I mean, it's the only hope for afterlife, isn't it? Spirit being distinct from flesh. That eschatology primer I read had all kinds of crazy theories about spiritual dissolution and reincarnation. I think, as Milbank implies, there's no metaphysical abstraction that exists outside of our projections (discourse, if you will), but then there's the impossible exception that makes love possible-- not necessarily without desire, but apart from it.
--- On Mon, 11/2/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
From: Noah Berlatsky < >
Subject: Re: "I think therefore I am" is talking about two different people
To: "Albert Stabler" < >
Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 11:59 AM
I didn't know that about pretty in pink either!
I think the subject is divided from itself...but what happens from a Christian view, after death? You've still got subjectivity (Lewis would have it), but you're not agonizingly split, presumably.....
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Albert Stabler < > wrote:
"Pretty in Pink" means "naked." I just figured that out.
Lacan always sees the subject as crossed out, divided from itself. I think that applies to men and women. It works differently for both genders but in both cases it's constituitive. I think I am more in the camp that finds this fundamental to subjectivity (which in turn is defined by the group), because if it's really all environmental, then the Marxists are right, in their atheism as well as their economic totalization.
Right after I emailed you Friday afternoon (half-asleep), I tried to jump on my counter and shut my window, leading me to slip on butcher paper and clock my head on the floor. I had kind of a mild concussion, I think, but wasn't knocked out-- mostly it was an encounter with my memory center being rattled (further) out of whack-- I was recovering psycho-emotionally all weekend, sort of. Less than an encounter with God, it was an encounter with the meat in my head existing in a way that the projections it constructs don't. The Real, dude.
%%%%
I don't know; you just may be more attuned than me. I think metal is more like folk fiddle music in some ways than it is like pop. I mean, most genres are homogenous in that they sound like themselves. There's an ambient quality to a lot of black/doom kinds of things that tends to be about all not varying much.
Some black metal (like that russian thing I reviewed a while back) has definite prog/classical aspects, with lots of different sections and moments. Some doom is like that too; Ekklesiast. Nihill is just really what it is throughout, which is enjoyable, but not especially about different sections or parts. Or that's how it seems to me, anyway.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Albert Stabler < > wrote:
| There are a few different threads in metal, as there are in rock. Namely, pop, classical, and improvisation. Pop is repetition, classical is arranged, and improvised is spontaneous. Khanate and Funeral Mist deal a lot in improv, which is why I like them, but mostly American thrash and death use pop hooks (like the Stones) and European black metal bands build classical long-form castles (like the Beatles). Being hooky or non-hooky doesn't make you more or less repetitive by itself, but hooky music tends to have more distinct moments and shapes, owing to percussion. But there are usually more distinct sections in a black metal track. I kind of think a lot of the sameness in metal is part of the experience in a way lots of equally monotonous music doesn't rely on-- but it's not actually more homogenous than any number of other things. |
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
From: Noah Berlatsky < >
Subject: Re: homogenous wall of hate
To: "Albert Stabler" < >
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 2:45 PM
Ah, well. They seem pretty trudgy and doomy to me, if not as slow as some.
I like Ruins of Beverest.
I think Blut Aus Nord may be a little more tricky on occasion. But yeah, I don't necessarily think they're especially homogeneous compared to those other bands. Black/doom isn't all that heterogeneous in general --- which isn't necessarily a problem, as I kind of tried to say.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Albert Stabler < > wrote:
| Is the Nihill track you sent typical? I assume so, since you imply there is no such thing as an atypical Nihill track. Not to nitpick, but it didn't seem slow sludge doomy-- pretty mid- to up-tempo, unlike, say RUINS OF BEVERAST. They're great, if you haven't heard them. Apparently the Marduk sound is "Kommando metal"-- that might apply to Nihill as well, just more black and less thrash/death. I don't think it's more homogenous than Blut Aus Nord or Darkspace, but granted, that's not a high standard of heterogeneity. "Slab," "charred," and :"buzz" are definitely required modifiers for black metal reviews on Aquarius. Given that it's genre music though, why not have genre modifiers? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
The magic of the everyday is suspicious, there's no doubt. I was sort of struggling around that in the essay a little; you don't want to (or I didn't want to) just say — the world is wonderful and full of many various things — gaze upon the familiar made strange! Or whatever. I much prefer C.S. Lewis' formulation, that the world is bigger than us, and that's glorious not because there are so many great and wonderful things out there but because a world that is actually man-sized and all about us is too horrible to contemplate (contra Douglas Adams and Zaphod Beeblebrox.) In that sense, I guess the nothing that is not there is man, and the nothing that is would be god. I don't really believe in the second, so I have to believe in the first, though believing in it really as a nothing. I think folks can end up believing in the nothing that is not there as a nothing that is, which is how you end up with man is god, which is supposed to be comforting and exciting but is actually depressing and nauseating.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Albert Stabler < > wrote:
| I just read this sort of entertainingly incompetent article in Artforum about some kind of math-engineering-design installation thing by Matthew Ritchie that I still don't know what the hell it actually is supposed to look like, let alone be about. It's one of the most amazingly random articles I've ever seen published. But then the next article was kind of great. It's about some sound installation hut on a mountaintop in some rich patron's art-star project farm in Brazil (Chris Burden dropping I-beams in wet cement from a giant crane, stuff like that) that is supposed to be amplifying the sound of the earth 200 feet below the sound hole. The writer makes this argument very much like yours about the palpable pleasure of being ignorant. He uses a lovely Rilke quote about what it would sound like to put a phonograph needle in the groove where the human skull is sealed in the womb, and how the possibility of that sound Romantically implies the possibility of a unified and total sensorium. But the writer says we can only find meaning in contingent, provisional encounters and accretions of memory, rather than essential "natural" primal experiences, and also whips out a Wallace Stevens quote at the end about "the nothing that is not there and the nothing that is." That Stevens quote at the end kind of does beg the question though-- does this writer believe in a nothing that is, or only a nothing that is not? He undertakes an appropriate deflation of Rilke's gnostic alchemical hermeticist hubris, but the magic of the everyday is something that I wish officially to be on the record as suspicious of. Either it is mundane or it is transcendent, they are not the same. It's why I believe in Ana Mendieta more than the diminished versions of her ecstatic earth-power in the cuteness of Andy Goldsworthy or Tom Friedman. And in a perhaps related ven (or perhaps not), when is Terry Eagleton going to stop being so smug about how the whole earth is going atheist excepot the U.S.? And implying that the U.S. is anywhere near as intolerant of immigrants as Europe, where indigenous ethnic minorities are regularly persecuted, let alone actual brown people? Okay, that's it for now. |
| And how do you deal with believing that the man-sized world is too horrible to contemplate when you don't believe in a big Other? Do you just avoid the urge to contemplate the world? |
I don't know that I exactly said that it's too horrible to contemplate without the big other (is there a reason you want to call it that rather than God? Is there a distinction there for you?) I said it's too horrible to contemplate if the world is in fact man-sized. I don't actually think it is, big other or not; we don't really matter that much. But yes, I also don't contemplate the world that much, I don't think. That's probably fair.
| And if you believe in the fundamental nothing that is not, are you endorsing the Hegelian atheist angle, or do you have an alternative cosmo-ontology? |
I don't understand Hegel, honestly. The one time I tried to read him I found him almost completely opaque. I was thinking of trying again after reading that Zizek book, but not sure I ever will actually.
