So, yesterday’s post was not really popular. Strange. Honestly, I just wanted to write something, since I had a guilty conscience for not writing more frequently. However, I was sitting here at Dollop and did not really have a lot to talk about, having spent most of the day with psychoanalytic theory.
I am currently reading through Jacques-Alain Miller’s recreation of Lacan’s “Name(s) of the Father” seminar–the seminar Lacan never gave (after his “excommunication” he just continued with “The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis,” which is available for us in book-form as Seminar X, or XI, I believe). Psychoanalysis days are just weird days. Just had another one of those. I should have known this was going to be a weird day when I turned on the radio before taking a shower and the first song I heard was “I Have a Detachable Penis.” Good stuff. That pretty much set the mood for a good psychoanalysis day.
Today, I have been reading some Lacan, as well as some less widely circulated Zizek articles (one on “the fundamental perversion” and one on “Lacan as reader of Hegel”). Despite the fact that I generally enjoy the reading, I am very much looking forward to finishing this chapter and to getting back to an economic framework for a while–it’s good to change back and forth between kinds of brain exercises once in a while. For now, I will have to go back to Lacan’s conception of desire (in relation to fantasy and the name of the father)–which, in short, Lacan develops as follows: desire is a misunderstanding. This means (and my former students will remember this) that objet a is an object which is “the condition of desire, and this condition is distinct from intention. It is the conditionality of desire in relationship to what was once its intentionality” that we encounter in objet a. What I am trying to formulate at present is an account of how changed subjectivity under what we can for the moment, however inaccurately, call “neoliberalism” responds to a change in the structure of formulating jouissance in relation to the troubling of the father-as-structure barring access to objet a. This question has dramatic consequences for our understanding of current political subjectivity–I promise.
In other news: I may be getting a new bathroom sink tomorrow; AT&T unsuccessfully tried to connect my phone/internet and will have to come back tomorrow (hopefully with better news); and I believe that my upstairs neighbors are out to get me–no, I am not paranoid–it is the truth (which is the central belief guiding every paranoiac–which makes paranoia and religion pretty much the same to me–but we can talk about this later)–in any case: every time I try to take a shower they flush the toilet and I get first-degree burns on my ass–don’t get me wrong, these things happen–but do they happen EVERY time you shower, no matter what time it is??? And do they happen on average three times per shower? I want to believe that my upstairs neighbor is old and incontinent but that theory conflicts with the fact that my building is full of young people. So: they are definitely out to get me. I am not sure why but I will now go home and look for the camera they use to watch me.
P.S.: does Lacan have Bela Lugosi’s eyes? And does anyone remember that song?Whatever happened to great music like that?