The Reflection of Life in Hegel
Talk · zizekpodcast.com ·
2009 · 2:11:29 · 20,838 words
hegel-dialecticspsychoanalysisideologyphilosophy-generalsexuality-genderrace-antisemitismscience-physicsreligion-theologyrevolution-violence
Žižek delivers a seminar lecture building on a previous session with Badiou, focusing on Hegel's concept of negation of negation and its implications for identity, the Master Signifier, and ideology. He moves through Lacanian theory of love, jouissance, and sexuation, then engages extensively with Badiou's theory of the Event, contrasting it with a Hegelian-Lacanian account. The talk concludes with excursions into Einstein's relativity as dialectical materialism, Hegel's law-crime dialectic, and Meillassoux's distinction between potentiality and virtuality.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 27
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
For Hegel, not a simple double reversal but a self-related negation that cancels the entire field rather than moving within it; the first negation is external, the second explodes the field itself.
as “identity as reflexive determination”
Hegel's point that identity is not the simplest category but already a redoubled, self-relating structure, the name or concept that constitutes the unifying 'X' irreducible to a sum of properties.
The signifier that unifies an inconsistent set of properties by falling into the signified, an empty name that constitutes identity by adding only itself as a performative act.
The mysterious surplus 'X' in you more than you, the impossible objective counterpart of the empty Master Signifier that anchors desire and love beyond all enumerable properties.
Used interchangeably with objet petit a as the name for the excessive element that makes an object the object of desire beyond its properties.
Robert Pfaller's concept (endorsed by Žižek) that apparently spontaneous transgressions such as sex, swearing, and getting drunk are strictly codified performances enacted for and through the Big Other rather than inner drives.
as “no sexual relationship”
Lacan's thesis that genuine sexual encounter is always mediated by fantasy; real sex replicates the structure of masturbation because one is always relating to a fantasised object rather than the partner as such.
as “real sex is masturbation with a real partner”
Žižek's reformulation of Lacan's 'no sexual relationship': the structure of sex is masturbatory because the real partner is merely the vehicle for one's fantasy.
Late Lacan's view (cited approvingly by Žižek) that authentic love is not imaginary narcissism but the way the real of drive enters the symbolic order, enabling genuine encounter with the Other.
Enjoyment in the Lacanian sense, used here to contrast male phallic (masturbatory, bounded) jouissance with feminine non-all jouissance and with Badiou's notion of the measureless.
The idea Žižek (via Lacan) rejects: that transgressions and desires originate from a spontaneous inner depth; instead they are codified, learnable, and external affairs of the Big Other.
as “Big Other”
The symbolic order as the locus of codification; even intimate transgressions are affairs of the Big Other rather than expressions of spontaneous inner impulse.
A Master Signifier whose content is entirely borrowed from elsewhere (e.g. the 'Jew' in antisemitism, the 'shark' in Jaws) and that unifies heterogeneous fears or properties by adding only its name.
Badiou's concept of the structural location within a world where the inexistent can be elevated to maximum intensity through an Event; Žižek uses it to distinguish revolution from fascism.
as “Asiatic mode of production as symptomal point”
Žižek argues Marx's 'Asiatic mode of production' is a reflexive empty container, the symptomal term that holds everything not fitting the canonical sequence, analogous to the 'Jew' in antisemitism.
as “the inexistent”
Badiou's term for the element of a world whose intensity of existence is at minimum; the Event brings the inexistent to maximum intensity, which distinguishes genuine revolution from fascist manipulation.
as “symptomal torsion”
Badiou's term (cited approvingly) for the element formally included in a structure but lacking proper properties within it, the structural excess that marks where an Event can intervene.
as “subject supposed to enjoy fully”
Žižek's extension of Lacan's 'subject supposed to know': the male fantasy projects onto woman the role of one who enjoys absolutely and completely, which Žižek deconstructs as a male fantasy, not feminine jouissance.
Lacan's logical schema distinguishing male (universality-with-exception) from female (non-all, no exception) positions; Žižek argues the feminine position means more fully in language, not outside it.
as “non-all”
Lacan's feminine sexuation formula: no universal phallic function applies to all women, but also no founding exception, meaning woman is more saturated by language, not partially outside it.
The psychoanalytic thesis (endorsed by Žižek as anti-essentialist) that femininity is layers of masks with nothing beneath, the Cartesian void of pure subjectivity, making woman more, not less, of a subject.
Žižek's reading of Einstein's move from special to general relativity, from matter curving space to curvature being primary, as a philosophical parallel to the Hegelian shift from Kant to Hegel.
Freud's concept used here: the Wolfman's primal scene was not traumatic when observed; it became trauma only retroactively when later sexual enigmas curved the mental space and recruited it as a filling.
Žižek's political-philosophical distinction: fascists are Kantian in treating the Jew as external matter that curves the social space, while Marxists are Hegelian in seeing class antagonism as an original curvature of which antisemitism is a secondary filling.
Žižek's reading of the Lacanian Real not as a brute substantial obstacle but as an inherent structural impossibility, a curvature of mental space, from which positive traumatic content is secondarily constructed.
as “law is universalized crime”
Žižek's Hegelian thesis that law is not merely opposed to crime but is itself crime imposed as universal by founding heroes-criminals; crime is not a subspecies of law but law a subspecies of crime.
as “potentiality versus virtuality”
Meillassoux's distinction used by Žižek: potentiality is possibility pre-inscribed in the spatial matrix (dice throw), while virtuality is genuinely new emergence that retroactively creates its own conditions of possibility.
Stories he reaches for 14
Spielberg's Jaws is read as an ideological operation: the shark serves as an empty Master Signifier that unifies all heterogeneous citizen fears (economic exploitation, immigrants, natural disaster) under one figure, just as 'the Jew' does in antisemitism.
“The point is that of course an average citizen has all these fears... the movie as it were replace all these fears with one signifier empty. It's like the Jew. The shark.”
Freud broke analytic neutrality by giving money to the impoverished Wolfman; the result was a paranoid regression as the Wolfman asked 'Che vuoi?', what does Freud want? Žižek uses this to illustrate why payment maintains the libidinal frame.
“Freud was all of a sudden by paying him money Freud lost this analytically neutral position so it triggered immediately in Wolfman paranoiac activity.”
Žižek observes that Tarkovsky, perhaps the most spiritualist filmmaker, is also the most materialist: spiritual experiences are depicted through immersion in earth, mud, and water, not ascent to heaven. Used to illustrate the paradox of materialist spirituality.
“spiritual experience looks in Tarkovsky... You immerse yourself deeply into the earth: all the dirt, mud, water and so on. This idea of materialized spirituality.”
Marx's 'Asiatic mode of production' is a symptomal term: it appears to designate something positive (Chinese, Egyptian, Incan empires) but is really just a negative container for everything that doesn't fit the canonical sequence, an empty reflexive sign.
“what he calls Asiatic mode of production is basically a container where he throws practically everything which doesn't fit any of the others.”
Žižek invokes the Borges/Foucault classification that ends with 'dogs not included in this list,' to illustrate that every structure must include a stand-in for what it excludes, the symptomal reflexive element.
“at the end all the dogs who are not included in this list. That's the structural logic. There must be a stand-in within a structure of what is not included in the structure.”
An opinion poll found men preferred Cindy Crawford to the 'too perfect' Claudia Schiffer; the mole is the index of imperfection that triggers love. Žižek uses this to illustrate the objet petit a logic: one falls in love in spite of an imperfection, which crystallises the 'something more than you' in the beloved.
“Claudia Schiffer is too perfect. Cindy Crawford has that sign there like it shouldn't be a perfect woman there must be a small sign of imperfection.”
Einstein's move from special to general relativity, first matter curves space, then curvature is primary and matter is an effect, is used as a philosophical parallel to the shift from Kant to Hegel and to the Lacanian Real as formal impossibility.
“Einstein's move to turn things around to say that no the curvature of the space is original and matter is just an effect of the curved space.”
Hegel argues that punishing a criminal, up to capital punishment, is the highest recognition of their freedom and autonomy; not punishing them is the true humiliation, treating them as less than a full moral agent.
“the only way to treat a criminal respectfully is to punish him because only by punishing him fully you treat him as a proper autonomous human being.”
Žižek notes the irony that Russian soprano Anna Netrebko's surname means 'she doesn't need it' in Russian, making the fatal beauty's dismissive stance inscribed in her very name, illustrating the role of the name in constituting identity.
“Netrebko means she doesn't need it... the fatal beauty but to have it in the name inscribed 'fuck off, I don't need you.'”
Žižek's analysis: it is not enough to attribute negative properties to Jews to be antisemitic; the antisemite reverses causality, 'you do this because you are a Jew', producing the mysterious objet petit a of the Jew as a X that cannot be identified with any property.
“you are anti-semitic if you say you are dirty exploiting because you are a Jew and then if I ask you but what is that X? you say I don't know it's that mysterious something in you more than you.”
In Bergman's Persona, Bibi Andersson narrates a beach orgy without flashbacks; Žižek reads this as exemplifying jouissance of the Other, pleasure in telling surpasses pleasure in doing.
“jouissance of the other... talking about it gives you basically more pleasure almost than the thing itself.”
Sociologist Dean MacCannell coded four facial expressions in hardcore pornography: ecstatic trance, bored ignorance, instrumental work, and the dismissive ironic smile. Žižek uses this to argue that intimate transgression is strictly codified, an affair of the Big Other, not inner spontaneity.
“they even have technical terms for it... it's not that out of custom you behave properly but then when you can no longer control yourself you explode. That they are basically strictly codified.”
In his unfinished drama, Wagner interprets the Sermon on the Mount: adultery merely transgresses marriage from outside, but sex in marriage without love corrupts it from within, a negation of negation that destroys the very field.
“sex within marriage which is not grounded in love is even a greater sin... it ruins the idea of marriage from within... the true catastrophe.”
Freud's case: the child observed parental intercourse at one and a half years with no trauma; only years later, when sexual enigmas arose, was the memory retroactively recruited as a traumatic fantasy. Illustrates that the Real is a formal gap secondarily filled by content.
“when the child saw this one and a half year there was absolutely nothing traumatic about it... only later... he retraumatized this neutral experience.”
Works invoked 20
Angels and Demons film
Described as 'total shit' and not good, mentioned briefly in the context of Bernini's Saint Teresa.
Žižek's own debate-book with theologian John Milbank; mentioned as the context in which he discusses Wagner's Jesus of Nazareth drama.
Being and Event book
Badiou's main ontological work; discussed extensively for its theory of the Event, nomination, and the evental site; Žižek engages it critically to show Badiou's oscillation between substantialist and deconstructionist positions.
Jaws film
Spielberg's film is used as an ideological analysis: the shark operates as an empty Master Signifier unifying all citizen fears; Žižek says he doesn't like it much.
Logics of Worlds book
Badiou's later work where he drops the claim that an Event includes its own nomination; Žižek notes this shift and the new gap between event and nomination.
After Finitude book
Meillassoux's ontological treatise cited for the potentiality/virtuality distinction; described as 'an excellent book of ontology' and a major attack on Kantian finitude thinking.
The Order of Things book
Foucault's work cited briefly for the Borges' classification of animals passage, used to illustrate the symptomal reflexive element in any structure.
Breaking the Waves film
Lars von Trier; used as a contrast between phallic masturbatory jouissance (the husband) and jouissance of the Other (Emily Watson's character who enjoys only in narrating).
Jesus of Nazareth other
Wagner's unfinished drama-opera project; cited for its reading of the Sermon on the Mount as illustrating negation of negation: sex in marriage without love is a greater sin than adultery.
Persona film
Bergman's film; Žižek says he doesn't like it and prefers The Silence, but uses the scene of Bibi Andersson narrating the beach orgy to illustrate jouissance of the Other.
Fanon's work; the final pages are cited as a 'manifesto avant la lettre against political correctness' for rejecting eternal black victimhood and white blame.
Against Love book
Laura Kipnis's book arguing that love has replaced procreation as the ideological criterion for legitimate sex; Žižek disagrees.
The Silence film
Bergman film mentioned as Žižek's preference over Persona.
She book
Rider Haggard's novel about an absolute woman in the heart of Africa; cited as an exemplar of the male fantasy of the 'absolute woman' outside civilization that Žižek deconstructs.
Falling in Love film
Melodrama with Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro; the moment of not consummating the affair is cited as the paradigm of the Event in love.
Robert Pfaller's book on interpassivity published by Suhrkamp; Žižek praises it highly and mentions trying to push for an English translation.
A work on courtly love cited as a reference-point for the thesis that true love requires transgression outside marriage; Žižek opposes this idea.
Pentimento film
Film with Jane Fonda based on Lillian Hellman's memoir; the Vanessa Redgrave character (modelled on Muriel Gardiner) is cited as the analyst who re-treated the Wolfman.
Half-forgotten by Žižek because he dislikes Andie MacDowell; mentioned briefly as another example of the jouissance-of-narrating theme.
King Solomon's Mines book
Rider Haggard novel mentioned to identify the author before citing She.
People invoked 27
Frantz Fanon positive
Black Skin, White Masks is cited as a manifesto against political correctness and eternal victimisation; Žižek 'fully subscribes' to Fanon, while acknowledging his views on liberating violence are more contentious.
Lynn Margulis positive
Her work on cells is cited to illustrate the minimal self-reflexivity in living organisms; Žižek notes she has 'good and bad sides,' with the bad being Gaia mythology.
Udi Aloni positive
Jewish anti-Zionist filmmaker and close friend; described in the context of the ritualized obscene-insult greeting, used to illustrate the Big Other dimension of transgression.
Rider Haggard negative
Author of She, cited as an example of the male chauvinist fantasy of the absolute woman ('She' with capital S) in darkest Africa, the fantasy Žižek deconstructs as a male projection.
Richard Wagner positive
His unfinished drama Jesus of Nazareth is cited for its reading of the Sermon on the Mount as illustrating negation of negation through the opposition between legal sex and sex-within-marriage-without-love.
Julia Kristeva negative
Cited briefly as an example of thinkers who fall for the male fantasy of a mystical outside-language feminine enjoyment.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited extensively throughout on Master Signifier, objet petit a, no sexual relationship, love, formulas of sexuation, Big Other; Žižek also notes Lacan 'cheats like crazy' and oscillates, which is why he likes him.
Robert Pfaller positive
Austrian art theorist and friend; his concept of interpassivity and the book Illusions of Others are cited to support the argument that transgression is codified by the Big Other.
Yevgeny Yevtushenko positive
His formula 'love is mutual masturbation in manure' is cited to illustrate the Lacanian no-sexual-relationship thesis.
Alain Badiou positive
Described as Žižek's 'best friend'; the talk is a sustained friendly-critical engagement with Badiou's previous day's paper on negation and his theory of the Event, aiming to save Badiou from reproaches by supplying a Hegelian correction.
John Milbank positive
Theologian co-author of The Monstrosity of Christ; cited as interlocutor in the context of the Wagner discussion on negation of negation.
François Furet negative
Cited as the liberal historian whose project was to 'de-eventualize' the French Revolution, to show it was not a great Event but local confusion, used to illustrate Badiou's point about non-neutral events.
Laura Kipnis negative
Chicago feminist who wrote Against Love; her thesis that love has replaced procreation as the criterion legitimating sex is rejected by Žižek.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon positive
His formula 'property is theft' is used by Wagner and then by Žižek to illustrate negation of negation: the first term already contains its own radical self-cancellation.
Dean MacCannell positive
Friend and sociologist (husband of Juliet Flower MacCannell); his study of codified facial expressions in pornography is cited to support Žižek's argument about interpassivity.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling positive
Cited for the idea that subjectivity at its most radical is feminine, supporting Žižek's pro-Cartesian feminist argument.
Walter Benjamin positive
Briefly cited in relation to mythic violence and the violent origins of law, supporting Žižek's Hegelian reading of the law-crime relationship.
Quentin Meillassoux positive
His book After Finitude is cited approvingly; his distinction between potentiality and virtuality is used to develop the Hegelian notion of the miracle as materialist category, though Žižek signals partial disagreement.
Georg Cantor positive
His revolution in set theory, multiple material infinities rather than one transcendent infinite, is cited to support the claim that modern mathematics/science is on the materialist-Badiouian side.
Russian soprano whose name meaning 'she doesn't need it' is used as an example of the fatal-woman stance inscribed in the name itself.
Andrei Tarkovsky positive
Identified as both the most spiritualist and most materialist filmmaker of the 20th century; used to illustrate the paradox that true formal materialism coincides with spirituality through immersion in material.
René Descartes positive
Žižek defends the Cartesian cogito against feminist critics who read it as masculine, arguing it is feminine, the void of pure subjectivity analogous to the onion-layers of the feminine masquerade.
Paul the Apostle positive
Cited via Badiou's reading: Paul's dialectic of law and transgression exemplifies the male formula of sexuation, and his nomination of the Christ-event is the model for how Events acquire retroactive status through fidelity.
Sigmund Freud positive
The Wolfman case is discussed at length in two ways: Freud's clinical error (giving money) and the retroactive structure of trauma; used to ground the Hegelian-Lacanian argument about the Real as formal gap.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
The central theoretical reference throughout; Žižek reads Hegel's logic of identity, negation of negation, law-crime dialectic, and reflexivity as the key framework for correcting both Badiou and Lacan.
Immanuel Kant negative
Used as the negative contrast-term to Hegel: Kant's Thing-in-Itself is the matter that curves the transcendental space; the shift to Hegel eliminates this residual substance.
Albert Einstein positive
The shift from special to general relativity is used as a materialist philosophical analogy for the Hegelian dialectic and the primacy of formal curvature over substantial matter.
What it argues
Hegelian negation of negation and identity as reflexive determinationMaster Signifier and the fall of signifier into signifiedanti-semitism as ideological mechanism via empty Master SignifierLacanian love, jouissance, and the formulas of sexuationBadiou's Event versus Žižek's Hegelian-Lacanian account of retroactivityEinstein's relativity as model for dialectical materialismpotentiality versus virtuality and the miracle as materialist category
Dialectical moves 12
“Identity is already a redoubled negation—not the simplest thing but the highest form of contradiction.”