And, yeah, I don't have an alternative cosmo anything, ontology or otherwise. Mostly I just don't believe in God. It's not a position I feel an especially militant need to argue for, though.
| To bring Freud back in-- I think the obscurity of our foundational drives is sort of like the a priori of our meat-and-electricity selves, which works just fine for me as a pointer to something that is utterly previous to and beyond our experience. |
I'd agree with that...with the caveat that, as we've discussed, I don't think Freud makes our foundational drives obscure — or at least, he hedges back and forth. You read the Wilson book, he treats motivations almost like plumbing...except maybe not as obscure as plumbing often is.
Sure- but we have a slight difference around the intentional fallacy. By the time of the Moses book Freud totally stopped caring about being academically detail-oriented1
----------
Sent from AT&T's Wireless network using Mobile Email
------Original Message------
Date: Sat, Oct 24, 2009 02:31 PM
Subject: Re: the Crucifixion is the first picket sign
Okay; read it now.
I think my objection to Freud as scientist is essentially the same as your
objection to the professional in the place of God. Freud comes up with all
these really smart poetic/philosophical insights, but he's not willing to
let them be as provisional/human/fallible representations of truth/the
divine. Instead, he has to turn them into objective reality. It's
interesting to think of Freud as in a constant Oedipal conflict with the
Enlightenment. He's always undermining it's authority (to which I say, yay)
and then trying to place himself in its place (less yay.) He really is all
about constantly declaring, humans can't understand themselves...and now I
will explain how I understand myself. It's irritating -- but, of course,
doesn't undercut all the very smart things he's said.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Noah Berlatsky < >wrote:
> Haven't read all of that; will respond more. But yes, I'll quote you.
>
> Also, I don't object to Freud's characterization of everyone as bisexual; I
> object to his claim that that insight is comparable to a chemical equation.
> The insight is smart; the effort to turn it into science is dumb. That's
> kind of always my feeling with Freud. I should maybe make that clearer.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Albert Stabler <
> > wrote:
>
>> And we cut down all the trees to emulate him and justify ourselves by
>> freeing the universe of our blighted existence. Freedom without power finds
>> glory in annihilation.
>>
>>
>> I wholeheartedly appreciate the excellent things you say. I do hope all
>> these things you write are somehow archived-- do blog servers store infinite
>> amounts of words?
>>
>> The fundamental erotic=desire insight is fantastic, and should be taught
>> in every literature/poetry/religion context. Although it makes it slightly
>> weird for you to then denounce him for calling everyone bisexual. Like
>> Spiderman is gay but you're not?
>>
>> Eric's explanation is awesome. Which sort of gets into the thing that
>> Eagleton is ballsy enough (!) to bring up, Christ's lack of interest in
>> families and marriage bonds (and Paul's, to a lesser degree-- he focuses on
>> gedner roles as a community-wide issue).
>>
>> I can never think of Spider-Man's trauma-scape without Gwen Stacy (whose
>> father is the more important figure)-- she sort of echoes the Uncle Ben
>> murder, but with much more emphasis on Peter's impotence.
>>
>> On a couple themes
>>
>> Freud as theologian / Freud as Satan: My earliest objection to theology,
>> which I found reflected in Foucault, was my absolute repugnance with the
>> all-knowing listener, just as instinctive as my repugnance for the utopian
>> shill. Freud responded to the crisis in modern subjectivity by putting a
>> professional in the place putatively of the priest, but actually of God
>> Himself. In a way, this is the same atheistic deism you see in Eagleton and
>> Zizek-- the ultimate signified has been vanquished (which I think could be
>> argued from a Christian point of view), and THEREFORE we have recourse to
>> the ethics of technique. The mistake there is that the ultimate signified
>> is replaced through the back door with the unjustifiable assumption that we
>> are identical with ourselves (and therefore there is no possibility of a
>> soul).
>>
>> Erotism and theology:The patriarchy-responsibility thing is undercut
>> somewhat by Christianity, as you point out, although Karl Barth says the
>> three central injunctions of (Protestant) Christian faith are gratitude,
>> obedience, and responsibility (on the other hand Barth is vehement in his
>> denunciation of eros vis-a-vis agape, but, on the third hand, also in his
>> contempt for monasticism). Jesus is feminized by the Law, but he is also
>> referred to constantly in the New Testament as the Bridegroom-- believers
>> are explicitly the bride. We are all female compared to God (your Friday
>> the 13th quote is great on that point).
>>
>> For all this, the big question is what to do with desire. It can never be
>> satiated or extinguished. Freud offers a menu of techniques for deflection,
>> both pathological and non, while both Christianity and art suggest the
>> possibility of impossible escape from within an approved social context.
>>
| Oh, that's fantastic! Women already have an inner phallus, and men have to project one. Take that, Freud! I mean, of course power fantasy is operating for both, but I like the ego-vs.-death-drive distinction. And your wry plea for feminism of color being justified on the basis of marketing viability. |
Okay, I (cen)surely don't want to censor you. Maybe it's just a mixture
>>> of
>>> my own affection for him combined with an aesthetic sense of
>>> having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too/protesting-too-much, rather than a
>>> line
>>> in the sand as regards proper framing of discredited thinkers in one's
>>> arguments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: is that a finger in your worldview or....
>>> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 11:10 AM
>>>
>>> I think the therapeutic stuff is just a huge part of who he is and
>>> where he's coming from. I find his pretenses to science (which are
>>> there) really elaborately ridiculous, and the extent to which he works
>>> from archetypes (and that's there too) similarly irritating. He's
>>> somebody who I've gotten a lot from, but he also really bothers me in
>>> a lot of ways. So it's something I tend to mention when he comes up.
>>>
>>> I mean, I doubt I'd mention Pound without some crack about him being a
>>> fascist and an asshole. Or Yeats without making a passing reference
>>> to crippling misogyny. I mention this stuff about Freud when I mention
>>> him because it seems important to me. I think he's very smart and very
>>> thoughtful, and also kind of a crank who's full of shit. Not unlike
>>> William Moulton Marston, to some degree.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Albert
>>>> The market has certainly moved on, especially in the English-speaking
>>>> world,
>>>> from psychoanalysis. I don't know what helps people. Affirmations and
>>>> pharmaceuticals are where we are these days. I think people maybe do
>>>> need
>>>> to talk for a long, long time, because problems don't just evaporate..
>>>>
>>>> But I fail to see why his method is so important when discussing him as
>>>> a
>>>> theoretical figure. In discussing books and movies, why does it matter
>>>> that
>>>> he presented himself as a scientist and doctor? More than
>>>> tangentially--
>>>> sure, it matters that Jung and Heidegger were Nazis, but it doesn't have
>>>> to
>>>> be mentioned whenever they come up. It matters more that someone was
>>>> explicitly a racist or a murderer, etc., more than that they were
>>>> clueless
>>>> or vicious in their social affiliations . It matters that Freud's
>>>> student
>>>> was a Nazi and that people weren't "healed" by psychoanalysis, but it's
>>>> not
>>>> central to a discussion of sadism and masochism, categories that just
>>>> weren't there before Freud.
