station “resembles” the way gays were compelled to meet back in the 40s, since they were not yet allowed to flirt openly. Far from being an obstacle to the fulfillment of the gay desire, these features effectively functioned as its cause: deprived of these undercover conditions, the gay relationship loses a good part of its transgressive beguilement. So what we get in The Brief Encounter is not the object of the gay desire (the couple is straight), but its cause. No wonder, then, that gays often express their opposition to the liberal “inclusive” policy of fully legalizing gay couples: what sustains their opposition is not the (justified) awareness of the falsity of this liberal policy, but the fear that, being deprived of its obstacle/cause, the gay desire itself will wane.
...it is also possible to become a "slave" to "transgression"... and never suffer from a sense of "afterwardness".
We are all determined, to the extent that once we are "appraised" of the factors which determine" us, and that we "choose" to allow them to "continue" to determine us... although I admit that it would take an enormous strength of will to resist and reverse them.
The Name of the Father, the repressive element in the Right hemisphere, is NOT under our conscious control... our only alternative is to attempt to modify the SuperEgo so as to incorporate an even "higher" ideal and thereby circumvent the previously established "repression".
I suppose another technique would be to so denigrate and impugn the "character" of the Father, as to establish a new Ego-Ideal entirely. One would likely experience a "psychic break" in the process... a NOT pleasant experience (as I underwent one in 2001).
I am not so sure about all this, FJ. Psychology may be the part of the problem and not the 'answer', as it makes his (a gay person's) reality even more 'convincing', all the more difficult to avoid since 'justified'.
I wasn't trying to suggest it as "the answer". Gays do have their own "discourse", just as the "Mods" had theirs in the 60's. It may not always be a "lisping" discourse, but it is their own.
Of course, that discourse is not monolithic either. Masculine homosexuals differ substantially from the more effeminate types. Even brain patterning studies show this... (although much of the research, short of Rhawn Joseph's, fails to distinguish types, especially xyy's).
Of course, their "reality" is mediated by the symbolic, and it is their unique discourse which patterns it.
The specificity of jouissance is best established, in an initial approach to it, by contrasting it with the basic features of the pleasure principle. Based on Freud's own characterizations of it, the pleasure principle (once placed in relation to the reality principle) acts like an economic speculator, assessing potential gains and losses of satisfaction in light of possible outcomes of various courses of action. It seeks to maximize satisfaction and correspondingly minimize pain/dissatisfaction. In Freud's account, the pleasure principle qua economic speculator isn't so much a function of the primary processes within the id, but is the strategy wherein the ego negotiates with the exigencies of reality on behalf of the id (of course, the ego often performs this function unconsciously). For Lacan, the ego feels pain (in the form of anxiety, symptoms, and the like) when the homeostatic balance sheet of the pleasure principle is thrown into disorder by an insistent enjoyment than pays no heed of the speculative gains or losses of a diluted, sublimated pleasure, of a principle that routinely "sells out" enjoyment in its ongoing bargaining with its reality-level complement. Jouissance is "beyond the pleasure principle" precisely to the extent that it breaks off negotiations with the reality principle, that it bypasses the moderating/ mitigating influence of the ego on the drives.
Amygdalic pathways of male homosexuals are hyper-myelinated.
I think it's more of a discourse about them than by them.
Moreover, I think what we must understand is that 'straight' too came into being alongside 'gay' - roughly a century ago. Then we would truly understand the relationship between power and discourse in this context.
I am sorry, FJ, for not putting in enough effort into my comments. It may be that, for the time being at least, i have exhausted the topic in my head. :(
I suspect that the "original" discourse was "their own" but has been "Analysed" and now "generalized" (and "Neutralized") by the University in deference to the "Master's" predominant mode (Lacan's "Four Discourses").
23 comments:
Can i interest you in this, Fj?
Interesting perspective. I agree with your conclusion, but perhaps not in the same way. I suppose mine entails a bit more of a respect for custom and tradition, and a personal prejudicial belief that the vast majority of men are only fit for "slavery". Men who actually CAN freely choose are, IMO, far and few between. You, I believe are one of them.
In other words, I suppose that I agree with Lacan in that masturbation represents the "zero level" of all human sexuality... and that any snd all "partners" in the endeavor are but mastubatory "props".
I don't feel the same way about marriage though. To me, procreation and genetics are far too important a matter to consiser "masturbation" a decisive criterion.
...of course, I am speaking in hindsight. It was a very VERY. serious consideration at the time. ;)
I suppose mine entails a bit more of a respect for custom and tradition, and a personal prejudicial belief that the vast majority of men are only fit for "slavery".
As you know, FJ, i am as much an admirer of Pascal. But, you would agree, that among slaves there exists (or shouls exist) perfect equality. And we are all slaves, be a gay or a straight man - a slave of his 'reality'. :)
Actually, the point that I was trying to make was that whether we are likely attracted to one sex exclusively or both is generally a function of "culture". Yes we may be slaves to "culture", but it is possible, at some point, to do as WEB DuBois put it... "look above the veil" and decide for ones-self.