Hegel inverts common sense: identity, usually taken as primitive, is actually the most reflexive and self-contradictory category.
“The word, the name, is the murder of the thing.”
Naming extracts the identity of a thing by killing its immediate presence, negativity is internal to signification itself.
“Real sex is masturbation with a real partner.”
The inversion of the usual view: it is not that masturbation is degraded sex with an imaginary partner, but that real sex reproduces the masturbatory structure, making fantasy the real substance.
“Raw sex is not material enough—it is brutal raw sex which fails to really relate to the Other; love is the more authentic position.”
Against cynical pseudo-psychoanalysis, Žižek inverts the hierarchy: sublimated love is more, not less, materially real than raw sex.
“The absolute woman who enjoys fully outside language is a male fantasy—she is not the non-all but the ultimate male exception.”
The mystical-ecstatic woman (Saint Teresa) taken as exemplar of feminine jouissance is revealed to be the founding exception that grounds the male symbolic order.
“Law is a subspecies of crime, not crime a subspecies of law.”
The dialectic reverses the ordinary hierarchy: law is universalized crime imposed by founding criminals, not the stable order against which crime transgresses.
“Not matter that curves space, but curvature of space is original and matter is its effect.”
Einstein's move from special to general relativity is read as a dialectical reversal: what appeared as cause (matter) is revealed as effect of the formal-structural condition (curvature).
“The Lacanian Real is not a brute obstacle but a formal impossibility; every positive traumatic cause comes second, filling in a pre-existing structural gap.”
The Real is not substantial but purely formal, a curvature of mental space, from which positive content is retroactively recruited.
“Fascists are Kantians, Marxists should be Hegelians: for fascists the social space is originally symmetric and the Jew curves it; for Marxists the space is originally curved by class antagonism and the Jew is a secondary filling.”
The ontological priority of formal antagonism over substantial cause is what separates Hegelian-Marxist from Kantian-fascist social analysis.
“Finitude has become the last resort of spiritualism—the very category once claimed by vulgar materialism is now colonised by idealism.”
In the 20th century the positions have inverted: the infinite is now the domain of mathematical science/materialism, while finitude has become the space opened for spiritual otherness.
“Property as such already is theft.”
Proudhon's formula, used by Žižek to illustrate Hegel's negation of negation: the first term (property) already contains the radical negation (theft) from within, not merely as an external violation.
“Sex within marriage without love is a greater sin than sex outside marriage—it corrupts marriage from within rather than merely transgressing it from without.”
Wagner's reading of the Sermon on the Mount illustrates negation of negation: the internal corruption (marriage without love) is more destructive than the external negation (adultery).
Claims 20
asserts
Identity is not the simplest Hegelian category but a reflexive, self-relating determination that presupposes the unity of the name over and above enumerable properties.Hegel's logic of identity
asserts
Objects do not exist in nature prior to living beings; the minimal distinction of inside/outside required for identity first appears in the living cell.ontology of identity / Lynn Margulis
asserts
The Master Signifier is the point where the signifier falls into the signified, constituting an identity that cannot be reduced to a sum of properties.Lacan's theory of the Master Signifier
asserts
Antisemitism functions by offering an empty Master Signifier ('the Jew') that unifies heterogeneous fears by adding only the name, not any consistent positive content.ideology of antisemitism
asserts
Love emerges through an index of imperfection—one falls in love not because properties exceed a threshold but in spite of a specific flaw, which triggers the objet petit a logic.love and the objet petit a
asserts
Real sex replicates the structure of masturbation because the real partner merely materialises a fantasy; authentic love consists in genuinely encountering the other beyond fantasy.Lacan on sexuality and love
asserts
Apparently spontaneous intimate transgressions (sex, drunkenness, swearing) are strictly codified and are affairs of the Big Other, not eruptions of authentic inner impulse.interpassivity / the Big Other
rejects
Feminine jouissance is not a mysterious excess outside language but the 'non-all' position: more saturated by the symbolic with no founding exception, not partially outside it.standard reading of Lacan's formulas of sexuation
asserts
The idea of an absolute woman who enjoys fully outside language (e.g. Saint Teresa in ecstasy) is a male fantasy, not an account of feminine jouissance.male fantasy / feminine jouissance
asserts
Badiou's distinction between fascism and revolution lies in how each relates to the symptomal torsion: fascism mystifies and covers it up, revolution elevates the inexistent to maximum intensity.Badiou's theory of the Event / political difference between fascism and communism
asserts
An Event is not a miraculous eruption from nowhere but is precisely defined structurally by where and how it intervenes into the symptomal torsion of a situation; timing is constitutive.Badiou's Event
rejects
Badiou oscillates problematically between two positions: an event that includes its own nomination vs. one that is constituted only retroactively through nomination and fidelity.Badiou's theory of Event and nomination
asserts
Einstein's shift from special to general relativity—where curvature of space is original and matter is its effect—parallels philosophically the shift from Kant (Thing-in-Itself curves space) to Hegel (curvature is primary).Einstein's relativity as materialist dialectics
asserts
Law is not opposed to crime but is itself universalized crime; founding heroes of states are criminals who impose their crime as universal law.Hegel on crime, law, and the state
asserts
The Lacanian Real is not a brute substantial obstacle but a formal-structural impossibility—an inherent curvature of mental space—from which positive traumatic content is secondarily constructed.Lacanian Real
asserts
White political correctness that insists on white guilt and renounces white particularity secretly re-asserts white universality by positioning whites as the ultimate responsible agents for everything.political correctness and whiteness / colonial guilt
asserts
Miracle, understood in the Jansenist-Calvinist sense, is not a violation of natural laws but appears as a miracle only to those who already believe; this is the sense in which Events have no neutral observers.Badiou's Event / miracle
rejects
Orgasm is not an Event in Badiou's sense because it lacks a symptomal torsion site of intervention; it is the 'measureless' or bad Hegelian infinity, not genuine Eventhood.orgasm as Event
rejects
The Cartesian cogito is not masculine but feminine, representing the void of pure subjectivity akin to the onion-like layers of the feminine masquerade.standard feminist critique of Descartes
asserts
Virtuality (Meillassoux) designates something that emerges ex nihilo and retroactively creates its own conditions of possibility—it is the proper materialist concept of miracle and Event.Meillassoux's potentiality vs. virtuality
Quotes 20
“a rose is a rose... identity functions as a void in the sense that you are not just a series of your properties. You are that X, that void you know.”Slavoj Žižek · identity as reflexive void beyond properties
“the word the name is the murder of the thing... there is an element of negativity in it precisely if you want from the thing to extract its identity you name it but in a way you kill it.”Slavoj Žižek · naming as negativity / death of the thing
“if we understand usually masturbation as sex with an imagined partner... then real sex is masturbation with a real partner.”Slavoj Žižek · no sexual relationship / fantasy structure of sex
“it's the brutal raw sex which is not material enough because you don't really relate to other you basically just stage your fantasies.”Slavoj Žižek · authentic love more material than raw sex
“love is mutual masturbation in manure.”Slavoj Žižek · cynical-sublime formula for the no sexual relationship
“love must be so that you don't simply say I love you because this this this this but all the real properties become an expression of: there's some something in you more than you I don't know what but on behalf of that X I love you.”Slavoj Žižek · objet petit a and love
“love always emerges as this kind of in spite of... it needs an index of imperfection.”Slavoj Žižek · love, imperfection, and objet petit a
“The point is that of course an average citizen has all these fears... what the movie does is as it were replace all these fears with one signifier empty. It's like the Jew. The shark.”Slavoj Žižek · empty Master Signifier unifying heterogeneous fears
“you are anti-semitic if you say you are dirty exploiting because you are a Jew... that mysterious something in you more than you.”Slavoj Žižek · antisemitism and the objet petit a
“from capitalism exploitation and from socialism the name. But you see the point the name must be included into the series.”Slavoj Žižek · Master Signifier falls into its own series
“the very idea of behind the very idea that there is one side of woman the mask the civilized woman but that beneath there is the true absolute woman... this is the male fantasy.”Slavoj Žižek · male fantasy of the absolute woman
“non-all at the same time means there is nothing which is not in, which is outside. Lacan is much more paradoxical here.”Slavoj Žižek · feminine non-all: more saturated by language, not outside it
“Einstein's move to turn things around to say that no the curvature of the space is original and matter is just an effect of the curved space. I love this purely formal materialism.”Slavoj Žižek · formal materialism: structure precedes substance
“finitude has become more and more the last resort of spiritualism idealism... it is science in its pure formalism which gets more and more infinities.”Slavoj Žižek · 20th-century inversion: finitude becomes idealist, infinity becomes materialist
“it is that law itself is a moment of crime... law is universalized crime. Law is the crime.”Slavoj Žižek · Hegel: law as universalized crime
“there is a way to humiliate yourself which is really a perverted way to re-assert your priority.”Slavoj Žižek · white liberal guilt as re-assertion of universality
“property as such already is theft... you isolate it steal it from the collective.”Slavoj Žižek · Proudhon's formula illustrating negation of negation
“fascists are Kantians Marxists should be Hegelians... for fascists the social space is symmetrical non-curved... for a Marxist the social space is curved originally because of class struggle.”Slavoj Žižek · political ontology: fascist Kantianism vs Marxist Hegelianism
“the Lacanian notion of the real... it's just some inherent impossibility... it's not I would have been fully what I am but something prevents me... no it's I am blocked in myself.”Slavoj Žižek · the Real as inherent impossibility, not external obstacle
“miracle means precisely that something happened which was not yet included into this matrix of all eternal possibilities by God.”Slavoj Žižek · miracle as materialist category / virtuality
Transcript 61 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Okay, fuck it, let's do it, no, so we don't lose time. Again today, as you wanted, we go on with Hegel. Er, just a little bit the same thing but with moves further, of course. I would like to begin with a friendly reaction to yesterday's Badiou paper, this problem of negation, the three types of negation he listed. I would like to—I don't have such a... I cannot propose such a precise formalization. But I will just try, as an introduction, to give you a brief idea what negation of negation means through a couple of examples in Hegel. Let me first tell you, but we will talk about all of this much more later today, that we approached the crucial question at the end when someone, sorry I forgot who, I think it was a woman's voice—I was tired, half asleep there—asked Badiou towards the very end about the problem of identity. What happens with identity and so on? And then, there we would have approached Hegel. In what sense is every identity already a redoubled negation? Because that's Hegel's point. I mean, if you read, for example, Hegel's logic, he doesn't begin by identity. He begins by being, nothing to do with identity. Identity, as you may have noticed, it is, er, occurs at the beginning of the Logic of Essence. It's already what Hegel calls a reflexive determination. That is to say, a mode of self-relating. When you say A is A, this already presupposes kind of a self-reflective identity. Hegel even uses, I quote it often, a wonderfully simple example which also includes a kind of logical temporality, trying to demonstrate that in what simple sense identity is the highest form of contradiction. He plays on the tension between form and content. He says let us say you say: a rose or a table is... then you expect some determination, a predicate. But you are doubly surprised when you get the same thing: a rose is a rose. And his point is that, er, that identity functions as a void in the sense that, er, identity means—in this sense it's a reflexive determination—you are not just a series of your properties. You are that X, that void you know. You are you means you cannot be reduced to your color, this, that, and so on and so on. In this sense identity is already a redoubling of the thing. And to go a step further, identity always for Hegel involves basically, as Badiou hinted very nicely yesterday, a signifier. It's only a signifier which gives you identity. In what sense can this be understood? Oh, let's speculate a little bit. I appreciate good enemies, intelligent philosophers. Now I forgot his name, it's not Plantinga, another very good of the modern Catholic philosophers, make a wonderfully simple point which I claim is profoundly, er, profoundly Hegelian. His claim is that there are no objects in nature. Objects begin only with living beings. In what sense? Now you will tell me of course there are objects here. This is a glass, this is a table, and so on and so on. But if you abstract from us perceiving this table as a table, what right do you have, for example, to include to say this is a table and for example not to include this glass into the table? You will say okay the table holds together. But then okay, in what sense is the table a unity? Why can't you also say this piece of wood, this piece of wood, that metal part, you know, what you count as one is not grounded in nature. It's totally arbitrary. This table has no identity in itself. It's totally arbitrary if you say a table, if you say no this is not one object it's two. The first moment of identity, which is why for Hegel life already involves a minimum of self-reflexivity, is life. And it's something very mysterious in life. I agree here with, I think I mentioned her yesterday, that wonderful... okay she has good and bad sides. The bad side for me is that she is part of that Gaia mythology, you know Gaia Earth as an organism. Lynn, do I pronounce it correctly? Margulis? I'm never sure. Margulis, yeah, probably. Sorry I was er... you know her, er she... one of the focuses of her work are cells. Cell as... for for her cell is more elementary prior to animals, plants, and so on. The mystery of the cell is that there must be a a minimum of self-reflection in the sense of how is it that through stupid natural interaction a border emerges? There you can really say you know cell means the minimal distinction between inside and outside. Like that, that's inside, that's outside. For a cell which is the minimal form again of living organism, there you can draw the line. The moment you have life, but life er life er presupposes this kind of minimum of self-relation, which means you relate to others but relating to others—sorry, yes? Well then right away there's the problem of a virus because a virus has all its function only dependent on its relationship to another being, another... Yeah but, but I think you can solve this because for example even if a child, and I think this I totally agree, sorry is the lady here yesterday who asked Badiou the question of what about a child being... no she's not here. That's good because I totally disagree with her. I think believe me I have to er child is for me on the side of disaster, catastrophe, er not even... What I mean is that er child I like those theories which are now very fashionable—I mean fashionable not in the bad sense—but even in biology to see er child in a womb before birth, fetus, not as some kind of you know organic blah blah but as a er terrorizing intruder. And to explain the placenta as a defense mechanism so that they don't kill each other. That it's some that it's a terrifying shock, it's nothing natural, oh child and so on no. Here I agree at least here if you are a feminist give a proper due to Lacanians. Lacan's big motive is that woman is not mother at her most fundamental. That as Lacan puts it somewhere so beautifully behind every mother there is a Medea you know who slaughtered her children and so on, that's true. Er so okay so my answer to you would have been even if it's a most intense virus or the child you know you can draw the line the moment you can show how the fetus, the child's relation to other is mediated by self-relation. Like you contact the environment because you relate to yourself.
Okay, fuck it, let's do it, no, so we don't lose time. Again today, as you wanted, we go on with Hegel. Er, just a little bit the same thing but with moves further, of course. I would like to begin with a friendly reaction to yesterday's Badiou paper, this problem of negation, the three types of negation he listed. I would like to—I don't have such a... I cannot propose such a precise formalization. But I will just try, as an introduction, to give you a brief idea what negation of negation means through a couple of examples in Hegel. Let me first tell you, but we will talk about all of this much more later today, that we approached the crucial question at the end when someone, sorry I forgot who, I think it was a woman's voice—I was tired, half asleep there—asked Badiou towards the very end about the problem of identity. What happens with identity and so on? And then, there we would have approached Hegel. In what sense is every identity already a redoubled negation? Because that's Hegel's point. I mean, if you read, for example, Hegel's logic, he doesn't begin by identity. He begins by being, nothing to do with identity. Identity, as you may have noticed, it is, er, occurs at the beginning of the Logic of Essence. It's already what Hegel calls a reflexive determination. That is to say, a mode of self-relating. When you say A is A, this already presupposes kind of a self-reflective identity. Hegel even uses, I quote it often, a wonderfully simple example which also includes a kind of logical temporality, trying to demonstrate that in what simple sense identity is the highest form of contradiction. He plays on the tension between form and content. He says let us say you say: a rose or a table is... then you expect some determination, a predicate. But you are doubly surprised when you get the same thing: a rose is a rose. And his point is that, er, that identity functions as a void in the sense that, er, identity means—in this sense it's a reflexive determination—you are not just a series of your properties. You are that X, that void you know. You are you means you cannot be reduced to your color, this, that, and so on and so on. In this sense identity is already a redoubling of the thing. And to go a step further, identity always for Hegel involves basically, as Badiou hinted very nicely yesterday, a signifier. It's only a signifier which gives you identity. In what sense can this be understood? Oh, let's speculate a little bit. I appreciate good enemies, intelligent philosophers. Now I forgot his name, it's not Plantinga, another very good of the modern Catholic philosophers, make a wonderfully simple point which I claim is profoundly, er, profoundly Hegelian. His claim is that there are no objects in nature. Objects begin only with living beings. In what sense? Now you will tell me of course there are objects here. This is a glass, this is a table, and so on and so on. But if you abstract from us perceiving this table as a table, what right do you have, for example, to include to say this is a table and for example not to include this glass into the table? You will say okay the table holds together. But then okay, in what sense is the table a unity? Why can't you also say this piece of wood, this piece of wood, that metal part, you know, what you count as one is not grounded in nature. It's totally arbitrary. This table has no identity in itself. It's totally arbitrary if you say a table, if you say no this is not one object it's two. The first moment of identity, which is why for Hegel life already involves a minimum of self-reflexivity, is life. And it's something very mysterious in life. I agree here with, I think I mentioned her yesterday, that wonderful... okay she has good and bad sides. The bad side for me is that she is part of that Gaia mythology, you know Gaia Earth as an organism. Lynn, do I pronounce it correctly? Margulis? I'm never sure. Margulis, yeah, probably. Sorry I was er... you know her, er she... one of the focuses of her work are cells. Cell as... for for her cell is more elementary prior to animals, plants, and so on. The mystery of the cell is that there must be a a minimum of self-reflection in the sense of how is it that through stupid natural interaction a border emerges? There you can really say you know cell means the minimal distinction between inside and outside. Like that, that's inside, that's outside. For a cell which is the minimal form again of living organism, there you can draw the line. The moment you have life, but life er life er presupposes this kind of minimum of self-relation, which means you relate to others but relating to others—sorry, yes? Well then right away there's the problem of a virus because a virus has all its function only dependent on its relationship to another being, another... Yeah but, but I think you can solve this because for example even if a child, and I think this I totally agree, sorry is the lady here yesterday who asked Badiou the question of what about a child being... no she's not here. That's good because I totally disagree with her. I think believe me I have to er child is for me on the side of disaster, catastrophe, er not even... What I mean is that er child I like those theories which are now very fashionable—I mean fashionable not in the bad sense—but even in biology to see er child in a womb before birth, fetus, not as some kind of you know organic blah blah but as a er terrorizing intruder. And to explain the placenta as a defense mechanism so that they don't kill each other. That it's some that it's a terrifying shock, it's nothing natural, oh child and so on no. Here I agree at least here if you are a feminist give a proper due to Lacanians. Lacan's big motive is that woman is not mother at her most fundamental. That as Lacan puts it somewhere so beautifully behind every mother there is a Medea you know who slaughtered her children and so on, that's true. Er so okay so my answer to you would have been even if it's a most intense virus or the child you know you can draw the line the moment you can show how the fetus, the child's relation to other is mediated by self-relation. Like you contact the environment because you relate to yourself.