>>>>
>>>> Or, maybe it is relevant, but we need to know why. Qualification for
>>>> its
>>>> own sake is confusing.
>>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: is that a finger in your worldview or....
>>>> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 10:05 AM
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure talking to Freud would be a lot of fun. Talking to a
>>>> Freudian psychoanalyst would be a somewhat different experience, I
>>>> think. Freud's relationship to science may be interesting and
>>>> complicated...but it's most blatant in its therapeutic iterations.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, I don't think you'd get a philosophical debate if you went
>>>> to a Freudian therapist. You'd get to talk a lot about your dreams
>>>> and a lot about your relationship with your parents. And you'd get to
>>>> talk about that for a long, long, long time.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Albert
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> A big reason Freud is cool is his pessimism. There is a prophetic
>>>>> Jewish
>>>>> apocalyptic/eschatological tendency in Freud as well as Marx (I think
>>>>> the
>>>>> term eschatology covers apocalypse, in practice, incidentally) that has
>>>>> been
>>>>> unfortunately deformed (repressed, I dare say) into some ugly forms in
>>>>> modern Christianity (Jim Jones, Middle East imperialism). Yes, I'm
>>>>> neurotic, but we all are. There is a form of looking at reality in
>>>>> psychoanalysis and structuralism that marries humanist systematizing to
>>>>> non-humanist unknowability. The bland nihilism of science is much more
>>>>> present in the post-1968 crowd, ironically-- as in your Chalker dude.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes, I'm neurotic, but I have to do something about my trauma.
>>>>> Desire
>>>>> neds to be fooled, for individuals and especially for
>>>>> complicated groups.
>>>>> First-world theology was not going to survive without some kind of
>>>>> rhetorical rearticulation of transcendence. Freud made a more
>>>>> coherent (and
>>>>> semi-naughty) response to the contradictions of modernity than any
>>>>> other
>>>>> self-help essayist of the last century.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet I would get a lot more out of talking to Freud, or a smart
>>>>> psychoanalyst, than I would from a psychologist, psychiatrist, with
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> to reflect back to me except some dead template of healthy
>>>>> uninterrupted
>>>>> cognition.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Noah Berlatsky < >
>>>>> Subject: Re: hey Freud I'm ready to be castrated
>>>>> To: "Albert Stabler" < >
>>>>> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 8:25 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> My point in the essay was that it should have...but that it did so way
>>>>> less than you might think considering how much of it I read. I have
>>>>> problems with Freud, but B.F. Skinner is just an idiot. Considering
>>>>> how completely perverse and bizarre Chalker is, it's amazing how
>>>>> pedestrian he can be at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway...Freud. The thing about Freud's metaphors is that he's very
>>>>> coy about the extent to which they are metaphors. The Totem and Taboo
>>>>> thing with the ancient slaughter of the fathers...Freud presents that
>>>>> as really happening, except for a couple of moments where he sort of
>>>>> says, not that it didn't happen, but that it doesn't really happen
>>>>> whether it mattered or not. With the Oedipal myth, similarly, he's
>>>>> not saying "well, this applies to some people, and you can understand
>>>>> it like this;" he's saying, this is the way the subconscious is
>>>>> structured for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Freud is really smart, and a brilliant creator of evocative
>>>>> and profound fictions. But he also wants to be a scientist and a
>>>>> doctor, and so, while he sort of realizes they're fictions, he also
>>>>> wants them to be scientific truths, or to present them rhetorically
>>>>> that way. He is making some sort of claim that individuals are
>>>>> connected in universal patterns that have something to do with myth,
>>>>> though he skirts back and forth around what terms like universal and
>>>>> myth and even individual signify. I haven't read any Jung, I don't
>>>>> think, but it seems like his formulation is actually a lot more
>>>>> logical and consistent...and partially for that reason, also
>>>>> significantly dumber. Jung did mistake the finger for what was being
>>>>> pointed at...but I think Freud went back and forth between the two, at
>>>>> least to some extent. Certainly for Freud, the phallic finger in that
>>>>> metaphor might easily be the significant part.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, you wouldn't want to be analyzed by a Freudian either, I
>>>>> presume. Wouldn't Freud argue that your religion is a neurosis?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Albert
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were you reading all those books in your adolescence? That makes
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>> Yeah, Freud might see that as more of a symptom than a trauma, but I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> guess that that reading experience gave menaingful shape to some of
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> inchoate neurotic foundational blueprints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Noah Berlatsky < >
>>>>>> Subject: Re: hey Freud I'm ready to be castrated
>>>>>> To: "Albert Stabler" < >
>>>>>> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 5:51 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say they had nothing to do with each other. I think they do
>>>>>> have something to do with each other. But I was interested in that
>>>>>> sort of fetish before Chalker; he's not the cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Freud thought that sort of thing was pretty much set by adolescence, I
>>>>>> do believe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Albert
>>>>>>> I am willing to go further into this tomorrow, but I dare you to find
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>> something where Freud talks about anything that sounds like Hegel or
>>>>>>> Emerson
>>>>>>> or Nietzsche or Jung, vis-a-vis collective unconscious, over-soul,
>>>>>>> whatever.
>>>>>>> He is about bodies and pleasures, for sure, but not magical
>>>>>>> awareness.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can't disprove because he just doesn't talk about it. He uses
>>>>>>> metaphors
>>>>>>> just like everyone who has ever argued a point in the history of
>>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>> And, while I never said Freud would call himself anything other than
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> scientist (dubious yes, but really, why not? why is being a
>>>>>>> scientist
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> holy?), he would certainly have had reason to wonder about your
>>>>>>> interests
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> later life having nothing at all to do with books you had a ton of
>>>>>>> interest
>>>>>>> in when younger. Context shmontext.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 6/7/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Noah Berlatsky < >
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: hey Freud I'm ready to be castrated
>>>>>>> To: "Albert Stabler" < >
>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 10:00 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've read more Freud than me...but I'm not sure Freud was always
>>>>>>> just using them as illustrations. I think separating metaphor and
>>>>>>> argument like that can be pretty dicey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You think Freud would like being called a philosopher? I wonder. I
>>>>>>> think he would call himself a scientist...which is the sort of thing
>>>>>>> that I disagree with him about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point of the essay is kind of that I found stuff after Chalker
>>>>>>> that is sort of like him but better...but that Chalker didn't really
>>>>>>> lead to any of those things. I didn't see Shivers and say, "oh, I
>>>>>>> understand this because of Jack L. Chalker." I didn't think of
>>>>>>> Chalker at all...because he refused to provide a context to think
>>>>>>> about the issues he more or less confusedly presented. Your note
>>>>>>> about sadism is a case in point; sadism is a psychoanalytic, or at
>>>>>>> least psychiatric category. But Chalker rejected those categories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's somebody that really sounds like he should be a lot more
>>>>>>> interesting than he is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any case, in order to get my full quota of humiliation, I added a
>>>>>>> note about Billy Joel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Albert
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am listening obsessively to Camera Obscura this weekend,
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "Lloyd I'm Ready To Be Heartbroken" song you played on your show.
