Pages

Friday, May 4, 2007

Zizek’s reading of Lacan could be thought as a buggary in that he makes Lacan a Hegelian

larvalsubjects Says: May 3rd, 2007 at 3:56 am There’s good evidence for the connection to Whitehead and the Leibniz book, but he makes reference to Whitehead as early as DR, if I remember right. Whitehead is a constant reference point in my own work, though I seldom mention him.
Ben Says: May 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm The key text on negation, I’d say, is Bergson’s critique in Creative Evolution and then Deleuze’s adoption - not only in Begsonism but also in the article ‘Bergson’s Conception of Difference’ (in The New Bergson). I am trying to work on this myself (see my comment on the Pinnochio Theory post). I’m about to properly try to read through this stuff but the critique of negation seems to be that it always adds as we have 1. the thing negated, 2. the negation, and 3. the motive for negation. I think this pattern of argument - that negation is self-undermining - is a pretty common assumption to found (in different forms) in everyone from Nancy (in Being Singular Plural) to Bruno Latour (in We Have Never Been Modern).Benjamin Noys (Ben)
larvalsubjects Says: May 4th, 2007 at 4:54 pm Dejan, I’m not sure I follow. Does this mean you’re advocating a Hegel-Lacan? When Deleuze engages in buggary he always does so in a way that supports the philosophers he’s transforming. That is, it is not a technique designed to destroy those philosophers. In this regard, Zizek’s reading of Lacan could be thought as a buggary in that he makes Lacan a Hegelian despite Lacan’s numerous polemics against Hegel throughout his work.
parodycenter Says: May 4th, 2007 at 5:33 pm (I’m sorry dr. Sinthome I might have been VULGAR there, but I picked it all up from dr. Zizek) As for dr. Zizek’s unreserved adoration of Dr. Hegel, that’s perfectly understandable given dr. Zizek’s unabashed (though dialectically negated) devotion to Austrian Marxism, the Austrian Aryan idealism and the Austrian Deutschmark, ultimately. Although he displays the kind of masochistic ambivalence typical for long-term slaves of great Aryan Empires like Austro-Hungary, which is reflected in his protection of the dutchy of Slovenia as a small country sandwiched between bigger empires - although ultimately of course he will always choose the Empire with the bigger wallet.

No comments:

Post a Comment