unknown
Relate to yourself means in relate—my
Relate to yourself means in relate—my
Slavoj Žižek
body tells me I need food, this is why I... you know that? Like relating to put it precisely in these Hegelian speculative terms when Hegel says relation to otherness is always self-relation, the living organism is the basic element here. Er so what I'm saying is that er in this sense for Hegel again identity is a category of reflection. In the sense that it's not the most simple thing. You can talk about an identity only when you have a the one, but the one as that how to put it unifying feature which cannot be reduced to properties. Er and already in Hegel you find this, this er where is negativity here? Double negation? Ah, for Hegel er this oneness it's the function of the name, either concept or proper name, we will not go into that now, I know it's a crucial debate, to designate that oneness. You say okay this maybe this, that, and so on, rounded, but basically it's a table. Er and Hegel's point is that er you know Hegel's famous saying, it was fashionable he was not the first to say this bombastic rather statement, the the word the name is the murder of the thing no. That there is an element of negativity in it precisely if you want from the thing to extract as it were its identity you name it but in a way you kill it in the sense that you extract that... now of course now we come to the logic of desire. This is why Lacan links the so-called Master Signifier, what he calls S1, to the series of what he calls knowledge ordinary signifiers, and this is why he links the Master Signifier to what he calls the object small a, this er surplus enjoyment however we call it, which is precisely the name for that mysterious X which is of course a mythic property which makes you what you are. How does this function? Allow me to repeat some old analysis of mine to make this clear. Lacan er has a a wonderful definition of a Master Signifier somewhere where he says something very precise. He says that the Master Signifier is the point where the signifier falls into the signified. Vaguely, it's not meaning, sense... I know all this stuff, I know all the stuff about *Sinn*, *Bedeutung* and so on. But what can this mysterious statement mean? It means that in a reflexive way the name must as it were encounter itself in the designated object. It's constitutive of its identity. And that impossible objective feature which would be the counterpart of a name is the object small a. For example er you know even let me put it in extremely naive terms but which are appropriate here. Sorry my God I'm so impossible I always have some kind of obscene erotic er stuff but don't be afraid I will not rape any of you. It's probably simply because I'm really getting old and diabetic and you know when you no longer do it you talk about it. But let's say I'm in love with one of you. I thought you talked about it more when you were doing it. Sorry? Ah no I know what you are saying. Yeah yeah yeah. Er as a matter of fact no I as a matter of fact okay you provoked me it's your fault let me go to the end. I couldn't stand people okay in my case I'm not gay women who want to talk you know this 'Darling, say something, blah blah how...' No! When you fuck you fuck, when you talk you talk. I hate this idea of whispering some... making love is hard work for me. I have to concentrate. It's not bullshit, you do your work. None of that 'Oh darling' or er whatever, fuck it. And er but do you know that this is your choice? Er you provoked me, it's all his fault, I'm pure here, he provoked me. That even it would be nice to build a semiotic square er kind of a out of er unfortunately it's done only for women, I don't think this is just, it should have been done only for men, but it's a wonderful analysis. A friend of mine er Dean MacCannell, I know him because he is the husband of Juliet Flower MacCannell that San Francisco er Lacanian lady. And he did his er he's also specialized in he was the first as it were deconstructionist theorist of tourism. And er apart of this he's slightly weird guy he did a very serious sociology I mean analysis with all the data er of the expression of on women's faces while they er are screwed, while they are doing it in hardcore pornography. He wasn't interested in the dirty things what goes on down but er and he discovered something very precise that as we all all know that it has nothing to do with any spontaneity, it's strictly codified. And then I don't know the terms he even told me that he contacted some guys who were involved in a hardcore industry they told him they even have technical terms for it. Er so there are four expressions codified. One is... I cannot imitate properly. One is this simple 'ah ah' er more er you know this how should we call it ecstatic trance whatever. This is of course the least interesting. Then the second one er er is ignorance. You know some people find it charming when the woman you know like fuck it er doesn't concern me like you even one of the codified thing is even that you the woman is chewing a gum or whatever just yawning, boring, like: 'Ha ha, er I ignore it.' This ignorance she is above it. And there is something in it. A fatal woman has to pretend to be bored, ignorant. Which is why if some of you know Russian it's a wonderful irony all Russian friends of mine er know about it. You know every we opera lovers every generation we are lucky to encounter er lady singer soprano who my God again my male chauvinism who
body tells me I need food, this is why I... you know that? Like relating to put it precisely in these Hegelian speculative terms when Hegel says relation to otherness is always self-relation, the living organism is the basic element here. Er so what I'm saying is that er in this sense for Hegel again identity is a category of reflection. In the sense that it's not the most simple thing. You can talk about an identity only when you have a the one, but the one as that how to put it unifying feature which cannot be reduced to properties. Er and already in Hegel you find this, this er where is negativity here? Double negation? Ah, for Hegel er this oneness it's the function of the name, either concept or proper name, we will not go into that now, I know it's a crucial debate, to designate that oneness. You say okay this maybe this, that, and so on, rounded, but basically it's a table. Er and Hegel's point is that er you know Hegel's famous saying, it was fashionable he was not the first to say this bombastic rather statement, the the word the name is the murder of the thing no. That there is an element of negativity in it precisely if you want from the thing to extract as it were its identity you name it but in a way you kill it in the sense that you extract that... now of course now we come to the logic of desire. This is why Lacan links the so-called Master Signifier, what he calls S1, to the series of what he calls knowledge ordinary signifiers, and this is why he links the Master Signifier to what he calls the object small a, this er surplus enjoyment however we call it, which is precisely the name for that mysterious X which is of course a mythic property which makes you what you are. How does this function? Allow me to repeat some old analysis of mine to make this clear. Lacan er has a a wonderful definition of a Master Signifier somewhere where he says something very precise. He says that the Master Signifier is the point where the signifier falls into the signified. Vaguely, it's not meaning, sense... I know all this stuff, I know all the stuff about *Sinn*, *Bedeutung* and so on. But what can this mysterious statement mean? It means that in a reflexive way the name must as it were encounter itself in the designated object. It's constitutive of its identity. And that impossible objective feature which would be the counterpart of a name is the object small a. For example er you know even let me put it in extremely naive terms but which are appropriate here. Sorry my God I'm so impossible I always have some kind of obscene erotic er stuff but don't be afraid I will not rape any of you. It's probably simply because I'm really getting old and diabetic and you know when you no longer do it you talk about it. But let's say I'm in love with one of you. I thought you talked about it more when you were doing it. Sorry? Ah no I know what you are saying. Yeah yeah yeah. Er as a matter of fact no I as a matter of fact okay you provoked me it's your fault let me go to the end. I couldn't stand people okay in my case I'm not gay women who want to talk you know this 'Darling, say something, blah blah how...' No! When you fuck you fuck, when you talk you talk. I hate this idea of whispering some... making love is hard work for me. I have to concentrate. It's not bullshit, you do your work. None of that 'Oh darling' or er whatever, fuck it. And er but do you know that this is your choice? Er you provoked me, it's all his fault, I'm pure here, he provoked me. That even it would be nice to build a semiotic square er kind of a out of er unfortunately it's done only for women, I don't think this is just, it should have been done only for men, but it's a wonderful analysis. A friend of mine er Dean MacCannell, I know him because he is the husband of Juliet Flower MacCannell that San Francisco er Lacanian lady. And he did his er he's also specialized in he was the first as it were deconstructionist theorist of tourism. And er apart of this he's slightly weird guy he did a very serious sociology I mean analysis with all the data er of the expression of on women's faces while they er are screwed, while they are doing it in hardcore pornography. He wasn't interested in the dirty things what goes on down but er and he discovered something very precise that as we all all know that it has nothing to do with any spontaneity, it's strictly codified. And then I don't know the terms he even told me that he contacted some guys who were involved in a hardcore industry they told him they even have technical terms for it. Er so there are four expressions codified. One is... I cannot imitate properly. One is this simple 'ah ah' er more er you know this how should we call it ecstatic trance whatever. This is of course the least interesting. Then the second one er er is ignorance. You know some people find it charming when the woman you know like fuck it er doesn't concern me like you even one of the codified thing is even that you the woman is chewing a gum or whatever just yawning, boring, like: 'Ha ha, er I ignore it.' This ignorance she is above it. And there is something in it. A fatal woman has to pretend to be bored, ignorant. Which is why if some of you know Russian it's a wonderful irony all Russian friends of mine er know about it. You know every we opera lovers every generation we are lucky to encounter er lady singer soprano who my God again my male chauvinism who
unknown
is
is
Slavoj Žižek
not this kind of a big fat lady where your worry is will she manage to make the next step and you are all the time in anxiety in the opera who is relatively beautiful, no. And er okay every generation there is one or two. When I was very young in the sixties it was an Italian star called Anna Moffo. And er it's all your fault no you provoked me now I will tell you a wonderful detail. I gave a talk at Munich, München opera and got hold of some old stage manager who knew her. And I heard a rumor about Anna Moffo. This is for me Lacanian ethics of desire. And he told me it's true. You know what was the rumor about her? Her career stopped relatively early in mid-forties. Now I warn you you can persecute me for harassment this is hard. The idea is that she was extremely sexualized acting in orgies all the time. And her specialty was to do fellatio on a series of men the same evening swallowing everything. Er so then er she detected er troubles with her voice. She went to the doctor and the doctor told her: 'You have to make a choice. Either you continue your singing career or or orgies.' 'No problem,' she said, 'orgies.' That's ethics. Okay but let's go on. Now more serious. The the the most beautiful considered today one of the is the Russian the dark one Anna Netrebko. Now it's a wonderful irony if you know a little bit Russian. Netrebko means she doesn't need it. *Trebat*, *trebat* is we even for example in we our Balkan territory at least we have er *potrebna kot sahara vode* which means she needs it like Sahara needs water. This is the extremely male chauvinist vulgar. So it's a wonderful way the fatal beauty but to have it in the name inscribed 'fuck off, I don't need you' and so on no. So again that's the second position. The third position er and they really is what I would have called in Habermasian terms instrumental activity this er er er er my God it's hard work let's do it. Then there is the fourth position which is almost the best for me for turning me on this kind of a dismissive ironic smile. The woman looks you into the eye and smiles: 'Hehe is this all you can do?' you know? This kind of... and the wonder... and again I spoke with the guys and er it's er I even once started wanted to construct a kind of a Habermasian logic of three types instrumental reason and so on the whole logic of communication out of this no and so on. But it really works and the lesson is much deeper
not this kind of a big fat lady where your worry is will she manage to make the next step and you are all the time in anxiety in the opera who is relatively beautiful, no. And er okay every generation there is one or two. When I was very young in the sixties it was an Italian star called Anna Moffo. And er it's all your fault no you provoked me now I will tell you a wonderful detail. I gave a talk at Munich, München opera and got hold of some old stage manager who knew her. And I heard a rumor about Anna Moffo. This is for me Lacanian ethics of desire. And he told me it's true. You know what was the rumor about her? Her career stopped relatively early in mid-forties. Now I warn you you can persecute me for harassment this is hard. The idea is that she was extremely sexualized acting in orgies all the time. And her specialty was to do fellatio on a series of men the same evening swallowing everything. Er so then er she detected er troubles with her voice. She went to the doctor and the doctor told her: 'You have to make a choice. Either you continue your singing career or or orgies.' 'No problem,' she said, 'orgies.' That's ethics. Okay but let's go on. Now more serious. The the the most beautiful considered today one of the is the Russian the dark one Anna Netrebko. Now it's a wonderful irony if you know a little bit Russian. Netrebko means she doesn't need it. *Trebat*, *trebat* is we even for example in we our Balkan territory at least we have er *potrebna kot sahara vode* which means she needs it like Sahara needs water. This is the extremely male chauvinist vulgar. So it's a wonderful way the fatal beauty but to have it in the name inscribed 'fuck off, I don't need you' and so on no. So again that's the second position. The third position er and they really is what I would have called in Habermasian terms instrumental activity this er er er er my God it's hard work let's do it. Then there is the fourth position which is almost the best for me for turning me on this kind of a dismissive ironic smile. The woman looks you into the eye and smiles: 'Hehe is this all you can do?' you know? This kind of... and the wonder... and again I spoke with the guys and er it's er I even once started wanted to construct a kind of a Habermasian logic of three types instrumental reason and so on the whole logic of communication out of this no and so on. But it really works and the lesson is much deeper
unknown
than you think. My good friend Robert
than you think. My good friend Robert
Slavoj Žižek
Pfaller who did the notion of interpassivity, Austrian guy, it's sad that you cannot read him. If you can German do it he now published it as a book he did a wonderful book called 'Illusion of the others,' *Illusionen der Anderen*, who the book I tried to push it now er to be published into English it did very well in German by Suhrkamp Verlag. The problem is that in art circles because he is most an art theorist I don't know if you know it I thought that we philosophers are the worst but I discovered that art theorists are even worse. That there is such competition you know you belong to one clan envy and so on so it was always sabotaged by others and so on so okay. What he er er er he has a very nice idea that er the things that we do as a transgression: sex, you get drunk, you swear and so on. You don't... it's not that out of custom you behave properly but then when you can no longer control yourself you explode. That they are basically that it's strictly codified and that er you do it to belong to a group to im- it's always an acquired taste. For example drinking. It can be demonstrated he told me he spoke with some doctors that you know and okay I am not only a woman as I said yesterday I er you can see that I'm a little bit crazy and there are two theories in Slovenia I'm serious now. One is that mentally I am in early puberty years. The other is that I'm like and the general agreement is that I'm regressing back to... so er I tend to agree with it that for example drinking alcohol. You do get attached to it but er how the way you begin is regularly first you don't like it, it's like out of you know to keep up with with your peers and so on and so on. It's to be part of a group to imitate. Smoking it's the same. And happily for me maybe I'm still at that level and not because of any how should I put it er health arguments or what, I don't drink and I don't smoke but because I simply don't like the taste how should I put it. I don't get it what's so good in alcohol. Okay there is also a Stalinist while you are looking you think crazy guy didn't yet discover what life is about or whatever. But I am er no there is also of course another aspect privately I'm a er Stalinist paranoiac and my idea is if you get drunk you lose control and the enemy can attack you know one must be on the watch all the time no. Okay but er let me go on. So the idea er beautiful one of Robert Pfaller is that the same goes even for sexuality and that the inte- and believe me or not I read some ah sorry I spoke even with some how do you call them er biologist sexologists those who reduced sex pleasure to organic procedure and try and they claim that from the purely organic standpoint it's definitely without any doubt that masturbation is more pleasurable. And I could see it. You just sit down you do it you totally determine the rhythm that from the pure standpoint of intensity of pleasure even orgasm and so on I mean doing it with another human being is impractical ridiculous and so on and so on. So it's only the fantasmatic aspect which sustains of course in reality the much greater pleasure and so on. So sorry yes? Ah was your experience different? Please feel free to tell us how it was with you yeah. No sorry please go on yeah. Er I was going to say that with this is called creative classes new creative teaching sorry. Er you are swallowing like well did I finish with this madness stop. Er it's your fault my no his fault he is guilty of everything down there he asked er yeah er. In Lacan er er yeah er he says er that er er even he found with his patients that even when they were having sex with their partners that they loved they were still fantasizing about somebody else or something else. Yeah absolutely that's the basic thing yeah he said that it was almost impossible to find er even the sex act itself becomes masturbatory like... oh no I've written about it I'm just afraid to repeat I know that I already repeat myself too much but er that's how you should read sorry you have a comment would you share er let's pretend we are in California would you like to share your experience? No... no I'll share Yevtushenko's experience. I heard Yevtushenko recite and he said love is mutual masturbation in manure. In what? Manure? Manure like shit? Why why this is must be a specifically Russian touch why why manure? I think because he's a tiny bit sublime and the ridiculous. Ah yeah it wasn't Borat? Yeah... no no no what I what I wanted to say er is that this is but again that's elementary this is what er what er what Lacan means with there is no sexual relationship. That it's never you and your partner alone there has to be a mediation of fantasy. It's almost never I will explain immediately this almost never just you and the partner it's the way you fantasize. But for Lacan in this sense that's my old joke if we understand usually er masturbation as sex with an imagined partner you masturbate but you imagine doing it with another then real sex is masturbation with a real partner. That is to say the structure is that of a masturbation the real partner is the one you dream about and so on and so on which incidentally explains nicely the experience which I hope you all also had I hear it often that it's horrible er I'm sincere now here but it's nothing disgustingly intimate so I can tell you in the middle of sexual act doesn't it happen to you that you somehow how should I put it I hope not too often you simply disconnect. You lose contact you start to observe yourself objectively and you like what am I doing this stupid gesture you know like you disconnect that's where you disconnect from your fantasy. You are back into the stupid thrown into the stupid reality. So what this er but Lacan's point here that's important is not here Lacan and me with him we are nonetheless more romantic for love. I claim that in authentic love it's not only that in authentic love you reach to the other. Authentic love is not merely er or to put it in more romantic... so I I don't agree with those like that Chicago girl how is she called Laura Kipnis who wrote a book er against love claiming love is and it's fashionable in some radical circles to claim that love plays the same role as procreation in standard Catholic doctrine. In standard Catholicism it was sex is illicit if it doesn't at least ultimately lead towards procreation she claims today's censorship is just displaced it's love doesn't sorry sex should be is fully legitimate only if it is an expression of love and so on and so on. Well I don't think that if you don't hurt anyone why not have it an occasional whatever you want I cannot do it I'm a very old-fashioned romantic but what I want to say is that when Lacan speaks about this you know reaching out to the real other and so on and so on er that's Lacan is here very very romantic he is as far as possible from this how should I put it cynical pseudo-psychoanalytic view that what we really want is only the brutal raw sex but that but we just sublimate it with all these complicated fantasies. No for Lacan it's the opposite it's the brutal raw raw sex which is not material enough because you don't really relate to other you basically just stage your fantasies and so on and so on it's very difficult to really accept the other not just somebody who how should I put it who fits your fantasy. And for Lacan and I agree