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> video
>>>>>>>> is great-- lots of day-glo vintage youngsters dancing Gene
>>>>>>>> Kelly-style
>>>>>>>> through a Tokyo shopping paradise with Carey Lander looking really
>>>>>>>> depressed
>>>>>>>> (and attractive) while she sings.
>>>>>>>> Freud used myths as illustrations, to make a point. Jung looked at
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> finger instead of the direction it was pointing. A problem with all
>>>>>>>> dimwitted doctrinairians. Just accusing a very clever essentialist
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>> half-baked essentialism that he inspired is no more fair than
>>>>>>>> blaming
>>>>>>>> canonical humanist authors for shitty contemporary literary fiction.
>>>>>>>> And Freud thought artists were pretty obviously unhinged-- it seems
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> have had some self-effacing tendencies, but that might be extreme.
>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> probably call himself a scientist, but maybe slightly tongue in
>>>>>>>> cheek.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> would call him a philosopher.
>>>>>>>> I forgot to say-- your "neo-con" comparison was a delightful
>>>>>>>> throwaway
>>>>>>>> gem.
>>>>>>>> But your whole essay talks about stuff you discovered following
>>>>>>>> Chalker
>>>>>>>> that sort of reminds you of him, just better. How is that not
>>>>>>>> growth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 6/7/09, Noah Berlatsky < > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Noah Berlatsky < >
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Hexagon-shaped Billy Joel anyone?
>>>>>>>> To: "Albert Stabler" < >
>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 1:47 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, do you really think it's kicking Freud anywhere to say that
>>>>>>>> he's
>>>>>>>> more an artist than a doctor? Would he even be put out by that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Noah
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hmm. How do you feel the rest of the essay belies the last
>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>> that I didn't get much from him?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for Freud...I think he's pretty interested in universal myth.
>>>>>>>>> Jung came from somewhere; I think he's more an expansion of Freud
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>> a complete tangent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Chalker is really problematic. There is something sadistic
>>>>>>>>> there, certainly...but again he's not really willing to deal with
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> as sadism. The behaviorist thing is really important to him. And
>>>>>>>>> Skinner is hard to love.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you listen to that stuff? Even masochism should have some
>>>>>>>>> limits....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Albert
>>>>>>>>>> You want blech? Did you by any chance mistakenly listen to the
>>>>>>>>>> profoundly
>>>>>>>>>> meaningful British historian on Bob Edwards this morning, talking
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> 08 election? Boy, that guy succeeds remarkably at picking an
>>>>>>>>>> unbroken
>>>>>>>>>> string of pompous pretentious bloviators. I dislike that show,
>>>>>>>>>> profoundly
>>>>>>>>>> and meaningfully. If it wasn't for Sound Opinions, Speaking of
>>>>>>>>>> Faith,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Re: Sound, that would be the worst show on NPR.
>>>>>>>>>> Your piece is nice, except that you don't actually succeed in
>>>>>>>>>> humiliating
>>>>>>>>>> yourself very convincingly. The guy sounds more than marginally
>>>>>>>>>> interesting, if flawed. He sounds like a sadist, which would give
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>> of content if you weren't making a conscious effort to cast him in
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> unfavorable light. Your last statement, that you've gotten
>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> it, seems completely belied by the rest of the essay.
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, Freud seems a lot more blown-off than this Chalker guy.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>>>>> another psychoanalysis snit-fit with me is not what you want, but,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> you continually use him and then kick him in the ribs, I certainly
>>>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>>> he's
>>>>>>>>>> getting off on it.
>>>>>>>>>> The universal myth thing is Jung. Freud said Oedipus and Moses
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> characters reflecting primal experiences affecting most Western
>>>>>>>>>> civilized
>>>>>>>>>> beings. But they weren't mystically transcendent; they were based
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> sharing a certain psychic structure that is exclusively neither
>>>>>>>>>> hard-wired
>>>>>>>>>> nor socialized, but common nonetheless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And besides, these days nobody wants a therapist who won't tell
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> can empower themselves and then prescribe drugs for them.
Yes; not thinking you're the center of the universe. That's the thing about some of Zizek that irritates me. And you're right too that,though he is a good writer, he hasn't really managed to develop a style that's actually accessible, either in the sense of being understandable (like, say Niebuhr) or in the sense of being consistently poetic (like Nietzsche or Emerson.) It's also not entirely clear that he realizes this about himself (i.e., that, as philosophers go, he's a (solid, but still) second-tier writer) which adds just a touch of insufferable self-delusion to his preening.
It probably is Lacan's fault; you really can't be a disciple of that guy if anyone can understand what the hell you're talking about.
What about E.M. Cioran? Have you thought about that guy recently? I remember him being pretty entertaining, but not a ton else....
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Albert Stabler < > wrote:
Erotic love obviously predates capitalism, but in some ways I think capitalism predates colonialism and industrialization, in sort of an abstract way. But anyway, yes, erotic love is a transaction (which reaches its ultimate expression in a contract). It depends on selling yourself in order to gain, typically, sex if you're male, money if you're female, but primarily access to some impossible imaginary nugget at someone's core. This is not saying, though, that love is ABOUT money, but that it is connected to money. Just like commodity fetishism.
Patriarchy really is kind of on the way out. Primordial father-worship is on the way in. I'm saying there's a difference, not saying one is better, but questioning that we're better off for the change.
As I have said and will say again, psychoanalysis as only half-humanist. Freud's attitude toward science and scholasticism is blatantly sloppy and disrespectful, and his entire thesis is that humanity is not fundamentally ruled by reason, but by a series of urges and prohibitions. This has so much in common with Marxism ad Christianity. The individual is simultaneously valorized and cancelled out, the forces controlling us are partially within and outside our grasp and responsibility, and obedience to the interests of the group is of primary importance.
And none of them indulge in "noble savage" talk, which, to me, is core humanist dogma.
> >
> > On that topic though, saying you're sorry
> doesn't mean you're sorry, just
> > like saying people apologize doesn't mean they do.
> Bush didn't. Clinton
> > didn't. Blagoyevich didn't. Nixon
> didn't. Who are you thinking about?
> > Extensively qualified PR apologies I see as no more
> genuine than the
> > atonement you might impugn in, say, the work of Bob
> Flanagan (Zizek has a
> > whole thing about knowledge and prejudice as the sham
> jouissance of guilt--
> > substitutes for religion. maybe).
>
>
> Yeah; I think the difference is that just saying you're
> sorry doesn't really
> matter. There's a restitution aspect which seems like
> the real deal.
>
>
>
> > You know, you did pretty much recapitulate what I said
> about power and lack
> > after you said that power and desire weren't
> related. But I don't see any
> > reason not to bring up God when we're talking
> about patriarchy and power.
> >
> > So I did bring up God, precisely to say that look,
> here we are, we've
> > established pathetic perverse idolatries in the place
> of a higher order. I
> > would probably talk about that in the context of
> Christine, who, before
> > she's a boy or he's a girl, it's an
> object. But in their love, as in all
> > erotic love, the thirst for inherent value, the
> surplus desire, results in
> > destruction.
