Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Marat! Marat! Marat, SAVE Us!

...from the prison of Neoliberalism!

19 comments:

Gert said...

Farmer:

How does de Sade’s debauched descriptions of ‘non-redemptive sex’ (“Justine”) fit into this blog’s puzzle?

Thersites said...

Have you ever read Zizek's Kant/Sade?

Thersites said...

;p

Gert said...

Such is the deterrent ‘justice’ an aristocracy will resort to, to maintain its privilege.

Thersites said...

It takes an impersonal "People's Republic", however, to effect an efficient genocide. ;)

For the People!

Gert said...

C'mon now: a few extra-judicial killings of enemies of the State, nothing to see here... ;-)

Thersites said...

Supergo don't need no Law! ;)

Thersites said...

...the Sade in Kant.

Thersites said...

okay... flip that! ;)

FreeThinke said...

Anthems in praise of Envy, Spite, Malice, Vengeance –– an unabashed, Devil-inspired Celebration –– and imagined Vindication –– of Mortal Sin.

Sorry to have to say it, but The Great Unwashed and all the Victim Groups, real, self-styled, and fabricated throughout history have wanted –– and continue to want –– ONLY to put themselves in a position to act EXACTLY the way their "OPPRESSORS" did, do and always will –– a Vicious Cycle without end.

Thersites said...

As Nietzsche said, "the World is Will to Power" and nothing besides.

The real question/challenge becomes, can we make it follow a Law... preferable, a self-negating one?

Gert said...

What would be a self-negating Law?

Thersites said...

One that returns us all to the Enlightenment status of "citoyen". (transl.)

Thersites said...

I know, a bridge too far for all advocates of social justice.

Thersites said...

A bridge even farther...

Jodi Dean, "Zizek on Law"

We can summarize the split in law between the public letter and its superego supplement as follows:

a. Superego is the injunctive aspect of law, its position of enunciation. This addresses the issue of the form of law as we see it in the discussion of Kant with Sade.

b. Superego supports public law as the enjoyment that gives people the incentive to do their duty. This addresses the question of our attachment to law, of the enjoyment we can get through doing our duty.

c. Superego supports public law as the obscene, nightly, transgressions that fill in its gaps with fantasy. This addresses the ambiguity in the letter of the law and the way that a community is held together through the knowledge of which rules to break.

d. Superego supports public law insofar as the public law provides a release from superego’s unyielding demands. This addresses the interpellation of the legal subject.

Beyond Law

This account of law as split between the public law and its obscene superego supplement is not all there is; there is something beyond law—what? The quick answer is Love.


As Zizek has stated, "There is no social relationship". So how do you "build" one?

Thersites said...

;p

Gert said...

Fascinating (truly).

I know, a bridge too far for all advocates of social justice.

Negate away (I'm with it) but when have the privileged ever given up their privilege voluntarily?

Back to 'breaking the balls', methinks!

Thersites said...

No doubt some balls will have to be broken. But as Machiavelli said in the Prince:

Hence we may learn the lesson that on seizing a state, the usurper should make haste to inflict what injuries he must, at a stroke, that he may not have to renew them daily, but be enabled by their discontinuance to reassure men’s minds, and afterwards win them over by benefits. Whosoever, either through timidity or from following bad counsels, adopts a contrary course, must keep the sword always drawn, and can put no trust in his subjects, who suffering from continued and constantly renewed severities, will never yield him their confidence. Injuries, therefore, should be inflicted all at once, that their ill savour being less lasting may the less offend; whereas, benefits should be conferred little by little, that so they may be more fully relished.

But, before all things, a Prince should so live with his subjects that no vicissitude of good or evil fortune shall oblige him to alter his behaviour; because, if a need to change come through adversity, it is then too late to resort to severity; while any leniency you may use will be thrown away, for it will be seen to be compulsory and gain you no thanks.

Gert said...

Thanks.