Pfaller who did the notion of interpassivity, Austrian guy, it's sad that you cannot read him. If you can German do it he now published it as a book he did a wonderful book called 'Illusion of the others,' *Illusionen der Anderen*, who the book I tried to push it now er to be published into English it did very well in German by Suhrkamp Verlag. The problem is that in art circles because he is most an art theorist I don't know if you know it I thought that we philosophers are the worst but I discovered that art theorists are even worse. That there is such competition you know you belong to one clan envy and so on so it was always sabotaged by others and so on so okay. What he er er er he has a very nice idea that er the things that we do as a transgression: sex, you get drunk, you swear and so on. You don't... it's not that out of custom you behave properly but then when you can no longer control yourself you explode. That they are basically that it's strictly codified and that er you do it to belong to a group to im- it's always an acquired taste. For example drinking. It can be demonstrated he told me he spoke with some doctors that you know and okay I am not only a woman as I said yesterday I er you can see that I'm a little bit crazy and there are two theories in Slovenia I'm serious now. One is that mentally I am in early puberty years. The other is that I'm like and the general agreement is that I'm regressing back to... so er I tend to agree with it that for example drinking alcohol. You do get attached to it but er how the way you begin is regularly first you don't like it, it's like out of you know to keep up with with your peers and so on and so on. It's to be part of a group to imitate. Smoking it's the same. And happily for me maybe I'm still at that level and not because of any how should I put it er health arguments or what, I don't drink and I don't smoke but because I simply don't like the taste how should I put it. I don't get it what's so good in alcohol. Okay there is also a Stalinist while you are looking you think crazy guy didn't yet discover what life is about or whatever. But I am er no there is also of course another aspect privately I'm a er Stalinist paranoiac and my idea is if you get drunk you lose control and the enemy can attack you know one must be on the watch all the time no. Okay but er let me go on. So the idea er beautiful one of Robert Pfaller is that the same goes even for sexuality and that the inte- and believe me or not I read some ah sorry I spoke even with some how do you call them er biologist sexologists those who reduced sex pleasure to organic procedure and try and they claim that from the purely organic standpoint it's definitely without any doubt that masturbation is more pleasurable. And I could see it. You just sit down you do it you totally determine the rhythm that from the pure standpoint of intensity of pleasure even orgasm and so on I mean doing it with another human being is impractical ridiculous and so on and so on. So it's only the fantasmatic aspect which sustains of course in reality the much greater pleasure and so on. So sorry yes? Ah was your experience different? Please feel free to tell us how it was with you yeah. No sorry please go on yeah. Er I was going to say that with this is called creative classes new creative teaching sorry. Er you are swallowing like well did I finish with this madness stop. Er it's your fault my no his fault he is guilty of everything down there he asked er yeah er. In Lacan er er yeah er he says er that er er even he found with his patients that even when they were having sex with their partners that they loved they were still fantasizing about somebody else or something else. Yeah absolutely that's the basic thing yeah he said that it was almost impossible to find er even the sex act itself becomes masturbatory like... oh no I've written about it I'm just afraid to repeat I know that I already repeat myself too much but er that's how you should read sorry you have a comment would you share er let's pretend we are in California would you like to share your experience? No... no I'll share Yevtushenko's experience. I heard Yevtushenko recite and he said love is mutual masturbation in manure. In what? Manure? Manure like shit? Why why this is must be a specifically Russian touch why why manure? I think because he's a tiny bit sublime and the ridiculous. Ah yeah it wasn't Borat? Yeah... no no no what I what I wanted to say er is that this is but again that's elementary this is what er what er what Lacan means with there is no sexual relationship. That it's never you and your partner alone there has to be a mediation of fantasy. It's almost never I will explain immediately this almost never just you and the partner it's the way you fantasize. But for Lacan in this sense that's my old joke if we understand usually er masturbation as sex with an imagined partner you masturbate but you imagine doing it with another then real sex is masturbation with a real partner. That is to say the structure is that of a masturbation the real partner is the one you dream about and so on and so on which incidentally explains nicely the experience which I hope you all also had I hear it often that it's horrible er I'm sincere now here but it's nothing disgustingly intimate so I can tell you in the middle of sexual act doesn't it happen to you that you somehow how should I put it I hope not too often you simply disconnect. You lose contact you start to observe yourself objectively and you like what am I doing this stupid gesture you know like you disconnect that's where you disconnect from your fantasy. You are back into the stupid thrown into the stupid reality. So what this er but Lacan's point here that's important is not here Lacan and me with him we are nonetheless more romantic for love. I claim that in authentic love it's not only that in authentic love you reach to the other. Authentic love is not merely er or to put it in more romantic... so I I don't agree with those like that Chicago girl how is she called Laura Kipnis who wrote a book er against love claiming love is and it's fashionable in some radical circles to claim that love plays the same role as procreation in standard Catholic doctrine. In standard Catholicism it was sex is illicit if it doesn't at least ultimately lead towards procreation she claims today's censorship is just displaced it's love doesn't sorry sex should be is fully legitimate only if it is an expression of love and so on and so on. Well I don't think that if you don't hurt anyone why not have it an occasional whatever you want I cannot do it I'm a very old-fashioned romantic but what I want to say is that when Lacan speaks about this you know reaching out to the real other and so on and so on er that's Lacan is here very very romantic he is as far as possible from this how should I put it cynical pseudo-psychoanalytic view that what we really want is only the brutal raw sex but that but we just sublimate it with all these complicated fantasies. No for Lacan it's the opposite it's the brutal raw raw sex which is not material enough because you don't really relate to other you basically just stage your fantasies and so on and so on it's very difficult to really accept the other not just somebody who how should I put it who fits your fantasy. And for Lacan and I agree
unknown
with him that's love. Love for Lacan there is a big change here in Lacan er all good interpreters know somewhere till the early sixties Lacan er reduced love to an er imaginary narcissistic illusion you know all this shit in loving the others you really love yourself in the other love
with him that's love. Love for Lacan there is a big change here in Lacan er all good interpreters know somewhere till the early sixties Lacan er reduced love to an er imaginary narcissistic illusion you know all this shit in loving the others you really love yourself in the other love
unknown
and then
and then
Slavoj Žižek
Lacan played on imaginary love versus desire desire is the authentic thing. But later Lacan changed the view claiming that in love love love is as he puts it very nicely love is the way the real of drive descends or gets into the symbolic order. So what you quoted about that er in real sexual act we fantasize and so on and so on this is not again for Lacan er this is not er this is not er this is not this is not all sex this is not love he doesn't
Lacan played on imaginary love versus desire desire is the authentic thing. But later Lacan changed the view claiming that in love love love is as he puts it very nicely love is the way the real of drive descends or gets into the symbolic order. So what you quoted about that er in real sexual act we fantasize and so on and so on this is not again for Lacan er this is not er this is not er this is not this is not all sex this is not love he doesn't
unknown
devalue love. You know which example I use in one of my books?
devalue love. You know which example I use in one of my books?
Slavoj Žižek
If you saw the movie you will immediately get it why also Lacan says first that especially he specifies for him this is typically male sexuality phallic masturbatory *jouissance*. But for
If you saw the movie you will immediately get it why also Lacan says first that especially he specifies for him this is typically male sexuality phallic masturbatory *jouissance*. But for
unknown
woman it's more er it's more *jouissance* of the other. And don't confuse this with a false version of Lacan where some people
woman it's more er it's more *jouissance* of the other. And don't confuse this with a false version of Lacan where some people
Slavoj Žižek
think that Lacan's point is this that women have some mystical outside language experience no there is a movie which makes this point perfectly or even a couple of movies did you see for example Bergman's er er er er er Persona which I don't like I prefer *The Silence*. But do you remember I think some minutes into the movie Bibi Andersson is telling to the one who is the er who is the silent reports on some small orgy on the beach years ago. Bergman was wise enough not to include any flashbacks and it's an extremely erotic scene this would be *jouissance* of the other *jouissance* that er talking about it gives you basically more pleasure almost than the thing itself. You know which movie works in this way you have very nicely this... did you see he's a little bit too pretentious I don't like him too much but sometimes he's not totally stupid er did er Lars von Trier *Breaking the Waves*? Yeah you remember the pact that the guy and Emily Watson made she should screw around to tell him he exploits her. His pleasure is masturbatory he needs her as an instrument to provide him fantasies so that he can masturbate but for her it's *jouissance* of the other as he makes it very clear while she actually seduces other men it's disgusting for her her only pleasure is tell telling him about that yes. What about the movie *Sex, Lies, and Videotape*? I know I know but er er er I will not bluff here I half forgot about that movie because I don't like Andie MacDowell oh sorry er very vulgar here I know I should have watched it more. Yeah I know yeah yeah yeah er yeah but that's more but that's more who is the guy James Spader no the way he does it it's more okay you can also read it as a kind of a how he the guy slowly breaks out of this masturbatory circle and so on gets into love yeah you can but okay let's nonetheless now we were totally lost let's go back to the main line yes. So my point we were where were we? Ah yes the jump was from this er er fantasy and so on and then to this point four types of women's expression. Er incidentally this also raises an interesting question don't be afraid nothing tasteless will follow now about er hardcore pornography you know what's your point of identification there? I absolutely don't think that you identify if you are a er man er heterosexual man I'm now talking about the elementary situation heterosexual man watching a heterosexual straight movie. I don't think that the point of identification is er is that you identify with the guy who is er no that guy is pure instrument which is why they usually use some sailors with tattoos etc. which incidentally for me is extremely destimulating and so on because I'm er I'm very conservative here basically I'm against hardcore pornography and I'm against even prostitution. I mean no woman can do whatever they want I just don't think okay some friends try to convince me I buy this that er maybe I don't know there are women who relate to money they earn in prostitution in the same way that psychoanalysts who are as we all know prostitutes of the mind no relate to payment as Lacan puts it very nicely the function of money is to allow you to keep out of a certain libidinal circuit why do you have basically to pay the analyst so that he will not get drawn and become just another of people in whose of those in whose traumas you are involved and so on and so on. So er I was told but it's up to women to say I I don't know that that if you and I think this is a totally respectable position if you just want raw sex and hate any involvement emotional that maybe that's how money can work it's a kind of a guarantee of not getting involved and it works this way let me give you don't be afraid no obscenity a pure clinical example what was Freud's mistake in his most famous case er the treatment of Wolfman? You know Wolfman the Russian nobleman after October Revolution he lost money and Freud was too good. Freud helped him instead of Wolfman paying him Freud gave him some money to survive. The result was clinically catastrophic a big regression into paranoia in the sense of you know because if you are in this borderline he is basically some kind of borderline case you cannot say that he is really par- but it triggered in the twenties er regression to paranoia because Freud was all of a sudden by paying him money Freud lost this analytically neutral position so it this triggered immediately in Wolfman paranoiac activity in the sense of why is Freud giving me money? This famous Lacanian 'Que vuoi?', what does he want? Is some kind of plot to control me? Does Freud want me to marry his daughter or whatever you know in this is why you have a serious relapse and then it's only later er he got she got Wolfman in the late mid-twenties another analyst an American one she made was made famous by that movie with Jane Fonda *Pentimento*. You know it with er Jane Fonda plays there er the Dashiell Hammett's wife the writer was er Lillian Hellman but the Vanessa Redgrave character that leftist communist who was also psychoanalyst in Vienna you know her you know who is the model of that Muriel Gardiner a pupil of Freud who was in Vienna in the twenties. That's the real-life model of and er she then set things straight cured er she then cured Wolfman and then it was surprising you know he survived till till early fifties in Vienna and so on er lived quite well. But so what I wanted to say is that er maybe it works like this but nonetheless how should I put it don't you think there is so much er X and maybe there are some cases so friends tell me where you have a how do you call the guy *maquereau* the guy who controls a prostitute who pimp yeah pimp yeah. Maybe there are some ideal relationships of a nice pimp who really protects you but you know as they say I would like to see it no and I would like to really hear the entire story how should I put it no I'm er er er what I find much more interesting as a problem is male prostitution because you know why because men had to prove it with erection and so on no so how can you link money being... okay but we are getting lost in it let's go back to Hegel and all this stuff. So the point of that's where we started this digression the point of Robert Pfaller is how sex all this as it were wild outbursts that
think that Lacan's point is this that women have some mystical outside language experience no there is a movie which makes this point perfectly or even a couple of movies did you see for example Bergman's er er er er er Persona which I don't like I prefer *The Silence*. But do you remember I think some minutes into the movie Bibi Andersson is telling to the one who is the er who is the silent reports on some small orgy on the beach years ago. Bergman was wise enough not to include any flashbacks and it's an extremely erotic scene this would be *jouissance* of the other *jouissance* that er talking about it gives you basically more pleasure almost than the thing itself. You know which movie works in this way you have very nicely this... did you see he's a little bit too pretentious I don't like him too much but sometimes he's not totally stupid er did er Lars von Trier *Breaking the Waves*? Yeah you remember the pact that the guy and Emily Watson made she should screw around to tell him he exploits her. His pleasure is masturbatory he needs her as an instrument to provide him fantasies so that he can masturbate but for her it's *jouissance* of the other as he makes it very clear while she actually seduces other men it's disgusting for her her only pleasure is tell telling him about that yes. What about the movie *Sex, Lies, and Videotape*? I know I know but er er er I will not bluff here I half forgot about that movie because I don't like Andie MacDowell oh sorry er very vulgar here I know I should have watched it more. Yeah I know yeah yeah yeah er yeah but that's more but that's more who is the guy James Spader no the way he does it it's more okay you can also read it as a kind of a how he the guy slowly breaks out of this masturbatory circle and so on gets into love yeah you can but okay let's nonetheless now we were totally lost let's go back to the main line yes. So my point we were where were we? Ah yes the jump was from this er er fantasy and so on and then to this point four types of women's expression. Er incidentally this also raises an interesting question don't be afraid nothing tasteless will follow now about er hardcore pornography you know what's your point of identification there? I absolutely don't think that you identify if you are a er man er heterosexual man I'm now talking about the elementary situation heterosexual man watching a heterosexual straight movie. I don't think that the point of identification is er is that you identify with the guy who is er no that guy is pure instrument which is why they usually use some sailors with tattoos etc. which incidentally for me is extremely destimulating and so on because I'm er I'm very conservative here basically I'm against hardcore pornography and I'm against even prostitution. I mean no woman can do whatever they want I just don't think okay some friends try to convince me I buy this that er maybe I don't know there are women who relate to money they earn in prostitution in the same way that psychoanalysts who are as we all know prostitutes of the mind no relate to payment as Lacan puts it very nicely the function of money is to allow you to keep out of a certain libidinal circuit why do you have basically to pay the analyst so that he will not get drawn and become just another of people in whose of those in whose traumas you are involved and so on and so on. So er I was told but it's up to women to say I I don't know that that if you and I think this is a totally respectable position if you just want raw sex and hate any involvement emotional that maybe that's how money can work it's a kind of a guarantee of not getting involved and it works this way let me give you don't be afraid no obscenity a pure clinical example what was Freud's mistake in his most famous case er the treatment of Wolfman? You know Wolfman the Russian nobleman after October Revolution he lost money and Freud was too good. Freud helped him instead of Wolfman paying him Freud gave him some money to survive. The result was clinically catastrophic a big regression into paranoia in the sense of you know because if you are in this borderline he is basically some kind of borderline case you cannot say that he is really par- but it triggered in the twenties er regression to paranoia because Freud was all of a sudden by paying him money Freud lost this analytically neutral position so it this triggered immediately in Wolfman paranoiac activity in the sense of why is Freud giving me money? This famous Lacanian 'Que vuoi?', what does he want? Is some kind of plot to control me? Does Freud want me to marry his daughter or whatever you know in this is why you have a serious relapse and then it's only later er he got she got Wolfman in the late mid-twenties another analyst an American one she made was made famous by that movie with Jane Fonda *Pentimento*. You know it with er Jane Fonda plays there er the Dashiell Hammett's wife the writer was er Lillian Hellman but the Vanessa Redgrave character that leftist communist who was also psychoanalyst in Vienna you know her you know who is the model of that Muriel Gardiner a pupil of Freud who was in Vienna in the twenties. That's the real-life model of and er she then set things straight cured er she then cured Wolfman and then it was surprising you know he survived till till early fifties in Vienna and so on er lived quite well. But so what I wanted to say is that er maybe it works like this but nonetheless how should I put it don't you think there is so much er X and maybe there are some cases so friends tell me where you have a how do you call the guy *maquereau* the guy who controls a prostitute who pimp yeah pimp yeah. Maybe there are some ideal relationships of a nice pimp who really protects you but you know as they say I would like to see it no and I would like to really hear the entire story how should I put it no I'm er er er what I find much more interesting as a problem is male prostitution because you know why because men had to prove it with erection and so on no so how can you link money being... okay but we are getting lost in it let's go back to Hegel and all this stuff. So the point of that's where we started this digression the point of Robert Pfaller is how sex all this as it were wild outbursts that
unknown
they
they
Slavoj Žižek
are strictly as Lacan would have put it an affair of the Big Other they are not as it were spontaneous explosions of our innermost blah blah blah. We have to learn them. This intimate transgressions are even more codified and I noticed this with some of my friends that er it's a little bit like you remember the tasteless tasteless story I was telling you that Albanian soldier when we went into mother mother sister mother? It was totally ritualized a
are strictly as Lacan would have put it an affair of the Big Other they are not as it were spontaneous explosions of our innermost blah blah blah. We have to learn them. This intimate transgressions are even more codified and I noticed this with some of my friends that er it's a little bit like you remember the tasteless tasteless story I was telling you that Albanian soldier when we went into mother mother sister mother? It was totally ritualized a
