Conversations revolve and end in the West
One Response to “I Will Cure Mental Illness Through The Power Of My Contempt” Filed under: Fictions, Philosophy, Blogroll, Politics, Meta [re-posted from The Kugelmass Episodes]
1 parodycenter on Apr 18th, 2007 said: Kugelmass, first off, I thought light neuroses were out ever since that paedophilia scandal with Woody Alleen and Mia Farrow, when did we start talking about light neuroses again? Is this some new academic fad? Why is this suddenly interesting?
You are accusing me falsely of situationsim and Marxian humanist compassionism. I hold neither of these views, my standpoint is structural. I know that capitalism is a structural problem.
I also did not claim to be speaking about the East in those stereotypes, although it is quite honestly shocking how little the Western academia knows about the East. It’s been half a year now that I am trying to tell dr. Sinthome where dr. Zizek comes from, and he still keeps telling me that this problem is "off the radar”. Conversations revolve and end in the West. That IS narcissistic, in a very predictable way (been going on for hundreds of years).
You are accusing me falsely of situationsim and Marxian humanist compassionism. I hold neither of these views, my standpoint is structural. I know that capitalism is a structural problem.
I also did not claim to be speaking about the East in those stereotypes, although it is quite honestly shocking how little the Western academia knows about the East. It’s been half a year now that I am trying to tell dr. Sinthome where dr. Zizek comes from, and he still keeps telling me that this problem is "off the radar”. Conversations revolve and end in the West. That IS narcissistic, in a very predictable way (been going on for hundreds of years).
The Berlin Wall fell a long time ago, but you’re still talking to some apparitions from the previous century as if they are still important.
My remark was about your and dr. Sinthome’s endless whining about the decline of symbolic efficacy, which you rather sollipsisticaly take to be interesting beyond your academic debating club, while in fact it isn’t. Because, even if such a thing exists, which I highly doubt it does, that thing is not the most pressing problem of the world.
Whether Americans are symbolically efficient or not, capitalism still needs to expand markets and gain new energy resources. Its crisis is energetic in nature. This is what causes wars, and famines, not the American’s impotence as theorized through the lens of Lacanianism.
I have no idea whether facing a large number of Americans with the true geopolitical aims of their leaders is going to help much. I am neither clairvoyant nor a messiah. But bitching about your intellectual impotence in the face of terrible choices between Deleuze, Lacan, Latour and Baudrillard, certainly isn’t. Matter of fact it’s only going to contribute to the CREATION of a symbolic inefficacy.
It will also serve you and dr. Sinthome well to do absolutely nothing by way of educating people about, for example, the use of Lacanian/Deleuzian principles for military psyop such as demonization campaigns against Eastern countries, and the falsification of history that happens through the media.
This kind of talk only assists your own jouissance, and that of a very narrow circle of academic interlocutors.
So I’m sorry that I am not impressed or deeply moved by dr. Sinthome’s declaration of uncertaintly, and your poignant celebration of it in a panegiric.
My remark was about your and dr. Sinthome’s endless whining about the decline of symbolic efficacy, which you rather sollipsisticaly take to be interesting beyond your academic debating club, while in fact it isn’t. Because, even if such a thing exists, which I highly doubt it does, that thing is not the most pressing problem of the world.
Whether Americans are symbolically efficient or not, capitalism still needs to expand markets and gain new energy resources. Its crisis is energetic in nature. This is what causes wars, and famines, not the American’s impotence as theorized through the lens of Lacanianism.
I have no idea whether facing a large number of Americans with the true geopolitical aims of their leaders is going to help much. I am neither clairvoyant nor a messiah. But bitching about your intellectual impotence in the face of terrible choices between Deleuze, Lacan, Latour and Baudrillard, certainly isn’t. Matter of fact it’s only going to contribute to the CREATION of a symbolic inefficacy.
It will also serve you and dr. Sinthome well to do absolutely nothing by way of educating people about, for example, the use of Lacanian/Deleuzian principles for military psyop such as demonization campaigns against Eastern countries, and the falsification of history that happens through the media.
This kind of talk only assists your own jouissance, and that of a very narrow circle of academic interlocutors.
So I’m sorry that I am not impressed or deeply moved by dr. Sinthome’s declaration of uncertaintly, and your poignant celebration of it in a panegiric.
No comments:
Post a Comment