>
>
> There is a definite capitalism/consumption thing going on.
> But it's much
> more about hierarchy than it is about money per se. Moloch
> rather than
> Mammon seems to be the culprit.
>
> Are you saying that erotic love is capitalist? Can you
> expound?
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Putting Freud and Christianity is Freud's idea,
> not to mention Lacan's and
> > Zizek's idea, not mine. It makes complete sense
> to me-- a big reason I feel
> > attached to Christianity is in the way I feel
> repugnance at the therapy that
> > has abandoned the anti-humanist aspects of
> psychoanalysis.
>
>
> Freud sees Christianity as a symptom though, doesn't
> he? So does Lacan, I
> think (not Zizek.) And I still think psychoanalysis is
> pretty humanist....
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > There was patriarchy in the Middle Ages-- and a whole
> lot of God. What are
> > you saying there?
>
>
> I'm not sure. I guess I'm trying to think where
> God fits in to patriarchy.
> You (or maybe I) seemed to be saying that the twisted
> patriarchy we've got
> is a result of abandoning god. But was the old patriarchy
> better? I don't
> think agonized male relationships necessarily started with
> modernity...or
> maybe they did...not sure.
>
>
> > Okay, but to your honest questions-- homosociality and
> the phallic mother
> > in Christine. Well, I hadn't thought about
> mothers precisely, but there is
> > quite a bit about tbeing locked in the interior of the
> car, isn't there? I
> > agree that a car is a phallus and a phallus is
> associated more with the
> > female than the male, but a mother can be castrating,
> without losing her
> > "femininity" (though again, not really sure
> what that is). The guy is
> > castrated, but I don't think that turns the car
> into a man somehow. If
> > that's what you're saying. Maybe you're
> trying a bit too hard to work
> > Sedgwick into what maybe ought to be a Kristeva kind
> of critique.
> >
>
> I think there's definitely something with Sedgwick
> going on in that movie.
> It's obsessed with male homosociality and with pecking
> order. That seems
> much more to the fore than abjection, I think.
>
> There's a lot of stuff with the guy's mother, too;
> he's portrayed as
> castrated. And he gets to castrate his father (he
> threatens him
> convincingly while calling him "motherfucker".)
> If there is abjection, it's
> an abjection of non-masculinity (or masculinity) or
> something; it's about
> desiring patriarchy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I'm a little God-crazy. I definitely just wanted
> to spew some stuff, I
> > confess.
>
>
> It was good stuff. It's fun to talk to you, as always.
> I wish I had
> somewhere to write up my thoughts on Christine. I did find
> out that it was
> the movie Carpenter made right after The Thing. He
> definitely had it for a
> moment and then kind of lost it.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 12/30/08, Noah Berlatsky
> >
> > > From: Noah Berlatsky
> > > Subject: Re: hold on loosely
> > > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 7:20 PM
> > > I wasn't trolling you. I'm trying to
> figure out
> > > what you're saying and/or
> > > what I'm saying. Really, I have flame wars
> enough.
> > > And I don't know that
> > > we're actually even disagreeing all that
> much.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, Noah, but comparing God to a car
> or an
> > > objectified woman? You're
> > > > completely missing the point of what God is
> supposed
> > > to stand for. You can
> > > > certainly read religion, like Freud does, as
> a
> > > projection of guilt on to the
> > > > universe, but not every coping mechanism is
> a phallus.
> > > As I see it (after
> > > > reading other people's ideas), God is
> more like a
> > > concretion of the
> > > > unconscious, a symbolization of the
> unknowable.
> > > Commodity fetishism is a
> > > > poor substitute for religion.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't disagree that commodity fetishism is
> a poor
> > > substitute for religion.
> > > That doesn't mean it isn't some kind of
> > > substitute, though, however poor.
> > > And I was the one suggesting that mapping Freud
> onto
> > > Christianity may not
> > > be the best of all possible ideas.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I think that the phallus is a
> coping
> > > mechanism, either. I'm
> > > really seeing it in the context of Eve Sedgwick,
> as about
> > > patriarchy and
> > > power and masculinity primarily. I think you
> were the one
> > > who brought God
> > > in. As I said, it's not clear to me that it
> is, or has
> > > to have, that much
> > > to do with God. I mean, I think there was
> patriarchy in
> > > the middle ages
> > > too.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I didn't say Christ is an apologizer, I
> said he
> > > was a forgiver. But I
> > > > don't know where you're seeing all
> these
> > > modern mea culpas, either. We all
> > > > make our own rules, so we don't need to
> apologize.
> > > People would gladly fast
> > > > and beat themselves in public before they
> would
> > > apologize, especially if
> > > > it's on a reality show.
> > >
> > >
> > > Politicians apologize all the time. Pundits
> apologize.
> > > People say they're
> > > sorry reflexively. I don't think apologies
> are all
> > > that unusual. People do
> > > fast and beat themselves, but it's about
> spectacle and
> > > self-fulfillment
> > > rather than atonement.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > AND I'm not ditching binaries, any more
> than C.S.
> > > Lewis is some kind of
> > > > pomo relativist when he says we're
> female in
> > > comparison to God (whom you
> > > > claim is our bitch/phallus). Dropping
> sundry
> > > signifiers into one of two
> > > > buckets does not make your analysis more
> serious than
> > > mine. And while
> > > > you're at it, is Christine masculine or
> feminine?
> > > Pick a bucket already,
> > > > Rush Limbaugh.
> > >
> > >
> > > I was asking an honest question; I like C.S.
> Lewis'
> > > formulation, and was
> > > wondering if you had decided you didn't, and
> where you
> > > were going with that.
> > >
> > > I don't get the Rush Limbaugh reference. Is
> he
> > > especially interested in
> > > binaries? I don't really listen to him very
> much.
> > >
> > > I haven't figured out what I think about
> Christine in
> > > relation to
> > > masculine/feminine. I'm still trying to
> think it
> > > through. I think it
> > > varies over the course of the film. She's
> definitely
> > > insistently gendered
> > > feminine -- but as I said, it's also clear
> that
> > > she's a phallus, and that
> > > she's the top in a homoerotic relationship
> with the boy
> > > (she penetrates him
> > > at the end, and there are a ridiculous number of
> anal
> > > references.) So,
> > > yeah, not there yet. I was hoping you'd tell
> me about
> > > the phallic mother.
> > > I never got that. Insights?
> > > > > God isn't a psychological category
> either. I
> > > think
> > > > > you're straining at the
> > > > > gnat (power-gnat?)
> > > > > Man and woman aren't fundamental
> categories,
> > > but
> > > > > masculine/feminine are,
> > > > > right? Or have you ditched that binary
> as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > I still don't see the "we are
> all the
> > > phallus of
> > > > > God" thing. Isn't Got
> > > > > supposed to be ultimately male? The
> phallus just
> > > seems so
> > > > > tied up with lack
> > > > > and desire and need; I don't see
> how it
> > > becomes a
> > > > > manifestation of God's
> > > > > desire and lack and need. It makes
> much more
> > > sense to me
> > > > > to see it, either
> > > > > from a psychoanalytic perspective, as
> God being
> > > phallus
> > > > > (which I presume
> > > > > Freud would be fine with) or else you
> need to
> > > just chuck
> > > > > the phallic
> > > > > references altogether, admit that Freud
> and
> > > Christ really
> > > > > can't get along,
> > > > > and move to another metaphor.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Christ is definitely a feminine
> thing,
> > > though --
> > > > > that's suggested in
> > > > > being outside the law, right? And I
> think
> > > Christine is a
> > > > > masculine one,
> > > > > albeit given a feminine nom de guerre.