unknown
little
little
Slavoj Žižek
bit of obscenity it was kind of obscene duty. We have to go through this and er and maybe I am a madman here I accept it. But I noticed that that's how these are my relationship with some of my friends. When we meet for example my good friend the Jewish anti-Zionist filmmaker Udi Aloni, when we met we first go to obligatory minutes extremely vulgar humiliating each other, you dirty Jew how are you doing er just to give you an idea of this really nasty obscenities. He always mocks me and tells me you know this disgusting myth about Jews of er that they eat Christian baby children. He told me: 'Come to me to come to me to dinner.' I told him: 'No, I don't dine with Jews never been er with private.' Then he tells me: 'But I will serve you a good Christian baby.' Then I tell him: 'No, the last time you cheated you bought a discount deep-frozen Christian baby.' Then he said: 'I promise you...' you know and we go through this and the perversity is that we both experience it as a kind of a ritualistic duty. Then after minutes we say okay we did our duty now we can talk normally you know in er... that's how that this is what Lacan means the role of the role of the Big Other and so on the unconscious is outside. If there is a thing Lacan is radically opposed to it is precisely this idea that your desires or whatever are how to put it deep within you. Okay let's now nonetheless go back to the main line negativity and all that. Where were we? With this er self-negation ah yes how the signifier falls into the signified. Er it is er the way I explained it in the sense that er okay let me take a simple example anti-semitism. When I developed this in my some of my early books maybe you know if you you know the joke if you read my book but it's now half forgotten but it's sad because I think it's much better than some of my books which were er still in print around there with the negative, I take there the example of precisely of anti-semitism er in the sense of what makes you anti-semitic. If you say Jews are er dirty er exploiting you whatever all the properties an anti-semitic subject attributes towards a Jew it's not enough I claim to be anti-semitic you must turn it around. You are anti-semitic if you say you are dirty exploiting because you are a Jew and then if I ask you but what is that X? you say I don't know it's that mysterious something in you more than you like er that like it's the same joke as with for example when you fall in love with a woman or with a man or with er you know you know this is an old joke but it's obviously true you know that er if you can if you know this eternal question tell me why you love me. Of course the point is that if you can answer the question there is no love because the moment you can say okay I made a mental er account: no minus your teeth are not quite straight your ass is a little bit too narrow whatever or wide plus your breasts are beautiful your mouth blah blah eh eh there are much more pluses than minuses so let's do it it's out it's not love. Love must love must be so that you don't simply say I love you because this this this this but all the real properties become in your experience of course an expression of er there's some as Lacan likes to put it there is something in you more than you I don't know what but on behalf of that X I love you. Er which is why the way this is confirmed this is a nice melodramatic detail I read it in this kind of a you know kitsch love counseling er reply to readers' answer er to readers' questions that this is why and this effectively is the experience of most people I was told that let's say you flirt with a guy or a girl and you are still undecided. Symbolically the when do you fall in love fall in love in the sense of my God I am in love? As a rule it's through an imperfection. It's not that you say oh my God so many good things now I love him or her is that you note some small imperfection a clumsiness the way she or he spills the milk a too loud stupid laughter and then it has the form of fuck it instead in spite of that I nonetheless love him. That's how love always emerges as this kind of in spite of I love it needs an index of imperfection. So er this is why incidentally this is a nice vulgar story but it's true I read some years ago when they were still in young a kind of a very stupid er opinion poll in one of these shitty journals they asked thousand men blah blah like whom would you prefer as wife Cindy Crawford the two beautiful at that point Cindy Crawford or or or er Claudia Schiffer? Cindy Crawford won and they gave the answer well Claudia Schiffer is too perfect. Cindy Crawford has that sign there like it shouldn't be a perfect woman there must be a small sign of imperfection. But what I want to say is that er for Lacan in er libidinally relating to other people that's my point now the name stands for that X. You are not only that that that you are er a name okay I will try to be objective I hope is any is any er Carla here or Christina? Okay so I can use the names I will not be accused of er like er you know also when you say er emphatically Carla or Christina is not just beautiful she simply is Christina. The name tautologically refers precisely to that something more it's the same when you say a Jew is a Jew if you are anti-semitic you say however they appear to be normal there is something I don't know what in them and so on. And er now why does here signifier fall into the signified? Ah here I will give you an example that I use in that early book and I it's still my favored you know in socialism we had a wonderful joke. Er you know first you should know that er it's originates from Poland I think this joke. Do you know that er you must know that the maybe you know that er part of the official communist ideology was that er new socialist society is the er synthesis of all that was the best in the entire history well. So the joke went like this. Er communism socialism takes from from er from tribal er primitive societies primitivism it takes from er ancient antique societies slavery it takes from er medieval society feudal domination it takes from er capitalism exploitation and er it takes from socialism the name. But you see the point the name must be included into the series. And I claim exactly the same goes for anti-semitism. It's clear that the figure of the Jew in anti-semitism it's a kind of a impossible stand-in for for class struggle every this is elementary Marxism but I agree with it analysis. Why? Because if you look closely at the features attributed to the Jew they are totally inconsistent they are an impossible combination of upper level and lower level. Jews are rich exploiting us they are er too intellectuals too hardworking but at the same time Jews are supposed to be er sexually seducing dirty non-washing themselves and so on and so on. They are literally a fetish like you know like the er denial disavowal rather disavowal of class struggle. So er it's er so er you can say that of course now I'm talking about the anti-semitic figure of the Jew that er it's exactly the same there. Anti-semite in his image of the Jew takes from er rich capitalists exploitation from er poor people their dirtiness from er promiscuous people their sex drive and er from the Jew the name er how should I put it no? But again this reversal when I said er it's not just that Jews do this and that in anti-semitic imagination but you turn it around they do this because they er you do this because you are a Jew this means again the what Lacan calls the object small a is produced. That er mysterious X something in you the mystery of what is a Jew and so on and so on which er makes you. I will talk about this a little bit in the evening because er er the the mystery here it's a very interesting one is er if you are looking into the roots of the Holocaust is how er things radically change er precisely when Jews were and this is a great achievement of of er er er French Revolution and Napoleon in spite of all other things when er Jews became how do you call it politically emancipated no at least er officially no longer quotas and so on although I am well aware how long er did de facto apartheid and er quotas for the Jews last for example did you know that er at Princeton University in the United States I was told it was still early sixties that there were unwritten er quotas not more than so many Jews or one of my most tragic but beautiful experiences and this makes you nonetheless a little bit soft on communism is I met in Israel an old er communist Jew and er still he was celebrating Stalin and so on er privately of course no and I ask him blah blah blah aren't you a little bit crazy Stalin er anti-semitically er and so on and he told me something very primitive very not primitive sorry simple but beautiful. He told me that he was a Polish Jew from Poland and that he told me we cannot imagine how er anti-semitic Poland incidentally it still is today very much no er was just before World War II. He told me that there were er at Warsaw University where he was studying if you have this big er lecture hall er on the top left er reserved benches for the Jews up there. And er also and this nonetheless nice he told me er the er only non-Jewish people who always came to us Jews and er shook hands and so on were the communists. Er that's nice nonetheless. He told me he simply whatever you say against communists... okay now you can here defend communists but still be against Stalin when you take into account that I don't know er er this that the fate of the Polish Communist Party in those purges of the late thirties is er probably the most terrible of them all why because when Stalin was doing the purges in different communist parties he usually killed most of the leadership but er with er regard er I don't know was he already planning the division of Poland with Hitler or what but er his er his plan was a little bit more specific er Polish communists he simply wanted to kill them all er how should I put it. The plan er basically er apart from a couple of hundred er to the entire Polish Communist Party all the members he could er hold on was er they were all killed by Stalin. But what I want to say let me go back is that er again er is that er how you see er or let me give you another example to see how ideology works which I also like very much is the same mechanism of master signifier. Er Lacan er you saw the movie I hope Jaws I don't like it very much Spielberg. Now you know that er interpreters dwell in this stupid problem er what does what does the killing shark symbolize what does it stand for? Is it I don't know you have leftist readings where they say it stands for I don't know big capital whatever you have rightist readings where they claim it's either fear of natural catastrophe it's fear of immigrants whatever. Incidentally you know that Fidel Castro likes the movie and er he says it's not so clear to me it's clear it's er er sharks means the sharks of the great capital it's American er whatever. But I claim that it's wrong to ask this question. The point is that er it means all and nothing it does an exemplary ideological operation the movie. The point is that of course an average citizen has all these fears. You fear er being screwed up like now in this financial crisis by the banks you fear immigrants who will attack it if you are racist you fear I don't know what you fear earthquake nature. But er what the movie does is as it were replace all these fears with one signifier empty. It's like the Jew. The shark. Which er the point is precisely that you can have one clear object things become clear and er but still er you can er which unites the inconsistent multiplicity of your fears. It's exactly the same again with anti-semitism. Imagine Germany in the late twenties er economic crisis and so on. People had had er all types of fears they were afraid of being exploited ruined by banks they were afraid of sexual promiscuity blah blah whatever you want. What Hitler er did was to offer them one the name by saying behind all this there is a Jewish plot. It means er all these fears can be focused in this one figure. And this is what Lacan means nothing mysterious by signifier without signified. Er this er it's empty because as I told you apropos of the Jew and so on or socialism all the actual properties er are taken from here and there. The only thing that is original added added to it is the name. And the empty name. The Jew. Of course Jews are not empty now I'm talking about anti-semitic image of the Jew. And it's an extremely delicate question but interesting you know this er historical question er how how should I put it why were the Jews chosen to be Jews that is to say why were the real Jews er chosen er elevated er unfortunately er to er play the role of the Jew in the anti-semitic imagination. One can say a lot here but it's a dangerous topic why because on the one hand it's too easy to say it's totally contingent it could have been anyone else. On the other hand if you give reasons in the wrong way you may end up er half justifying it how should I put it no it's a it's a tricky question I know. But er to go back all I wanted to show to you is er how er this would be the Hegelian point about identity as self-reflective. About how er you have a multiplicity of real properties er er like er like socialism you live miserable er people exploit you and so on you add just the name the name unites it all into er the one. The name is an empty name not empty in the sense it means nothing but in the sense that er what it adds is just performatively itself as a name. All content is taken from elsewhere. Now you will say but names do designate something there must be something which is the objective counterpart to this empty signifier. That's what Lacan calls er object small a the er and you know this is how again we er operate when er again when you say I love er who was my choice ten minutes ago Christina Carla no Carla is you know why I avoided Carla I really love it's too too er first I hate Carla Bruni she is not my type to make it very clear. Er but point two it raises too many real er hopes with me like I still like those early er thrillers by John le Carré you know where the big enemy was Carla. Carla was the name of that mysterious head of KGB who did it and so on er so don't mess with Carla there is real love there er how should I put it no. Er but er er what I mean is that er er you know er er all when you say this pathetically er Carla is Carla it means it's not just er the bunch of properties it's er the one as it were and er this er er so er this er er in er er er er er er er in er this er sense we have here er if you want er a negation of negation. You start with an object which doesn't yet have full identity that would have been the position but it's nothing it even doesn't yet have the identity. Then er you er this er mass is negated every determination is negation true determinate properties er er beautiful nice er er er er sorry er for er er blah blah blah and then er you er negate the negation er Christina or whatever you you er er add er a name the name in this sense er signifier the name falls into the signified. In this sense for Hegel for example er the identity is a er reflective er category. Now I'm er sorry we don't have time to go into this because many er er er er critics have noted er and this is a serious debate in Hegel er studies. The problem is that er Hegel introduces er er such er er terms as concepts identity difference only at the beginning of the second book of Logic, Logic of Essence. But er he uses them from the very beginning. So what does this mean? Is Hegel inconsistent? Should we say that from the very beginning er he presupposes some conceptual determinations er er that he didn't er effectively er bring I mean this brings us to this er er to the intricate er er topic of the consistency of Hegel's logic and so on and so on er which er which would have been er too much. But that's my first point that I want to make er with Badiou. And here er we don't have time to go to it but er please don't misunderstand me Alain is my best friend but you know what's er for me a true definition of friendship. I saw a German er I love them er Nazi melodrama you know that er the big hit and Goebbels was er wise here in Nazi Germany where musicals and melodramas. Goebbels knew very well er you shouldn't feed the population just with er stupid propaganda no. Er okay and in one of them the er actress is a kind of a spoiled girl who has a fiancé and she humiliates him mocks him all the time. Fiancé is a rich guy from upper classes er so the father of this girl tells her: 'You shouldn't treat him like this er he will drop you whatever I want you to marry him.' Then you know what she answers? 'But I love him and if I love him I can do whatever I want er to him.' I mean er er er how should I put it er er there is er an element of truth in it. So in other words I love Badiou so let me say all er bad things I want er er about him er seriously. Er er all that stuff that er he was er er making with er intensity and so on and so on. I claim that er a little bit a lesson of Hegel would not hurt him er how should I put it you know what I mean that that er er this aspect of although he knows about it we have a long debate here you remember how at the end er er answering he said er: 'Yes identity in er that er er the bad world the the er intuitionist er er world yes identity is er symbolic and so on and so on.' But er he oscillates here. For example in er er er this er also would have been the answer to one of your questions ask him this and er er it's a friendly question I mean er er he will be glad to answer er er you because one of you I don't know if you are here er er er asked er er er him er a simple but er er er precise question. And I like these er simple precise questions because they are er the nastiest in the sense of er they are the really hard questions like how do you know that an event is an event this is the eternal question er that Badiou is attacked for like how do you distinguish er er an event from a pseudo-event? Er usually er er er politically er what is er behind here is Heidegger because for Badiou Heidegger is er an example of er getting er fascinated er seduced by er er er er er er a pseudo-event looking for a revolution he thought er er er er er he found it in er the Nazi er revolution er so how do you distinguish it? Er I don't think that you can really er catch him er er here er er he has er read him closely er er a precise er definition of er a site when er er where er an event can er emerge you know when er er he said when er what he didn't er develop er yesterday and er please press him on this not to er catch him but this is Badiou er at his er best. When he distinguishes er within er the multitude of er er a world er what he calls a world er er so-called er er er er er er evental er site why er er er like er er er er er er er what he called er er er er minimally er the non-existent the er er er er he er er er er er once er even sometimes he uses the wonderful name of er er er er sympto- of er symptomal er torsion an element which is er er er er er formally er er er part of the er set but lacks any er definite er er properties er er er to be properly er er er located within er the set is er er er as if the er excess er er er er er of the set sometimes he uses the term *surnuméraire* or whatever you know er er er it cannot be it is er er included but er er er cannot be properly er er er er er er er er er counted. So er er in other words er that's er er er crucial to understand him it's not just er that just er a multitude sorry multiplicity he would have er er er shot me for this er er er multitude is Negri you know you er er er er er mention er please er no er er er er er er it's er multiplicity incidentally er did you er er er get er er er er his his wonderful er point er there apropos er er multiplicity? It's er er a very er nice er position er er I think he is right er there er er er er his idea er is that and it's er er again er very Hegelian is that multiplicity is original ontologically er er you don't start with er er one and then you say okay er er er er er er we have one one er two ones as er er we go er er on on no er er er er er er er er originally er the many the er er multiple is original and er er er er er er er er now you will er say er but er fuck it er sorry er I'm now I will be really nasty er I'm er using these er er er er expressions and er gestures er so er er that you er er er will be er able to er understand er er me too er er er er er er er er er er sorry er er er er er er er er what I was er say is er that er er er er er er er er er now you will er say er you is the er er er er er er imagined er you the stupid partner that er I imagine er er er er er er we always think like this now er er er er er er er you will say er but wait a er minute if you er er have er multiple it er er er er er must mean er multiple is er by definition many er ones no er his er point er is no er it er er goes endlessly er you er analyze er er the multiple you go er er er er er further er there are always er er many you er er er er never er er er er er er er and if anything today's quantum physics er er makes er exactly the same er point er er er er that you er er er you will er never er er reach the er er er atomic er er er zero level. Er so er er er er er his very er nice theory is that er the er er correlate er er of multiple is er not one er but void zero er er er er er er er er er and er er that er er you er er arrive at one if you er count er er er er er er er er by er counting er er er er er nothing er er er by by er er counting er er er er er er er nothing. Er okay er but that's er er more the problem of er er er Frege I don't know if you know this er it's a wonderful er er er crucial er er er debate the notion of er *suture* er er *suture* which was introduced er er er by Miller way back er er in er Jacques-Alain Miller and er then Badiou er er wrote a polemics er against er it er er er er er er this is I think er the big er debate er er er but let me er go on er er er so er er er er er so again I don't think that er this er reproach er er er er er er holds because the er er way er er er to distinguish pseudo-event from er event er er is er precisely how er they er relate to this symptomal torsion point of inconsistency. Er er that's the first ontological premise which he er is er er er er sometimes er elaborates er maybe er not enough is er er that every totality er has its symptomal point and er er er er this can be er put wonderfully in Lacanian notions it er means what? It means that every structure is er er self-reflexive which means er that er er er er it er er let's take a er er classification. You know at the beginning of his er er what's the stupid English title the order of things *Les Mots et les Choses* that er er Foucault refers