Христо > Recent Status Updates

The essays on ordinary psychosis are actually less helpful than I hoped

Man, "Toward Science" has to be the most dense and boring article by Miller I've ever read.

"It’s a jouissance which is not calculable beyond the traversal of the fantasy, which is not a drive that makes the circuit of the object and from which one separates, but which has to do with that famous traumatic mark. This body event would come afterwards: it is what emerges after the construction of the fantasy"

"But why have some sentences been so invested?46 There is a hiatus between the signifying articulation and the libidinal investment: “one cannot deduce from a signifying articulation the quantity of libidinal investment it attracts to it.”"

"Miller posits that as the analytic discourse takes effect on the basis of semblants, it is a swindle but at the same time it hits the mark, insofar as it not only dissolves the semblants of the other discourses, but also denounces its own. That is the paradox of the “fraud” that touches the real."

Man, this has to be one of my favorite Laclau essays ever

I don't think I care as much for the Svolos texts, but the collection so far is outstanding

A truly Sublime essay by Miller!

"But the sinthome is not a construction, it is what I am. I am a sinthome. This is what “to recognize one’s being as sinthome” means; it is to recognize that one is a sinthome. Miller, reading Lacan line by line, adds the following: "by taking its guarantees and a kind of distance.""

"An analysis taken to its term goes through these successive stages: suggestion …., awakening …., dupery (to go back to sleep in the right way, remaining alert thanks to the new use of the signifier Real, which, because it excludes meaning, allows us to not overly believe in truth), mourning …., then to know one’s symptom"

There apparently cannot be a perfect Zizek book. "Wo es war, soll ich werden—where it was (the God-Father who still belongs to the Real), I (Christ) shall become". Here, he's misusing the Real for the sake of the Christian gimmick. No, the God-Father is the Name of the Father par excellence, the paternal metaphor. It covers the Real, therefore it cannot be Real.

I did not care for Ch. 5.1 much, but a noir fan would adore it.

I'm seeing the origin of so many "typical" Zizekian motifs here.

"An analysis does not have to be pushed too far. When the analysand thinks he is happy to live, that’s enough.” It must be understood that this happiness of living, this satisfaction, is a satisfaction of the One."

This is steadily coming to be my favorite Zizekian book, especially after the re-readings of the younger ones.