And so when it comes to "Marriage", I agree with Hecuba... I may be a slave and weak as well, but the gods are strong, and custom too which prevails o'er them, for by custom it is that we believe in them and set up bounds of right and wrong for our lives. Now if this principle, when referred to thee, is to be set at naught, and they are to escape punishment who murder guests or dare to plunder the temples of gods, then is all fairness in things human at an end.
And speaking of Pascal...
Pascal, "Pensees" - The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."
Homosexuality, IMO, is established in early childhood development through the local interaction of the sexes, and an unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex.
Proof of successful resolution of the Oedipus Complex is substantiated through a display of afterwardness.
...which is a "reversion" in later life to a stricter adherence to "custom".
I love this comment by Zizek from "Excursions into Philosophy"...
Perhaps, this gap between object and cause also explains the popularity of The Brief Encounter in the gay community: the reason is not simply that the furtive encounters of the two lovers in the dark passages and platforms of the railway station “resembles” the way gays were compelled to meet back in the 40s, since they were not yet allowed to flirt openly. Far from being an obstacle to the fulfillment of the gay desire, these features effectively functioned as its cause: deprived of these undercover conditions, the gay relationship loses a good part of its transgressive beguilement. So what we get in The Brief Encounter is not the object of the gay desire (the couple is straight), but its cause. No wonder, then, that gays often express their opposition to the liberal “inclusive” policy of fully legalizing gay couples: what sustains their opposition is not the (justified) awareness of the falsity of this liberal policy, but the fear that, being deprived of its obstacle/cause, the gay desire itself will wane.
...it is also possible to become a "slave" to "transgression"... and never suffer from a sense of "afterwardness".
We are all determined, to the extent that once we are "appraised" of the factors which determine" us, and that we "choose" to allow them to "continue" to determine us... although I admit that it would take an enormous strength of will to resist and reverse them.
The Name of the Father, the repressive element in the Right hemisphere, is NOT under our conscious control... our only alternative is to attempt to modify the SuperEgo so as to incorporate an even "higher" ideal and thereby circumvent the previously established "repression".
I suppose another technique would be to so denigrate and impugn the "character" of the Father, as to establish a new Ego-Ideal entirely. One would likely experience a "psychic break" in the process... a NOT pleasant experience (as I underwent one in 2001).
I am not so sure about all this, FJ. Psychology may be the part of the problem and not the 'answer', as it makes his (a gay person's) reality even more 'convincing', all the more difficult to avoid since 'justified'.
I wasn't trying to suggest it as "the answer". Gays do have their own "discourse", just as the "Mods" had theirs in the 60's. It may not always be a "lisping" discourse, but it is their own.
Of course, that discourse is not monolithic either. Masculine homosexuals differ substantially from the more effeminate types. Even brain patterning studies show this... (although much of the research, short of Rhawn Joseph's, fails to distinguish types, especially xyy's).
Of course, their "reality" is mediated by the symbolic, and it is their unique discourse which patterns it.
...or at least "exercises" the pattern of myelinated symbolic pathways which "mediate" between the "imaginary" and the "real".
The gay brain, IMO, achieves "jouissance" through transgression, and unity with fellow transgressors.
The specificity of jouissance is best established, in an initial approach to it, by contrasting it with the basic features of the pleasure principle. Based on Freud's own characterizations of it, the pleasure principle (once placed in relation to the reality principle) acts like an economic speculator, assessing potential gains and losses of satisfaction in light of possible outcomes of various courses of action. It seeks to maximize satisfaction and correspondingly minimize pain/dissatisfaction. In Freud's account, the pleasure principle qua economic speculator isn't so much a function of the primary processes within the id, but is the strategy wherein the ego negotiates with the exigencies of reality on behalf of the id (of course, the ego often performs this function unconsciously). For Lacan, the ego feels pain (in the form of anxiety, symptoms, and the like) when the homeostatic balance sheet of the pleasure principle is thrown into disorder by an insistent enjoyment than pays no heed of the speculative gains or losses of a diluted, sublimated pleasure, of a principle that routinely "sells out" enjoyment in its ongoing bargaining with its reality-level complement. Jouissance is "beyond the pleasure principle" precisely to the extent that it breaks off negotiations with the reality principle, that it bypasses the moderating/ mitigating influence of the ego on the drives.
Amygdalic pathways of male homosexuals are hyper-myelinated.
They are modern Epicureans.
It's the myelination that "enslaves" one to habit and the dopamine rewards received when exercised.
"Reality" doesn't reward. Pleasure does.
I think it's more of a discourse about them than by them.
Moreover, I think what we must understand is that 'straight' too came into being alongside 'gay' - roughly a century ago. Then we would truly understand the relationship between power and discourse in this context.
I am sorry, FJ, for not putting in enough effort into my comments. It may be that, for the time being at least, i have exhausted the topic in my head. :(
Even the "hysteric" has a discourse. And who knows, one day the "hysteric" becomes the "Master"... or more likely... the "university."
I suspect that the "original" discourse was "their own" but has been "Analysed" and now "generalized" (and "Neutralized") by the University in deference to the "Master's" predominant mode (Lacan's "Four Discourses").
Post a Comment