to that Borges' famous classification of dogs er white dogs fat dogs er all dogs which are er owned by the emperor er so er and then at the end all the dogs who are not included in this list. Er that's the structural logic. That er er you er er er how should I put it there must be a stand-in within a structure of what is not included in the structure. Er you must have er this er minimal reflexivity. Now you er er er will say er er this is er er high theory what does it mean? Ah I will give you a nasty example er which I use sometimes in my work er from er er er Marxism itself. Er er er I claim that what is called er er Asiatic er mode of production is er such er an empty er reflexive er er sign. That is to say it is er er er er clear er if you read Marx er really er er er closely er in er er er detail it is er er er er clear er that er er er er what really fits his er er conceptual er er er scheme are the standard well-known er how do you call it pre-class er societies tribal whatever er er slavery feudalism capitalism and er whatever er shit er er comes after er who knows no. Er er er but then er er of course Marx has er er er er er er specific ideas er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er despotism and so on but if you look at closely at it er what he er calls Asiatic mode of production is basically a er container where he throws practically er er everything which doesn't fit any of the others you know like everything goes there from from ancient China to Egypt to Latin I mean ancient Inca and so on Latin American empires. Er er er er so you see the paradox. This is a term which er appears to er refer er er to something er positive er but it's really just a negative container. The only er ultimately all this wealth of determinations yes Chinese er er ancient Chinese empire Hindu whatever er shouldn't deceive you. Er basically just a negative container. Er er er and er this would have been then the er symptomal this excessive er symptomal point. Er so I think that er er the reproach and I er am not er here dropping my topic er because er this is how Hegel's logic works this is Hegelian er reflexivity. Er the way Badiou I think can answer triumphantly this er er reproach er er but how do you know let's be er concrete for example how do you know er er er that why October Revolution was an event if it was for me it was I give you freedom of choice er er but I am er er here er you know that wonderful aggressive er er statement of Lenin where er some guy er protested oh er can I have the freedom of choice just to er say er what I want? You know what Lenin answers: 'I definitely give you the freedom of choice to say the stupidities you want to say. But then I take to myself a freedom of choice to shoot you for what you are saying, no? This...' Okay er er er sorry let me go on. Er so er er er er er er it's clearly er er er that er er er er they er relate differently to what Badiou er called yesterday this er er er er er er the inexistent. Because er er this er er what he calls shift from er inexistence to the maximum er intensity er happens only in er an event. Er er in Nazism the er er symptomal point is just mystified er cover up. In other words er er let's class struggle at least er in principle let's forget about the er shit that actually happens. Er in a er communist er er revolution er workers er effectively I'm not saying they do er should become or whatever er er you know they set the standard. Er er those er er it's not that er all others should be er killed because if there were er all er other classes if er er er this were to be the case er then er er er er Lenin should have begun er er by killing er er er himself er no er incidentally it's er clear er that er he was er a typical er even upper er middle class guy who er really er er er er er had no er idea er of er er er real working classes like er the er irony is that er if you er look at er er some er Lenin's letters er you know that er for some time he was er er living er in er Switzerland er er er and er er er he was er er staying by some er middle class er er er er er artisanal er er family er who had a er house er er er er er they rented him er er er a room er er blah blah and er er er Lenin wrote enthusiastic er er letters to er friends now er er er er I see er I am er er er in contact with er ordinary er er people er workers er fuck him er er er er er er er er er er these were er no workers er this was er typical er er er er er er er er er er er er not even lower er er middle class er you know er that er er but er Nonetheless what I want to say is that in Nazism er er er er er also confronts the same problem: class struggle. Er but er er it er doesn't er do er er er this er operation let's shift er er the er er er er inexistent er er er to the maximum er intensity on the contrary it just wants to er control the struggle by er imputing the cause of the struggle to an er er er er external er er er er agent it's not er er er because er society er is er er itself er er in er itself er antagonistic it's because er the Jews from outside er introduced er chaos and so on and then er to er er er impose on it some er kind of er hierarchic er er order and so on and so on where er er workers er er are er still down but er er they are taken care of at least officially you know er all er er er this shit er the er relationship er er between capital and er work er er shouldn't er er be er just er er one er of er er financial exploitation er capitalists er should be a er er kind of er a father er er taking er er care of blah blah all er this idea of er sentimental more er authentic er er er relations er between master and servant and so on and so on. Er er so er again the moment you er don't just er say er er multiplicity and then er er er er er miracle er of er the event er er er but the moment you er er take er into er er er account er that er event is er very er precisely defined as er where how an event can er er er er intervene which is why er er maybe er er er sometimes Badiou er doesn't er accentuate this enough er er er er an event is er purely structural. Er you can er do er the same thing er but if er you er er do it er er er a little er bit er too er late it's er er no er longer er an event. Er you know what I mean you must do it er er er er er at er the right er time. Sorry did er you er want to er er er er or er did er you just er er er er sorry er you know er this is the semantic er er er misunderstanding often er er er er er it er er happens to me I don't know is the guy er scratching his head not er you oh right er both okay er er er sorry ah this is er called overdetermination of er nature and culture er sorry please er er er er. You talked about self-reflexive nature er of the argument. Isn't it that he is trying to get at that it's either zero or infinity pretty much? That there is no self-reflexiveness? Er we would have to go er here to er what he means er by self-reflexiveness. It's er er good that you er touch er this topic because er he er he er er I think that er er even er now er he struggles er er a little bit er with er this and er er for his er own er good it would er be er good if in er a debate er and again I'm er not er er slandering er him er behind er his er back er you er can er report er er er er anything you er want er like er all the er er dirty things er er that er I er can er tell you er for example er this is my standard er joke er about him er no I er will er immediately return to it I er will er not forget er er er what you said. For example er do you know which movies er he er likes? This is er er a er standing joke er er between me and him er he knows er er er that I er always er er spread er this er slander but it's true. The Bridges of Madison County. Yeah yeah *The Bridges of Madison County* he thinks is er a really great er film. Er then er he has er a er soft er spot for *Armageddon* you know er this er kind er of er er catastrophe er er er er er nobody is er er er er er er er perfect I er would er er er er er say sorry er but er er let's go let's go on er with this infinity and er er er event and so on er er er er. You're self-reflexive, you're Badiou. Yeah yeah er yeah. Er some er in er the sense that in *Being and Event* er he er still er er er claims er that er er er an event er er er includes its er own nomination. Er that is er er to say er er er in er er another er way er er er er er that er an event is an er event only for those er er er er er er er er who are er engaged in er the event. Er er er student er but er er to move er down er to your er level er maybe let's take the orgasm as an event that er... why should it be an event? No here I'm er conservative. Why should orgasm be an event like okay let me be extremely vulgar let's say I'm a sadist let's say I'm a sadist let's say I will go back sorry to tested waters let's say I'm a sadist and I want to I want to I don't know cut an er er a needle into your eye. What if I discover the desire to do it infinitely? I doubt this would count as an you know what I mean. Let's talk about my example though orgasm. Yeah. An event that that inspires er infinite number of events like we always want more of it, right? Orgasm is not an event. Yeah okay er but er how should I put it yeah okay er er er er er so er what's the point do you er think er this is er enough er er of er a er again er for Badiou let's be er precise event is something which intervenes at that point of symptomal torsion the inexistent of the structure. Where do you have this in orgasm? I tend more to agree with Badiou who er er you know when he defines a situation he said that every situation had this er er er not er er infinite in the positive sense like the infinity of the event but the measureless. For him enjoyment *jouissance* is infinite in the in the more er bad Hegelian sense of the it's boundless. And as such it's open to this or that use. Which is why for example Badiou I agree here with him opposes both standard versions of you know this old boring topic sexuality and revolution. On the one hand the conservative revolutionaries like sexuality is the last trap of bourgeois ideology to catch us and er er you know the true
bit of obscenity it was kind of obscene duty. We have to go through this and er and maybe I am a madman here I accept it. But I noticed that that's how these are my relationship with some of my friends. When we meet for example my good friend the Jewish anti-Zionist filmmaker Udi Aloni, when we met we first go to obligatory minutes extremely vulgar humiliating each other, you dirty Jew how are you doing er just to give you an idea of this really nasty obscenities. He always mocks me and tells me you know this disgusting myth about Jews of er that they eat Christian baby children. He told me: 'Come to me to come to me to dinner.' I told him: 'No, I don't dine with Jews never been er with private.' Then he tells me: 'But I will serve you a good Christian baby.' Then I tell him: 'No, the last time you cheated you bought a discount deep-frozen Christian baby.' Then he said: 'I promise you...' you know and we go through this and the perversity is that we both experience it as a kind of a ritualistic duty. Then after minutes we say okay we did our duty now we can talk normally you know in er... that's how that this is what Lacan means the role of the role of the Big Other and so on the unconscious is outside. If there is a thing Lacan is radically opposed to it is precisely this idea that your desires or whatever are how to put it deep within you. Okay let's now nonetheless go back to the main line negativity and all that. Where were we? With this er self-negation ah yes how the signifier falls into the signified. Er it is er the way I explained it in the sense that er okay let me take a simple example anti-semitism. When I developed this in my some of my early books maybe you know if you you know the joke if you read my book but it's now half forgotten but it's sad because I think it's much better than some of my books which were er still in print around there with the negative, I take there the example of precisely of anti-semitism er in the sense of what makes you anti-semitic. If you say Jews are er dirty er exploiting you whatever all the properties an anti-semitic subject attributes towards a Jew it's not enough I claim to be anti-semitic you must turn it around. You are anti-semitic if you say you are dirty exploiting because you are a Jew and then if I ask you but what is that X? you say I don't know it's that mysterious something in you more than you like er that like it's the same joke as with for example when you fall in love with a woman or with a man or with er you know you know this is an old joke but it's obviously true you know that er if you can if you know this eternal question tell me why you love me. Of course the point is that if you can answer the question there is no love because the moment you can say okay I made a mental er account: no minus your teeth are not quite straight your ass is a little bit too narrow whatever or wide plus your breasts are beautiful your mouth blah blah eh eh there are much more pluses than minuses so let's do it it's out it's not love. Love must love must be so that you don't simply say I love you because this this this this but all the real properties become in your experience of course an expression of er there's some as Lacan likes to put it there is something in you more than you I don't know what but on behalf of that X I love you. Er which is why the way this is confirmed this is a nice melodramatic detail I read it in this kind of a you know kitsch love counseling er reply to readers' answer er to readers' questions that this is why and this effectively is the experience of most people I was told that let's say you flirt with a guy or a girl and you are still undecided. Symbolically the when do you fall in love fall in love in the sense of my God I am in love? As a rule it's through an imperfection. It's not that you say oh my God so many good things now I love him or her is that you note some small imperfection a clumsiness the way she or he spills the milk a too loud stupid laughter and then it has the form of fuck it instead in spite of that I nonetheless love him. That's how love always emerges as this kind of in spite of I love it needs an index of imperfection. So er this is why incidentally this is a nice vulgar story but it's true I read some years ago when they were still in young a kind of a very stupid er opinion poll in one of these shitty journals they asked thousand men blah blah like whom would you prefer as wife Cindy Crawford the two beautiful at that point Cindy Crawford or or or er Claudia Schiffer? Cindy Crawford won and they gave the answer well Claudia Schiffer is too perfect. Cindy Crawford has that sign there like it shouldn't be a perfect woman there must be a small sign of imperfection. But what I want to say is that er for Lacan in er libidinally relating to other people that's my point now the name stands for that X. You are not only that that that you are er a name okay I will try to be objective I hope is any is any er Carla here or Christina? Okay so I can use the names I will not be accused of er like er you know also when you say er emphatically Carla or Christina is not just beautiful she simply is Christina. The name tautologically refers precisely to that something more it's the same when you say a Jew is a Jew if you are anti-semitic you say however they appear to be normal there is something I don't know what in them and so on. And er now why does here signifier fall into the signified? Ah here I will give you an example that I use in that early book and I it's still my favored you know in socialism we had a wonderful joke. Er you know first you should know that er it's originates from Poland I think this joke. Do you know that er you must know that the maybe you know that er part of the official communist ideology was that er new socialist society is the er synthesis of all that was the best in the entire history well. So the joke went like this. Er communism socialism takes from from er from tribal er primitive societies primitivism it takes from er ancient antique societies slavery it takes from er medieval society feudal domination it takes from er capitalism exploitation and er it takes from socialism the name. But you see the point the name must be included into the series. And I claim exactly the same goes for anti-semitism. It's clear that the figure of the Jew in anti-semitism it's a kind of a impossible stand-in for for class struggle every this is elementary Marxism but I agree with it analysis. Why? Because if you look closely at the features attributed to the Jew they are totally inconsistent they are an impossible combination of upper level and lower level. Jews are rich exploiting us they are er too intellectuals too hardworking but at the same time Jews are supposed to be er sexually seducing dirty non-washing themselves and so on and so on. They are literally a fetish like you know like the er denial disavowal rather disavowal of class struggle. So er it's er so er you can say that of course now I'm talking about the anti-semitic figure of the Jew that er it's exactly the same there. Anti-semite in his image of the Jew takes from er rich capitalists exploitation from er poor people their dirtiness from er promiscuous people their sex drive and er from the Jew the name er how should I put it no? But again this reversal when I said er it's not just that Jews do this and that in anti-semitic imagination but you turn it around they do this because they er you do this because you are a Jew this means again the what Lacan calls the object small a is produced. That er mysterious X something in you the mystery of what is a Jew and so on and so on which er makes you. I will talk about this a little bit in the evening because er er the the mystery here it's a very interesting one is er if you are looking into the roots of the Holocaust is how er things radically change er precisely when Jews were and this is a great achievement of of er er er French Revolution and Napoleon in spite of all other things when er Jews became how do you call it politically emancipated no at least er officially no longer quotas and so on although I am well aware how long er did de facto apartheid and er quotas for the Jews last for example did you know that er at Princeton University in the United States I was told it was still early sixties that there were unwritten er quotas not more than so many Jews or one of my most tragic but beautiful experiences and this makes you nonetheless a little bit soft on communism is I met in Israel an old er communist Jew and er still he was celebrating Stalin and so on er privately of course no and I ask him blah blah blah aren't you a little bit crazy Stalin er anti-semitically er and so on and he told me something very primitive very not primitive sorry simple but beautiful. He told me that he was a Polish Jew from Poland and that he told me we cannot imagine how er anti-semitic Poland incidentally it still is today very much no er was just before World War II. He told me that there were er at Warsaw University where he was studying if you have this big er lecture hall er on the top left er reserved benches for the Jews up there. And er also and this nonetheless nice he told me er the er only non-Jewish people who always came to us Jews and er shook hands and so on were the communists. Er that's nice nonetheless. He told me he simply whatever you say against communists... okay now you can here defend communists but still be against Stalin when you take into account that I don't know er er this that the fate of the Polish Communist Party in those purges of the late thirties is er probably the most terrible of them all why because when Stalin was doing the purges in different communist parties he usually killed most of the leadership but er with er regard er I don't know was he already planning the division of Poland with Hitler or what but er his er his plan was a little bit more specific er Polish communists he simply wanted to kill them all er how should I put it. The plan er basically er apart from a couple of hundred er to the entire Polish Communist Party all the members he could er hold on was er they were all killed by Stalin. But what I want to say let me go back is that er again er is that er how you see er or let me give you another example to see how ideology works which I also like very much is the same mechanism of master signifier. Er Lacan er you saw the movie I hope Jaws I don't like it very much Spielberg. Now you know that er interpreters dwell in this stupid problem er what does what does the killing shark symbolize what does it stand for? Is it I don't know you have leftist readings where they say it stands for I don't know big capital whatever you have rightist readings where they claim it's either fear of natural catastrophe it's fear of immigrants whatever. Incidentally you know that Fidel Castro likes the movie and er he says it's not so clear to me it's clear it's er er sharks means the sharks of the great capital it's American er whatever. But I claim that it's wrong to ask this question. The point is that er it means all and nothing it does an exemplary ideological operation the movie. The point is that of course an average citizen has all these fears. You fear er being screwed up like now in this financial crisis by the banks you fear immigrants who will attack it if you are racist you fear I don't know what you fear earthquake nature. But er what the movie does is as it were replace all these fears with one signifier empty. It's like the Jew. The shark. Which er the point is precisely that you can have one clear object things become clear and er but still er you can er which unites the inconsistent multiplicity of your fears. It's exactly the same again with anti-semitism. Imagine Germany in the late twenties er economic crisis and so on. People had had er all types of fears they were afraid of being exploited ruined by banks they were afraid of sexual promiscuity blah blah whatever you want. What Hitler er did was to offer them one the name by saying behind all this there is a Jewish plot. It means er all these fears can be focused in this one figure. And this is what Lacan means nothing mysterious by signifier without signified. Er this er it's empty because as I told you apropos of the Jew and so on or socialism all the actual properties er are taken from here and there. The only thing that is original added added to it is the name. And the empty name. The Jew. Of course Jews are not empty now I'm talking about anti-semitic image of the Jew. And it's an extremely delicate question but interesting you know this er historical question er how how should I put it why were the Jews chosen to be Jews that is to say why were the real Jews er chosen er elevated er unfortunately er to er play the role of the Jew in the anti-semitic imagination. One can say a lot here but it's a dangerous topic why because on the one hand it's too