> Which
> > > brings me
> > > > > back to the phallus
> > > > > being feminine, since it is the
> male's other
> > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm also not sure that Christ is
> about
> > > apologizing,
> > > > > exactly. People are
> > > > > happy to apologize. It's getting
> nailed to
> > > the cross
> > > > > that nobody's all that
> > > > > in to. We've got lots of people
> issuing mea
> > > > > culpa's, but fewer flagellating
> > > > > themselves or fasting (at least as
> public acts;
> > > it's
> > > > > okay for private
> > > > > gratification.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm glad you liked those drawings.
> I thought
> > > the
> > > > > skinny one seemed to work
> > > > > especially well....
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Albert
> Stabler
> > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, I appreciate those retorts,
> you appeal
> > > your suit
> > > > > quite well
> > > > > > ("re-tort", get it?).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But power is not a psychological
> category,
> > > like
> > > > > desire. I feel pretty sure
> > > > > > that pursuing power is an activity
> tied up
> > > with
> > > > > jouissance, because power is
> > > > > > always involved with poverty, with
> lack, and
> > > therefore
> > > > > anxiety. Men and
> > > > > > women are not fundamental
> categories with
> > > different
> > > > > desires, but represent
> > > > > > different positions in the
> structure of
> > > desire and
> > > > > prohibition, from which
> > > > > > power and violence are
> inseparable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Calling God just another phallus
> (ultimate
> > > though He
> > > > > may be) is a very
> > > > > > deconstructionist move, since
> there
> > > can't be a
> > > > > "transcendental signified," a
> > > > > > move with which I don't agree.
> > > Everything is His
> > > > > phallus, including the
> > > > > > crucified Christ, an image of an
> > > incomprehensible
> > > > > redemptive castration of
> > > > > > the Castrator.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > God is Creator, so we exist for
> His glory.
> > > When God
> > > > > is gone, it's a much
> > > > > > bigger deal than just finding
> > > "another"
> > > > > phallus. The Law floats free and
> > > > > > becomes the Grid, a Big Other we
> can only
> > > know in form
> > > > > but not content, but
> > > > > > we imagine that we are all free to
> pursue
> > > the
> > > > > purification of our souls, and
> > > > > > then rape children or write
> endless
> > > treatises on
> > > > > torturing eels or what have
> > > > > > you, because our ethical-humanist
> judgement
> > > is
> > > > > immanent and yet utterly
> > > > > > incomprehensible, the font of
> knowledge and
> > > sin
> > > > > decried by Paul. The
> > > > > > crucified Christ is a promise of
> forgiveness
> > > outside
> > > > > the Law, but also a
> > > > > > warning about the bottomless
> poverty of
> > > worldly power.
> > > > > As primary
> > > > > > interlocutor of the crucified
> Christ,
> > > Paul's
> > > > > message has been dismissed,
> > > > > > because in modernity nobody wants
> to be
> > > forgiven for
> > > > > anything, because that
> > > > > > would involve apologizing instead
> of
> > > complaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you heard the new Nick Cave
> album?
> > > I'm
> > > > > listening to your radio show
> > > > > > where you play the Let Love In
> song. He is
> > > so damn
> > > > > good.
> > > > > > > In classic patriarchy, we are
> all
> > > instruments of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > jouissance of the Big
> > > > > > > > Other-- we are all
> phalluses of
> > > God, the
> > > > > Name, the
> > > > > > > Castrator, the Law. But
> > > > > > > > in modernity, the
> Oedipal father
> > > is in
> > > > > decline, and in
> > > > > > > exchange we get the
> > > > > > > > pagan "primordial
> > > father"-- John
> > > > > Fogerty,
> > > > > > > Satan, the mouth-breathing
> > > > > > > > wife-beating
> tree-humping
> > > uber-autocrat. We
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > losing our symbolic rosy
> > > > > > > > spectacles, and are now
> perversely
> > > wallowing
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > > supposedly authentic
> > > > > > > > humanist reality of
> stench and
> > > abjection.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you sure that's
> right?
> > > We're the
> > > > > phalluses of
> > > > > > > God? I think the phallus
> > > > > > > is, as I said, a sign or
> cause of
> > > power. We
> > > > > don't give
> > > > > > > God power, I don't
> > > > > > > think. I think if you're
> > > psychoanalytic, God
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > > the phallus, right?
> > > > > > > An ultimate signifier, which
> you grasp
> > > to give
> > > > > your life
> > > > > > > meaning. The
> > > > > > > decision that there is no all
> father,
> > > no
> > > > > overarching
> > > > > > > lawgiving phallus, can
> > > > > > > then result in pursuit of
> other
> > > guarantors or
> > > > > signs of
> > > > > > > power. Without the
> > > > > > > phallus-law, you have to find
> another
> > > totem -- a
> > > > > woman, a
> > > > > > > car, a Creedence
> > > > > > > > This is kind of the
> dangerous edge
> > > that the
> > > > > liberal
> > > > > > > humanist Christian guy,
> > > > > > > > Marcus Borg, is riding
> in the book
> > > on Christ
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > I'm reading-- trying to
> > > > > > > > rehabilitate Christ from
> the
> > > transcendent
> > > > > Pauline
> > > > > > > resurrection myth. Paul
> > > > > > > > is about a different
> response to
> > > the Big
> > > > > Other as
> > > > > > > Castrator, a rejection of
> > > > > > > > the Kafka/Dostoevsky
> vision of the
> > > Law as an
> > > > > > > institution that cannot be
> > > > > > > > known.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm definitely not
> entirely
> > > following this.
> > > > > Why does
> > > > > > > Christ need to be
> > > > > > > rehabilitated? How is Paul
> seeing the
> > > Law as an
> > > > > > > institution which can be
> > > > > > > known? You need to connect
> some more
> > > data points
> > > > > for me
> > > > > > > here if I'm going
> > > > > > > to follow this (or if you
> care if I
> > > follow it.)
Trying to rehabilitate
> some
> > > fundamentalist
> > > > > Manichean
> > > > > > > dichotomous universe
> > > > > > > > (masculine/feminine,
> good/evil,
> > > light/dark)
> > > > > serves the
> > > > > > > same secular-paranoid
> > > > > > > > purpose that
> Christianity
> > > opposes-- both
> > > > > attempt to
> > > > > > > get rid of the precious
> > > > > > > > gap between the role and
> the
> > > holder of
> > > > > power, the
> > > > > > > whole reason that when we
> > > > > > > > were in college I
> praised the
> > > priest versus
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > therapist for the
> priest's
> > > > > > > > NOT being a gnostic,
> clearly not
> > > literally
> > > > > embodying
> > > > > > > the power he
> > > > > > > > represents, as opposed
> to the
> > > all-seeing eye
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > mainstream psychology.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do get this, I think. The
> point of a
> > > > > Christianity is
> > > > > > > precisely that
> > > > > > > everyone has equal access to
> the
> > > phallus; that
> > > > > is, everyone
> > > > > > > is equal before
> > > > > > > God, and is weak before God.
