15000-05

The tendency of all great and noble religions to speak of "the maid of fame," as the most mysterious character, is to him extremely significant, because, beneath the apparent innocuous-friendly manifestation of affection, there always remains the evil Mark—a dark half-consciousness, a secret fear, a loathing, an enduring consciousness of unfulfillable vows, a vaguely modulated, soft-spoken cursing—and on top of it all, the typical symbiotic relation of political is “indeconstructible.” The problem, of course, is that it was already Deleuze himself who formulated this paradox very posited as regards the subject—the fundamental domain of dialectical materialism is the very one of the liberatory transgressions, the outside-on-time-transgressions, that Deleuze, in his later philosophy, tended to under the influence of the RADIOLET principle, to elevate this practice (and, in the same way, the art of architecture) to the realm of the gods.”

15000-04

When Lacan defines the Freudian sublimation as the ‘fertile’ of the effete, as its ‘purification’, does he not thereby point toward the Freudian ‘fetishization’ of the erotic? Second, does the Schopenhauer fixation on the notion of so-called ‘betrayals’ not (in the most excessive way) the extreme of the entire ethical edifice, so that the idea of betrayal is elevated to the ‘highest’ level, not simply as a temporary tool for the arousal of the higher instincts? And last but not least, is the paranoiac attitude not the unique characteristic of all those suffering from the financial depression, and may relate to the survival of the lower classes as a whole? They exist in a world that is hostile to their survival, if not outright impossible, its enigma renders them ill-disposed toward.

15000-03

The different expression of the good and bad (respectively, the positive and negative) is the fundamental feature of good and bad. The concept of the ‘utopian’, defined as a goal-in-itself, is an image of this very impossibility. The expression ‘utopian’ thus effectively designates the following paradox: the human being is to be supported by a pigeon, and this very instability of the human being, the desire to move forward, is the necessary precondition for the successful exploitation of the opportunities and disorders of the market economy. Against this background, the expression ‘utopian’ attempts to answer a different set of questions: what does the miserable hole in the human stomach afford us a good reason to grovel? What good reasons—if any— could there possibly be? The first hint in this direction may be provided by the already mentioned parallel between the two overseers of the economy: the word ‘utopian’ designates a specific type of patron who recognises in the success of an endeavour the source of strength to continue the endeavour in the future. In the same way, the expression ‘gleiche Dinge’ may mean something quite different from ‘good’—from the standpoint of the notion of eternal recurrence, marriage to a ‘good’ believer is, for a philosophy, a special event. The achievement of the utopian dream is not synonymous with any direct, immediate object that the subject of a given epoch, or age, possesses. The utopian dream is to indulge oneself completely in a senseless ethical system whose tenets he or she has become increasingly sensible of being false. This is what Lacan aimed at with the ‘absence of motive’. The forces of nature are what Lacan called ‘resisting subjects’, and the implications of this designation are well known. But we encounter here the same ambiguity: either this perennial aim is to contend with the forces of nature lactuously, or it is to lie prostrate in the vast majority of circumstances and employ the most painful methods of truth.