easy to say it's totally contingent it could have been anyone else. On the other hand if you give reasons in the wrong way you may end up er half justifying it how should I put it no it's a it's a tricky question I know. But er to go back all I wanted to show to you is er how er this would be the Hegelian point about identity as self-reflective. About how er you have a multiplicity of real properties er er like er like socialism you live miserable er people exploit you and so on you add just the name the name unites it all into er the one. The name is an empty name not empty in the sense it means nothing but in the sense that er what it adds is just performatively itself as a name. All content is taken from elsewhere. Now you will say but names do designate something there must be something which is the objective counterpart to this empty signifier. That's what Lacan calls er object small a the er and you know this is how again we er operate when er again when you say I love er who was my choice ten minutes ago Christina Carla no Carla is you know why I avoided Carla I really love it's too too er first I hate Carla Bruni she is not my type to make it very clear. Er but point two it raises too many real er hopes with me like I still like those early er thrillers by John le Carré you know where the big enemy was Carla. Carla was the name of that mysterious head of KGB who did it and so on er so don't mess with Carla there is real love there er how should I put it no. Er but er er what I mean is that er er you know er er all when you say this pathetically er Carla is Carla it means it's not just er the bunch of properties it's er the one as it were and er this er er so er this er er in er er er er er er er in er this er sense we have here er if you want er a negation of negation. You start with an object which doesn't yet have full identity that would have been the position but it's nothing it even doesn't yet have the identity. Then er you er this er mass is negated every determination is negation true determinate properties er er beautiful nice er er er er sorry er for er er blah blah blah and then er you er negate the negation er Christina or whatever you you er er add er a name the name in this sense er signifier the name falls into the signified. In this sense for Hegel for example er the identity is a er reflective er category. Now I'm er sorry we don't have time to go into this because many er er er er critics have noted er and this is a serious debate in Hegel er studies. The problem is that er Hegel introduces er er such er er terms as concepts identity difference only at the beginning of the second book of Logic, Logic of Essence. But er he uses them from the very beginning. So what does this mean? Is Hegel inconsistent? Should we say that from the very beginning er he presupposes some conceptual determinations er er that he didn't er effectively er bring I mean this brings us to this er er to the intricate er er topic of the consistency of Hegel's logic and so on and so on er which er which would have been er too much. But that's my first point that I want to make er with Badiou. And here er we don't have time to go to it but er please don't misunderstand me Alain is my best friend but you know what's er for me a true definition of friendship. I saw a German er I love them er Nazi melodrama you know that er the big hit and Goebbels was er wise here in Nazi Germany where musicals and melodramas. Goebbels knew very well er you shouldn't feed the population just with er stupid propaganda no. Er okay and in one of them the er actress is a kind of a spoiled girl who has a fiancé and she humiliates him mocks him all the time. Fiancé is a rich guy from upper classes er so the father of this girl tells her: 'You shouldn't treat him like this er he will drop you whatever I want you to marry him.' Then you know what she answers? 'But I love him and if I love him I can do whatever I want er to him.' I mean er er er how should I put it er er there is er an element of truth in it. So in other words I love Badiou so let me say all er bad things I want er er about him er seriously. Er er all that stuff that er he was er er making with er intensity and so on and so on. I claim that er a little bit a lesson of Hegel would not hurt him er how should I put it you know what I mean that that er er this aspect of although he knows about it we have a long debate here you remember how at the end er er answering he said er: 'Yes identity in er that er er the bad world the the er intuitionist er er world yes identity is er symbolic and so on and so on.' But er he oscillates here. For example in er er er this er also would have been the answer to one of your questions ask him this and er er it's a friendly question I mean er er he will be glad to answer er er you because one of you I don't know if you are here er er er asked er er er him er a simple but er er er precise question. And I like these er simple precise questions because they are er the nastiest in the sense of er they are the really hard questions like how do you know that an event is an event this is the eternal question er that Badiou is attacked for like how do you distinguish er er an event from a pseudo-event? Er usually er er er politically er what is er behind here is Heidegger because for Badiou Heidegger is er an example of er getting er fascinated er seduced by er er er er er er a pseudo-event looking for a revolution he thought er er er er er he found it in er the Nazi er revolution er so how do you distinguish it? Er I don't think that you can really er catch him er er here er er he has er read him closely er er a precise er definition of er a site when er er where er an event can er emerge you know when er er he said when er what he didn't er develop er yesterday and er please press him on this not to er catch him but this is Badiou er at his er best. When he distinguishes er within er the multitude of er er a world er what he calls a world er er so-called er er er er er er evental er site why er er er like er er er er er er er what he called er er er er minimally er the non-existent the er er er er he er er er er er once er even sometimes he uses the wonderful name of er er er er sympto- of er symptomal er torsion an element which is er er er er er formally er er er part of the er set but lacks any er definite er er properties er er er to be properly er er er located within er the set is er er er as if the er excess er er er er er of the set sometimes he uses the term *surnuméraire* or whatever you know er er er it cannot be it is er er included but er er er cannot be properly er er er er er er er er er counted. So er er in other words er that's er er er crucial to understand him it's not just er that just er a multitude sorry multiplicity he would have er er er shot me for this er er er multitude is Negri you know you er er er er er mention er please er no er er er er er er it's er multiplicity incidentally er did you er er er get er er er er his his wonderful er point er there apropos er er multiplicity? It's er er a very er nice er position er er I think he is right er there er er er er his idea er is that and it's er er again er very Hegelian is that multiplicity is original ontologically er er you don't start with er er one and then you say okay er er er er er er we have one one er two ones as er er we go er er on on no er er er er er er er er originally er the many the er er multiple is original and er er er er er er er er now you will er say er but er fuck it er sorry er I'm now I will be really nasty er I'm er using these er er er er expressions and er gestures er so er er that you er er er will be er able to er understand er er me too er er er er er er er er er er sorry er er er er er er er er what I was er say is er that er er er er er er er er er now you will er say er you is the er er er er er er imagined er you the stupid partner that er I imagine er er er er er er we always think like this now er er er er er er er you will say er but wait a er minute if you er er have er multiple it er er er er er must mean er multiple is er by definition many er ones no er his er point er is no er it er er goes endlessly er you er analyze er er the multiple you go er er er er er further er there are always er er many you er er er er never er er er er er er er and if anything today's quantum physics er er makes er exactly the same er point er er er er that you er er er you will er never er er reach the er er er atomic er er er zero level. Er so er er er er er his very er nice theory is that er the er er correlate er er of multiple is er not one er but void zero er er er er er er er er er and er er that er er you er er arrive at one if you er count er er er er er er er er by er counting er er er er er nothing er er er by by er er counting er er er er er er er nothing. Er okay er but that's er er more the problem of er er er Frege I don't know if you know this er it's a wonderful er er er crucial er er er debate the notion of er *suture* er er *suture* which was introduced er er er by Miller way back er er in er Jacques-Alain Miller and er then Badiou er er wrote a polemics er against er it er er er er er er this is I think er the big er debate er er er but let me er go on er er er so er er er er er so again I don't think that er this er reproach er er er er er er holds because the er er way er er er to distinguish pseudo-event from er event er er is er precisely how er they er relate to this symptomal torsion point of inconsistency. Er er that's the first ontological premise which he er is er er er er sometimes er elaborates er maybe er not enough is er er that every totality er has its symptomal point and er er er er this can be er put wonderfully in Lacanian notions it er means what? It means that every structure is er er self-reflexive which means er that er er er er it er er let's take a er er classification. You know at the beginning of his er er what's the stupid English title the order of things *Les Mots et les Choses* that er er Foucault refers to that Borges' famous classification of dogs er white dogs fat dogs er all dogs which are er owned by the emperor er so er and then at the end all the dogs who are not included in this list. Er that's the structural logic. That er er you er er er how should I put it there must be a stand-in within a structure of what is not included in the structure. Er you must have er this er minimal reflexivity. Now you er er er will say er er this is er er high theory what does it mean? Ah I will give you a nasty example er which I use sometimes in my work er from er er er Marxism itself. Er er er I claim that what is called er er Asiatic er mode of production is er such er an empty er reflexive er er sign. That is to say it is er er er er clear er if you read Marx er really er er er closely er in er er er detail it is er er er er clear er that er er er er what really fits his er er conceptual er er er scheme are the standard well-known er how do you call it pre-class er societies tribal whatever er er slavery feudalism capitalism and er whatever er shit er er comes after er who knows no. Er er er but then er er of course Marx has er er er er er er specific ideas er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er despotism and so on but if you look at closely at it er what he er calls Asiatic mode of production is basically a er container where he throws practically er er everything which doesn't fit any of the others you know like everything goes there from from ancient China to Egypt to Latin I mean ancient Inca and so on Latin American empires. Er er er er so you see the paradox. This is a term which er appears to er refer er er to something er positive er but it's really just a negative container. The only er ultimately all this wealth of determinations yes Chinese er er ancient Chinese empire Hindu whatever er shouldn't deceive you. Er basically just a negative container. Er er er and er this would have been then the er symptomal this excessive er symptomal point. Er so I think that er er the reproach and I er am not er here dropping my topic er because er this is how Hegel's logic works this is Hegelian er reflexivity. Er the way Badiou I think can answer triumphantly this er er reproach er er but how do you know let's be er concrete for example how do you know er er er that why October Revolution was an event if it was for me it was I give you freedom of choice er er but I am er er here er you know that wonderful aggressive er er statement of Lenin where er some guy er protested oh er can I have the freedom of choice just to er say er what I want? You know what Lenin answers: 'I definitely give you the freedom of choice to say the stupidities you want to say. But then I take to myself a freedom of choice to shoot you for what you are saying, no? This...' Okay er er er sorry let me go on. Er so er er er er er er it's clearly er er er that er er er er they er relate differently to what Badiou er called yesterday this er er er er er er the inexistent. Because er er this er er what he calls shift from er inexistence to the maximum er intensity er happens only in er an event. Er er in Nazism the er er symptomal point is just mystified er cover up. In other words er er let's class struggle at least er in principle let's forget about the er shit that actually happens. Er in a er communist er er revolution er workers er effectively I'm not saying they do er should become or whatever er er you know they set the standard. Er er those er er it's not that er all others should be er killed because if there were er all er other classes if er er er this were to be the case er then er er er er Lenin should have begun er er by killing er er er himself er no er incidentally it's er clear er that er he was er a typical er even upper er middle class guy who er really er er er er er had no er idea er of er er er real working classes like er the er irony is that er if you er look at er er some er Lenin's letters er you know that er for some time he was er er living er in er Switzerland er er er and er er er he was er er staying by some er middle class er er er er er artisanal er er family er who had a er house er er er er er they rented him er er er a room er er blah blah and er er er Lenin wrote enthusiastic er er letters to er friends now er er er er I see er I am er er er in contact with er ordinary er er people er workers er fuck him er er er er er er er er er er these were er no workers er this was er typical er er er er er er er er er er er er not even lower er er middle class er you know er that er er but er Nonetheless what I want to say is that in Nazism er er er er er also confronts the same problem: class struggle. Er but er er it er doesn't er do er er er this er operation let's shift er er the er er er er inexistent er er er to the maximum er intensity on the contrary it just wants to er control the struggle by er imputing the cause of the struggle to an er er er er external er er er er agent it's not er er er because er society er is er er itself er er in er itself er antagonistic it's because er the Jews from outside er introduced er chaos and so on and then er to er er er impose on it some er kind of er hierarchic er er order and so on and so on where er er workers er er are er still down but er er they are taken care of at least officially you know er all er er er this shit er the er relationship er er between capital and er work er er shouldn't er er be er just er er one er of er er financial exploitation er capitalists er should be a er er kind of er a father er er taking er er care of blah blah all er this idea of er sentimental more er authentic er er er relations er between master and servant and so on and so on. Er er so er again the moment you er don't just er say er er multiplicity and then er er er er er miracle er of er the event er er er but the moment you er er take er into er er er account er that er event is er very er precisely defined as er where how an event can er er er er intervene which is why er er maybe er er er sometimes Badiou er doesn't er accentuate this enough er er er er an event is er purely structural. Er you can er do er the same thing er but if er you er er do it er er er a little er bit er too er late it's er er no er longer er an event. Er you know what I mean you must do it er er er er er at er the right er time. Sorry did er you er want to er er er er or er did er you just er er er er sorry er you know er this is the semantic er er er misunderstanding often er er er er er it er er happens to me I don't know is the guy er scratching his head not er you oh right er both okay er er er sorry ah this is er called overdetermination of er nature and culture er sorry please er er er er. You talked about self-reflexive nature er of the argument. Isn't it that he is trying to get at that it's either zero or infinity pretty much? That there is no self-reflexiveness? Er we would have to go er here to er what he means er by self-reflexiveness. It's er er good that you er touch er this topic because er he er he er er I think that er er even er now er he struggles er er a little bit er with er this and er er for his er own er good it would er be er good if in er a debate er and again I'm er not er er slandering er him er behind er his er back er you er can er report er er er er anything you er want er like er all the er er dirty things er er that er I er can er tell you er for example er this is my standard er joke er about him er no I er will er immediately return to it I er will er not forget er er er what you said. For example er do you know which movies er he er likes? This is er er a er standing joke er er between me and him er he knows er er er that I er always er er spread er this er slander but it's true. The Bridges of Madison County. Yeah yeah *The Bridges of Madison County* he thinks is er a really great er film. Er then er he has er a er soft er spot for *Armageddon* you know er this er kind er of er er catastrophe er er er er er nobody is er er er er er er er perfect I er would er er er er er say sorry er but er er let's go let's go on er with this infinity and er er er event and so on er er er er. You're self-reflexive, you're Badiou. Yeah yeah er yeah. Er some er in er the sense that in *Being and Event* er he er still er er er claims er that er er er an event er er er includes its er own nomination. Er that is er er to say er er er in er er another er way er er er er er that er an event is an er event only for those er er er er er er er er who are er engaged in er the event. Er er er student er but er er to move er down er to your er level er maybe let's take the orgasm as an event that er... why should it be an event? No here I'm er conservative. Why should orgasm be an event like okay let me be extremely vulgar let's say I'm a sadist let's say I'm a sadist let's say I will go back sorry to tested waters let's say I'm a sadist and I want to I want to I don't know cut an er er a needle into your eye. What if I discover the desire to do it infinitely? I doubt this would count as an you know what I mean. Let's talk about my example though orgasm. Yeah. An event that that inspires er infinite number of events like we always want more of it, right? Orgasm is not an event. Yeah okay er but er how should I put it yeah okay er er er er er so er what's the point do you er think er this is er enough er er of er a er again er for Badiou let's be er precise event is something which intervenes at that point of symptomal torsion the inexistent of the structure. Where do you have this in orgasm? I tend more to agree with Badiou who er er you know when he defines a situation he said that every situation had this er er er not er er infinite in the positive sense like the infinity of the event but the measureless. For him enjoyment *jouissance* is infinite in the in the more er bad Hegelian sense of the it's boundless. And as such it's open to this or that use. Which is why for example Badiou I agree here with him opposes both standard versions of you know this old boring topic sexuality and revolution. On the one hand the conservative revolutionaries like sexuality is the last trap of bourgeois ideology to catch us and er er you know the true
unknown
revolutionary
revolutionary
Slavoj Žižek
must er forget about his sexuality be ascetic. Or on the other hand this '68 stuff you know er er er those in power rule us through sexual oppression sexual liberationist blah blah. I I spontaneously to me sexual enjoyment is more this formless act neutral er... inside of love let's go back to your statement about love and procreation. Let's say an orgasm can be an event inside of the idea of procreation now. Why? Why not? What makes procreation more than just the animal... well you were making a point about sex outside of marriage er no longer being illicit right inside of the idea of love. Yeah but nonetheless it doesn't make it in itself more authentic how should I put it er that's a nice question you touch here I'm so sad we cannot go endlessly into this but er I er I had a great debate with Badiou here very personal not in any nasty sense and er he er also er er agreed with me er that er you know er in the West er we have er you know that famous book how is the guy who wrote it I forgot my God *L'Amour et l'Occident*, 'Love in the West,' that er great er er it er er will er er come to me the er name er he is a er er er er er er er er great er French historian of ideas er er it's it's even the the great reference to Lacan the on the notion of courtly love where the idea is er true love is not possible within marriage the true love has to be transgressive. I totally I'm opposed to this idea so back to you.
must er forget about his sexuality be ascetic. Or on the other hand this '68 stuff you know er er er those in power rule us through sexual oppression sexual liberationist blah blah. I I spontaneously to me sexual enjoyment is more this formless act neutral er... inside of love let's go back to your statement about love and procreation. Let's say an orgasm can be an event inside of the idea of procreation now. Why? Why not? What makes procreation more than just the animal... well you were making a point about sex outside of marriage er no longer being illicit right inside of the idea of love. Yeah but nonetheless it doesn't make it in itself more authentic how should I put it er that's a nice question you touch here I'm so sad we cannot go endlessly into this but er I er I had a great debate with Badiou here very personal not in any nasty sense and er he er also er er agreed with me er that er you know er in the West er we have er you know that famous book how is the guy who wrote it I forgot my God *L'Amour et l'Occident*, 'Love in the West,' that er great er er it er er will er er come to me the er name er he is a er er er er er er er er great er French historian of ideas er er it's it's even the the great reference to Lacan the on the notion of courtly love where the idea is er true love is not possible within marriage the true love has to be transgressive. I totally I'm opposed to this idea so back to you.