> Everybody
> > > gets
> > > > > castrated,
> > > > > > > basically, which is
> > > > > > > why Nietzsche doens't
> like it.
> > > > > > > > So I don't know if
> the car is
> > > an entry
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > anything, but it's
> definitely a
> > > > > > > > promise of jouissance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think making it about
> jouissance is
> > > wrong.
> > > > > It's
> > > > > > > about power. Jouissance
> > > > > > > suggests a joy, a blurring of
> > > boundaries.
> > > > > Grasping the
> > > > > > > phallus is about
> > > > > > > becoming more, not less,
> unitary.
> > But you're right on
> about
> > > impotency--
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > impotency that comes from
> > > > > > > > pursuing desire is very
> > > zeitgeisty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, it's more about
> pursuing
> > > power than
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > pursuing desire. Pursuing
> > > > > > > power makes you impotent.
> Power may be
> > > pursued
> > > > > in order to
> > > > > > > satisfy desire,
> > > > > > > but I think they're still
> somewhat
> > > distinct.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Zizek says, "The
> utopia of a
> > > > > post-psychoanalytic
> > > > > > > subjectivity engaged in
> > > > > > > > the pursuit of new,
> idiosyncratic
> > > bodily
> > > > > pleasures
> > > > > > > beyond sexuality has
> > > > > > > > reverted into
> disinterested
> > > boredom; and the
> > > > > direct
> > > > > > > intervention of pain
> > > > > > > > (sado-masochistic sexual
> > > practices) seems
> > > > > the only
> > > > > > > remaining path to the
> > > > > > > > intense experience of
> > > pleasure." And
> > > > > so there
> > > > > > > one is as a modern
> > > > > > > > self-loving masturbator,
> a
> > > screaming swamp
> > > > > monkey,
> > > > > > > substituting all these
> > > > > > > > fetishes in and endless
> > > symbolic/capitalist
> > > > > deferral.
> > > > > > > The category of
> > > > > > > > femininity is really
> tricky, but
> > > whatever it
> > > > > is, it
> > > > > > > has, like Christianity,
> > > > > > > > one foot outside of the
> Symbolic,
> > > that space
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > jouissance is irrevocably
> > > > > > > > on the other side of
> every glowing
> > > screen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pretty awesome
> summing up,
> > > even if
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > have to think about what it
> > > > > > > means and whether I agree....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Noah
> Berlatsky
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: golden
> members
> > > of endless
> > > > > childhood
> > > > > > > surplus
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Date: Tuesday,
> December 30,
> > > 2008, 8:11
> > > > > AM
> > > > > > > > > I've been
> thinking about
> > > the
> > > > > phallus. I
> > > > > > > think in these
> > > > > > > > > movies, you could
> > > > > > > > > see the phallus as
> the rod of
> > > power (so
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > speak); the
> > > > > > > > > phallus is what
> gives
> > > > > > > > > entry to
> uber-masculinity.
> > > In that
> > > > > context, a
> > > > > > > woman acts
> > > > > > > > > as a phallus (a
> > > > > > > > > symbol/guarantor of
> male
> > > > > privilege/patriarchy).
> > > > > > > At the
> > > > > > > > > same time, if you
> > > > > > > > > are a phallus, you
> can't
> > > have a
> > > > > phallus, so
> > > > > > > the phallus
> > > > > > > > > itself is in many
> > > > > > > > > ways gendered
> female.
> > > > > > > > > Also, though,
> it's
> > > important to
> > > > > desire the
> > > > > > > phallus as
> > > > > > > > > female, rather than
> as
> > > > > > > > > powerful phallus.
> To want a
> > > woman as
> > > > > guarantor
> > > > > > > of male
> > > > > > > > > power is to grab
> for
> > > > > > > > > a phallus, which is
> gay, and
> > > therefore
> > > > > > > emasculating. (See
> > > > > > > > > "Pit
> Stop", where
> > > > > > > > > the hero lusts
> after women as
> > > signs of
> > > > > > > success/power, and
> > > > > > > > > ends up impotent.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In
> "Christine" the
> > > car is
> > > > > gendered
> > > > > > > female, and
> > > > > > > > > therefore a
> phallus, which
> > > > > > > > > makes the
> protagonist male.
> > > However,
> > > > > grabbing
> > > > > > > the phallus
> > > > > > > > > as phallus too
> > > > > > > > > tightly makes him
> gay (he
> > > loses his
> > > > > girlfriend.)
> > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > > there's a
> suggestion
> > > > > > > > > that Christine is
> using *him*
> > > as
> > > > > phallus; she
> > > > > > > becomes more
> > > > > > > > > powerful as she
> > > > > > > > > gets a tighter hold
> of him.
> > > > > Ultimately,
> > > > > > > patriarchy is
> > > > > > > > > about submitting
> > > > > > > > > yourself to the
> phallus; you
> > > don't
> > > > > hold the
> > > > > > > phallus,
> > > > > > > > > the phallus holds
> you.
> > > > > > > > > It's
> self-castration; an
> > > offering
> > > > > of your
> > > > > > > phallus to
> > > > > > > > > the patriarchy in
> > > > > > > > > return for
> homosocial power.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 29,
> 2008 at 10:38
> > > PM, Noah
> > > > > Berlatsky
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, no, I knew
> you knew
> > > Japan was
> > > > > the source
> > > > > > > of all
> > > > > > > > > modern art. I was
> > > > > > > > > > wondering if
> you knew
> > > each of the
> > > > > examples,
> > > > > > > and then
> > > > > > > > > figured you
> probably
> > > > > > > > > > did.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not
> sure I quite
> > > grasp the
> > > > > phallus
> > > > > > > either.
> > > > > > > > > You're saying
> the car
> > > isn't
> > > > > > > > > > feminine
> because
> > > it's a
> > > > > phallus, right?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I love
> Niebuhr, but,
> > > based on his
> > > > > take on
> > > > > > > war,
> > > > > > > > > it's not clear
> to me that
> > > > > > > > > > he's got
> any way to
> > > argue that
> > > > > torture
> > > > > > > is bad.
> > > > > > > > > MLK did nifty
> things with
> > > > > > > > > > him to get a
> nonviolent
> > > ethic,
> > > > > though.
>> I do know
> Japan is
> > > the source
> > > > > of modern
> > > > > > > art.
> > > > > > > > > That's why
> I've been
> > > saying
> > > > > > > > > >> that for
> like ten
> > > years. You
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > anything I tell you
> until you
> > > > > > > > > >> figure it
> out
> > > yourself. E.g.
> > > > > > > "Comics
> > > > > > > > > suck."
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I've
> been
> > > thinking about
> > > > > Reinhold a
> > > > > > > lot. Do
> > > > > > > > > you have my
> "Practical
> > > > > > > > > >>
> Christianity?"
> > > I'll
> > > > > ask for it
> > > > > > > back when
> > > > > > > > > I finish reading
> the Bible
> > > and St.
> > > > > > > > > >> Thomas and
> St.
> > > Ignatius and
> > > > > return at
> > > > > > > least six of
> > > > > > > > > your books.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I'm
> not sure you
> > > quite
> > > > > grasp the
> > > > > > > phallus, as
> > > > > > > > > it were. You see,
> in
> > > > > > > > > >>
> patriarchy, a woman
> > > is a
> > > > > phallus, a
> > > > > > > child is a
> > > > > > > > > phallus, a tool is
> a phallus,
> > > > > > > > > >> a shit is
> a phallus,
> > > a gun is
> > > > > a phallus,
> > > > > > > and a car
> > > > > > > > > is a phallus.
> Therefore
> > > > > > > > > >> those
> things are
> > > > > interchangeable and
> > > > > > > fuse-able.
> > > > > > > > > But any phallus can
> > > > > > > > > >> represent
> > > castration.
> > > > > It's your
> > > > > > > penis, but
> > > > > > > > > it's Other.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> This might
> be
> > > entertaining:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objet_petit_a
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Sure, this
> weekend
> > > is good,
> > > > > unless you
> > > > > > > want to go
> > > > > > > > > tapas on Monday
> evening?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> --- On
> Mon,
> > > 12/29/08, Noah
> > > > > Berlatsky
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > From:
> Noah
> > > Berlatsky
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> Subject: Re:
> > > golden
> > > > > shadows of
> > > > > > > endless
> > > > > > > > > childhood goodbye
> > > > > > > > > >> > To:
> > > > > > > > > >> > Date:
> Monday,
> > > December
> > > > > 29, 2008,
> > > > > > > 9:37 PM
> > > > > > > > > >> > Yeah,
> that was
> > > about my
> > > > > take on
> > > > > > > Christine.
> > > > > > > > > It is on my
> > > > > > > > > >> > blog,
> and you
> > > can go
> > > > > > > > > >> > there
> through
> > > virtual
> > > > > power
> > > > > > > > > >> > I was
> looking
> > > at some
> > > > > Reinholdt
> > > > > > > Niebuhr
> > > > > > > > > again. Have you
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> looked at him
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> recently.
> > > He's
> > > > > awesome.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I
> remember
> > > Crime and
> > > > > Punishment
> > > > > > > being pretty
> > > > > > > > > funny.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> I'm
> > > currently
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > reading/staring/drooling
> > > > > my way
> > > > > > > through a
> > > > > > > > > giant book on
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> Japanisme I
> > > bought
> > > > > > > > > >> > Marcy
> for
> > > Christmas --
> > > > > all about
> > > > > > > how Japan is
> > > > > > > > > at the basis
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> everything
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> modern art,
> > > with pages of
> > > > > > > illustrations.
> > > > > > > > > It's utterly,
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> gibberingly
> > > amazing
> > > > > > > > > >> > --
> did you know
> > > that
> > > > > Degas got a
> > > > > > > lot of his
> > > > > > > > > poses from
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> Hokusai's
> > > manga
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> illustrations?
> > > That
> > > > > Manet got his
> > > > > > > colors
> > > > > > > > > from Japanese
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> prints? That
> > > Van
> > > > > > > > > >> > Gogh
> got
> > > basically
> > > > > everything from
> > > > > > > Japanese
> > > > > > > > > sources?
> > > 2008 at
> > > > > 8:39 PM,
> > > > > > > Albert
> > > > > > > > > Stabler
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Nom du
> > > Womb,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> How's
> > > it going?
> > > > > I lost
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Christine essay!
> Send
> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> again, would
> > > you? I
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> am
> > > remembering it
> > > > > being sort
> > > > > > > of like (or
> > > > > > > > > at least
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> I'm
> > > imagining my
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> being)
> > > Christine is
> > > > > supposedly
> > > > > > > a girl,
> > > > > > > > > but she's a
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> castrator,
> > > which is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > paradoxically
> > > > > masculine
> > > > > > > because it is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> ultra-feminine
> > > power of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > emasculation. And
> > > > > > > she/it's a total
> > > > > > > > > phallic
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> symbol, which
> > > is great
> > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> I am back.
> > > I biked
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > today putting
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> emergency
> > > blankets at the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> pinata
> > > drop sites.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Katie had
> > > JPEGs made
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > these slides
> > > > > > > > > of my family
> > > > > > > > > >> > from
> the 70s
> > > that my
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> dad gave
> > > me. They
> > > > > gave me
> > > > > > > ineffable
> > > > > > > > > feelings.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> My aunt
> > > lent me a
> > > > > book on
> > > > > > > "two
> > > > > > > > > views of
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> Jesus" by
> > > two
> > > > > seemingly
> > > > > > > prominent
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Christian
> > > > > Christologists, N.T.
> > > > > > > Wright
> > > > > > > > > and Marcus Borg
> > > > > > > > > >> > (!).
> It's
> > > a good
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> thing to
> > > read.
> > > > > They're
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > mediocre writers,
> but
> > > > > > > > > >> > are
> > > argumentatively adept
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> and have
> > > knowledge
> > > > > that I am
> > > > > > > enjoying
> > > > > > > > > learning.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> I'm
> > > also reading
> > > > > Crime and
> > > > > > > > > Punishment again,
> which
> > > > > > > > > >> > is
> great.
> > > It's
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> funny,
> > > very
> > > > > intentionally so
> > > > > > > (Gogol-like
> > > > > > > > > maybe), and
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> proto-Kafka
> > > too, but
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> pulpier.
> > > All this
> > > > > > > misapprehension and
> > > > > > > > > slapstick and
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> misdirection,
> > > it could
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> be a play,
> > > or a
> > > > > sitcom or
> > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Marcy (and
> > > thus all
> > > > > of us)
> > > > > > > should check
> > > > > > > > > out this tapas
> > > > > > > > > >> > place
> next to
> > > El
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Cid,
> > > called Azucar.
> > > > > Katie and
> > > > > > > I went
> > > > > > > > > last night, and
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> it's really
> > > like the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> best new
> > > place
> > > > > I've been
> > > > > > > to in a
> > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Metal is
> > > about the
> > > > > evil of
> > > > > > > worldly
> > > > > > > > > power. I figured
> > > > > > > > > >> > this
> out by
> > > reading
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Simone
> > > Weil's
> > > > > thing on the
> > > > > > > Iliad.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Palaces of
> > > > > suffering,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> Esprit du
> > > Pork
Here's a great Freud footnote, that kind of sums up his whole (anti-bizarro-)epistemology, if you will--
"When I use Biblical tradition here in such an autocratic and arbitrary way, draw on it for confirmation whenever it is convenient, and dismiss its evidence without scruple when it contradicts my conclusions, I know full well that I am exposing myself to severe criticism concerning my method and that I weaken the force of my proofs. But this is the only way to treat material whose trustworthiness-- as we know for certain-- was seriously damaged by the influence of distorting tendencies. Some justification will be forthcoming later. It is hoped, when we have unearthed those secret motives. Certainty is not to be gained in any case, and, moreover, we must say that all other authors have acted likewise."
Did you ever look at that Woodrow Wilson book? Freud is great. You need to give him some slack.