unknown
Okay it can be outside
Okay it can be outside
Slavoj Žižek
marriage but it's not a condition. Just er just a framework for the event
marriage but it's not a condition. Just er just a framework for the event
unknown
I was trying to establish the
I was trying to establish the
Slavoj Žižek
framework. But what would have been event here? Yes, you are after I know. The event would have been the inception I guess. But why? What give me a precise definition what is what makes an... creation of life as an event? Yeah but again why should... I'm here more a Badiouian idealist. I mean I think that you identify event too much with something beautiful new which happens. That's not enough. Well isn't that a
framework. But what would have been event here? Yes, you are after I know. The event would have been the inception I guess. But why? What give me a precise definition what is what makes an... creation of life as an event? Yeah but again why should... I'm here more a Badiouian idealist. I mean I think that you identify event too much with something beautiful new which happens. That's not enough. Well isn't that a
unknown
materialist view though that er related to... yeah but again for Badiou again I'm returning to my old point for Badiou to
materialist view though that er related to... yeah but again for Badiou again I'm returning to my old point for Badiou to
Slavoj Žižek
have an event it must intervene into the symptomal point this torsion whatever of a situation as he emphasizes again and again there are no universal events. What about indiscernible? You said there must be an indiscernible for an event. Yeah... I just don't... yeah that's sorry that's the term I was using I was er I was missing yes you are right that for him *jouissance* is indiscernible. And the subject somehow sucks this out of the er meaning out of the indiscernible. Yeah yeah. So for him an event would have been if orgasm becomes through love you know that it's... but orgasm is always in a fantasy in the er in the er in the er in the er event in the orgasm in a sense the object is a fantasy there's no indiscernible object you've already created the object in the fantasy. Yeah but nonetheless okay we cannot go into it I'm tempted to say that it's... there is no objects I mean you're in er you're in er one what object is there... I doubt... no one should be more tricky here I mean er how should I put it you know it's mystery I I I it's complex what really happens not in biological sense but... I just don't think that the er notion of orgasm fits into the event. Well I mean I think it I think it would if you included like all the conditions for sexuality going out to dinner er an on-drive stuff like that it could create
have an event it must intervene into the symptomal point this torsion whatever of a situation as he emphasizes again and again there are no universal events. What about indiscernible? You said there must be an indiscernible for an event. Yeah... I just don't... yeah that's sorry that's the term I was using I was er I was missing yes you are right that for him *jouissance* is indiscernible. And the subject somehow sucks this out of the er meaning out of the indiscernible. Yeah yeah. So for him an event would have been if orgasm becomes through love you know that it's... but orgasm is always in a fantasy in the er in the er in the er in the er event in the orgasm in a sense the object is a fantasy there's no indiscernible object you've already created the object in the fantasy. Yeah but nonetheless okay we cannot go into it I'm tempted to say that it's... there is no objects I mean you're in er you're in er one what object is there... I doubt... no one should be more tricky here I mean er how should I put it you know it's mystery I I I it's complex what really happens not in biological sense but... I just don't think that the er notion of orgasm fits into the event. Well I mean I think it I think it would if you included like all the conditions for sexuality going out to dinner er an on-drive stuff like that it could create
unknown
the conditions for an event. You know what which maybe this is my
the conditions for an event. You know what which maybe this is my
Slavoj Žižek
melodramatic mind. But you know which situations interest me er or the er potential event?
melodramatic mind. But you know which situations interest me er or the er potential event?
unknown
Did you see a shitty melodrama but which is not totally bad I liked it when I was younger er with Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro not *The Deer Hunter*
Did you see a shitty melodrama but which is not totally bad I liked it when I was younger er with Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro not *The Deer Hunter*
Slavoj Žižek
er *Falling in Love*. Where they they are both married they start to meet and then they decide to do it. They go to an empty apartment that is given to Robert De Niro to use it by a friend and then they start to embrace and they they stop. They don't do it. This makes it an event I claim. Because they are well aware that by doing it at that moment at that precise moment it would have meant it's just a cheap love affair. By not doing it they assert it as... so zero. No I know, I know you are back, yeah, you are, I had you in my mind, yeah. No okay er er er. No okay er er er. No okay er er er er er er this is a very good conversation because the event has to introduce some form of rupture with all the norms that have already been established with laws and norms er yeah yeah yeah. But in combination with sexuality because the event what it does is opens up the field of possibilities like what you suggested it so it introduces infinity to a finite situation and Lacan said that the only thing that is infinite is the woman's orgasm. The only thing that er is infinite? Yeah? Is the woman's orgasm? This is... yeah but I I
er *Falling in Love*. Where they they are both married they start to meet and then they decide to do it. They go to an empty apartment that is given to Robert De Niro to use it by a friend and then they start to embrace and they they stop. They don't do it. This makes it an event I claim. Because they are well aware that by doing it at that moment at that precise moment it would have meant it's just a cheap love affair. By not doing it they assert it as... so zero. No I know, I know you are back, yeah, you are, I had you in my mind, yeah. No okay er er er. No okay er er er. No okay er er er er er er this is a very good conversation because the event has to introduce some form of rupture with all the norms that have already been established with laws and norms er yeah yeah yeah. But in combination with sexuality because the event what it does is opens up the field of possibilities like what you suggested it so it introduces infinity to a finite situation and Lacan said that the only thing that is infinite is the woman's orgasm. The only thing that er is infinite? Yeah? Is the woman's orgasm? This is... yeah but I I
unknown
I have I must
I have I must
Slavoj Žižek
now we are entering another domain. I with all my er admiration for Lacan's *Encore*, his Seminar I claim that he oscillates there getting dangerously close sometimes to this idea of: men are fully within the symbolic order, but there is but women not fully, there is some aspect of infinite incredible intense enjoyment that we men can only, you know, this to use that term precisely of subject supposed
now we are entering another domain. I with all my er admiration for Lacan's *Encore*, his Seminar I claim that he oscillates there getting dangerously close sometimes to this idea of: men are fully within the symbolic order, but there is but women not fully, there is some aspect of infinite incredible intense enjoyment that we men can only, you know, this to use that term precisely of subject supposed
unknown
to know, as if woman is the subject supposed to enjoy fully.
to know, as if woman is the subject supposed to enjoy fully.
Slavoj Žižek
Lacan is here much more ambiguous. I claim he as it is always with Lacan he cheats like crazy but that's why I like him because he is truly creative in the sense that he is experimenting taking one path going back the next one all... okay to simplify it very much. I claim Lacan oscillates there between the two versions of
Lacan is here much more ambiguous. I claim he as it is always with Lacan he cheats like crazy but that's why I like him because he is truly creative in the sense that he is experimenting taking one path going back the next one all... okay to simplify it very much. I claim Lacan oscillates there between the two versions of
unknown
how
how
Slavoj Žižek
are we to understand the so-called, you know we are talking now about this so-called formulas of sexuation er male-female.
are we to understand the so-called, you know we are talking now about this so-called formulas of sexuation er male-female.
unknown
To
To
Slavoj Žižek
put it very simply and elementary for Lacan the male formula of sexuation is universality with
put it very simply and elementary for Lacan the male formula of sexuation is universality with
unknown
an exception. You assert universality
an exception. You assert universality
Slavoj Žižek
but universality is founded in an exception. For er women it's er non-all, which means no universality
but universality is founded in an exception. For er women it's er non-all, which means no universality
unknown
but—this is what
but—this is what
Slavoj Žižek
people tend to forget—also no exception. Now how do you read this? The way I read it is... the way it is usually read is: men are fully within the phallic symbolic order, their *jouissance* is phallic which means already mediated by the signifier, symbolic fantasies, blah
people tend to forget—also no exception. Now how do you read this? The way I read it is... the way it is usually read is: men are fully within the phallic symbolic order, their *jouissance* is phallic which means already mediated by the signifier, symbolic fantasies, blah
unknown
blah.
blah.
unknown
Women are only partially only a part
Women are only partially only a part
Slavoj Žižek
of a woman is er involved in this Oedipal symbolic castration dynamic, you also have an aspect of this unspeakable Other *jouissance* which is absolute as exemplified in the mystical trance of Saint Teresa and so on and so on. I I think this is a misreading and I think that in so far as we understand... so the danger would be the... you talking about the danger of Badiou's theory here would be the reduction to er an answer a universal, right? No, no, no, sorry now I'm making another point. I even don't see directly the link with Badiou the point about... okay I will explain. Now I have the link with with er Badiou but it's more er... I will explain. If you want to get an idea of this phallic male position it would have been in Saint Paul the way Badiou interprets wonderfully Saint Paul that er Paulinian er dialectic of law and its transgression. It is the excess transgression which
of a woman is er involved in this Oedipal symbolic castration dynamic, you also have an aspect of this unspeakable Other *jouissance* which is absolute as exemplified in the mystical trance of Saint Teresa and so on and so on. I I think this is a misreading and I think that in so far as we understand... so the danger would be the... you talking about the danger of Badiou's theory here would be the reduction to er an answer a universal, right? No, no, no, sorry now I'm making another point. I even don't see directly the link with Badiou the point about... okay I will explain. Now I have the link with with er Badiou but it's more er... I will explain. If you want to get an idea of this phallic male position it would have been in Saint Paul the way Badiou interprets wonderfully Saint Paul that er Paulinian er dialectic of law and its transgression. It is the excess transgression which
unknown
grounds
grounds
Slavoj Žižek
the
the
unknown
law and it's the law which grounds transgression, that would be the male dynamic as it were. And but and so for me love the way Paul understands love would be formally in this purely formalized term on the feminine side non-all and so on and so on. But let me just finish please the previous line because it's important. What I'm tempted to say is that the way I read it is that er if the male position is the position of within the symbolic order but with an exception then precisely the idea of a woman who is this absolute woman
law and it's the law which grounds transgression, that would be the male dynamic as it were. And but and so for me love the way Paul understands love would be formally in this purely formalized term on the feminine side non-all and so on and so on. But let me just finish please the previous line because it's important. What I'm tempted to say is that the way I read it is that er if the male position is the position of within the symbolic order but with an exception then precisely the idea of a woman who is this absolute woman
Slavoj Žižek
outside language fully enjoys in a trance is a male
outside language fully enjoys in a trance is a male
unknown
fantasy. This is the ultimate
fantasy. This is the ultimate
Slavoj Žižek
male fantasy. This is not the non-all and so on. Even Lacan can be here... one can argue against Lacan through his own example which is very unfortunate for him, Saint Teresa. Fuck him, rich Saint Teresa. She was in no way outside the symbolic, she was writing like crazy. All her you know how much she was writing? Her mystical experience as nice analysis I think by Roland Barthes and others demonstrated her mystical experience is all in her writing also. Also isn't it as Saint Teresa statue, isn't it the Bernini Saint Teresa? Yeah that's yeah that's yeah that's Bernini's Saint Teresa the er that's also a male fantasy of course yeah yeah yeah Bernini and er you know the greatest movie of er last year that total shit my God it's not good and I wanted to like it er *Angels and Demons*. You also there er we are all waiting for the... is it out in one month from now the new... the new Dan Brown? Yeah. Yeah don't you follow world culture? Okay let's stop this obscenity sorry. But seriously what I want to say is that the way I read it is that the very idea of behind the very idea that there is one side of woman the mask the civilized woman but that beneath there is the true absolute woman you know 'She' like 'She' with capital 'S' like you know that famous male chauvinist Rider Haggard the author of *Solomon's Mines* novel. He also wrote a novel *She* where in the middle of Africa a dark kingdom where an absolute woman... this is the male fantasy. So the way I read Lacan is that this other *jouissance* he is talking about it's not outside language but it's on the contrary fully in language. That woman is more in language than men. The fact that woman is not all in language doesn't mean part of her is out, it means she has no exception as Lacan puts it. Non-all at the same time means there is nothing which is not in, which is outside. Lacan is much more paradoxical here. So I claim that Lacan's point is that universality needs a founding exception. Once again once you are on the feminine side you no longer need an exception. So I think again all this topic even Kristeva falls
male fantasy. This is not the non-all and so on. Even Lacan can be here... one can argue against Lacan through his own example which is very unfortunate for him, Saint Teresa. Fuck him, rich Saint Teresa. She was in no way outside the symbolic, she was writing like crazy. All her you know how much she was writing? Her mystical experience as nice analysis I think by Roland Barthes and others demonstrated her mystical experience is all in her writing also. Also isn't it as Saint Teresa statue, isn't it the Bernini Saint Teresa? Yeah that's yeah that's yeah that's Bernini's Saint Teresa the er that's also a male fantasy of course yeah yeah yeah Bernini and er you know the greatest movie of er last year that total shit my God it's not good and I wanted to like it er *Angels and Demons*. You also there er we are all waiting for the... is it out in one month from now the new... the new Dan Brown? Yeah. Yeah don't you follow world culture? Okay let's stop this obscenity sorry. But seriously what I want to say is that the way I read it is that the very idea of behind the very idea that there is one side of woman the mask the civilized woman but that beneath there is the true absolute woman you know 'She' like 'She' with capital 'S' like you know that famous male chauvinist Rider Haggard the author of *Solomon's Mines* novel. He also wrote a novel *She* where in the middle of Africa a dark kingdom where an absolute woman... this is the male fantasy. So the way I read Lacan is that this other *jouissance* he is talking about it's not outside language but it's on the contrary fully in language. That woman is more in language than men. The fact that woman is not all in language doesn't mean part of her is out, it means she has no exception as Lacan puts it. Non-all at the same time means there is nothing which is not in, which is outside. Lacan is much more paradoxical here. So I claim that Lacan's point is that universality needs a founding exception. Once again once you are on the feminine side you no longer need an exception. So I think again all this topic even Kristeva falls
unknown
for it you know. But can't
for it you know. But can't
Slavoj Žižek
you relate that to infinity and zero? I mean your very examples right there. Er I think I'm not good enough here. My simple answer it's an extremely simple answer would have been that in order to do this properly but I'm too stupid and confused now to do it would have been to relate to all this it wasn't my God Frege who did that who did er the different infinities Badiou likes him... Cantor. Cantor, yeah, to go to Cantor different types of infinity that to put it in very simplistic terms male infinity this phallic the phallic orgasm that you mentioned is still I would say no that okay I'll put it in this way. When you said when you have one orgasm you want to go on on on, but the male formula would have been this the simple pre-Cantorian infinity. On more on more more more. It's still a kind of a linear simple infinity. You need to get the infinity of feminine *jouissance* you need a different type of... the example was an idealist finite more or less idea I was trying to... er no but okay what I wanted to aim at but we will not have time to today would be the Hegelian notion of infinity as self-relating without exception I wanted to to come at this later. But again the point let's at least conclude with this what I wanted to conclude here is that again er beware how you read Lacan that don't fall into this trap of you know feminine *jouissance* some mysterious feminine excess and so on and so on and so on. Which is why I think women should like that apparently anti-feminist idea of—although it was proposed by a woman as you may must know—of femininity as a masquerade. This means precisely that woman is more of a subject. Masquerade means like onion you know you just have layers of masks in the middle it's nothing. What's this nothing? This nothing is the Cartesian subject who is a nothing. And if you read German idealists at its deepest for example Schelling somewhere have a whole idea where he claims subjectivity at its most radical is feminine. This is why incidentally I'm pro-Cartesian. You know that the standard feminist line unfortunately is Descartes is a male chauvinist his *Cogito* may appear neutral but is in reality masculine. I think on the contrary it's feminine which is why it's not an accident I don't know if you know this it's simply a historical data. Do you know that Descartes' first and most
you relate that to infinity and zero? I mean your very examples right there. Er I think I'm not good enough here. My simple answer it's an extremely simple answer would have been that in order to do this properly but I'm too stupid and confused now to do it would have been to relate to all this it wasn't my God Frege who did that who did er the different infinities Badiou likes him... Cantor. Cantor, yeah, to go to Cantor different types of infinity that to put it in very simplistic terms male infinity this phallic the phallic orgasm that you mentioned is still I would say no that okay I'll put it in this way. When you said when you have one orgasm you want to go on on on, but the male formula would have been this the simple pre-Cantorian infinity. On more on more more more. It's still a kind of a linear simple infinity. You need to get the infinity of feminine *jouissance* you need a different type of... the example was an idealist finite more or less idea I was trying to... er no but okay what I wanted to aim at but we will not have time to today would be the Hegelian notion of infinity as self-relating without exception I wanted to to come at this later. But again the point let's at least conclude with this what I wanted to conclude here is that again er beware how you read Lacan that don't fall into this trap of you know feminine *jouissance* some mysterious feminine excess and so on and so on and so on. Which is why I think women should like that apparently anti-feminist idea of—although it was proposed by a woman as you may must know—of femininity as a masquerade. This means precisely that woman is more of a subject. Masquerade means like onion you know you just have layers of masks in the middle it's nothing. What's this nothing? This nothing is the Cartesian subject who is a nothing. And if you read German idealists at its deepest for example Schelling somewhere have a whole idea where he claims subjectivity at its most radical is feminine. This is why incidentally I'm pro-Cartesian. You know that the standard feminist line unfortunately is Descartes is a male chauvinist his *Cogito* may appear neutral but is in reality masculine. I think on the contrary it's feminine which is why it's not an accident I don't know if you know this it's simply a historical data. Do you know that Descartes' first and most
unknown
enthusiastic public were
enthusiastic public were
Slavoj Žižek
women? Not only the Queen Christina in Sweden but... okay but nonetheless let's go back to point maybe this will bring it closer er Badiou that way Badiou event. Okay so er again I think you can deliver Badiou you can save Badiou from that standard reproach by look- always remembering it's not an inherent property which makes an event an event. It's the way it intervenes into a structure. Where I er so again in his *L'être et l'événement*, *Being and Event*, he still has this theory that an event includes its own nomination. Which means in another way that an event is an event only for those who are engaged in the event. His own example is for example French Revolution. If you are an objective historian you will never discover there was something the great French Revolution. Then you can play the game by that er how she called François Furet. The great liberal historian French whose whole point Badiou knows this is to de-eventualize er how should I put it to un-event the French Revolution. To show it wasn't a big thing it was just some local French confusion because blah blah and so on. So know this is why Badiou is very precise here when he refers to event as a grace, miracle. And but the way he understands miracle is in the in the Jansenist and Calvinist sense. You know how? You know that er it's a very beautiful theory of a miracle where they claim miracle doesn't violate the laws of nature miracle appears as a miracle only to those who believe in it. They don't... miracle is not something that you can convince like: 'You don't believe I do, okay, I will show you a miracle I can stand on my feet and jump up meters so...' No, no, no, miracle is and in this same sense there is no there are no neutral events. Events are events only for the engaged. Yeah. But but but let me go on. The problem and then you can counterfire... I just want to where you should do to Badiou... you know you showed me to you that famous image of balls hanging, no? It's not famous, but yeah. Okay but you should maybe do a little bit of this procedure to Badiou for his own good no? Squeeze his balls at this... so one later in his *Logic of the Worlds* he drops this. He no longer claims that an event includes its own nomination. What er he now on the one hand tends more and more to emphasize a gap between an event and its nomination. An event is something that just explodes and then for example in examples of Christianity: Christ's resurrection, it doesn't matter it happened or not, is the event. But it became an event only through its proper nomination with with Paul, not even in the Gospels, with Paul. Now the problem here is the following one, and Badiou knows it. Is there an... and I claim maybe I'm wrong that he tends to oscillate here a little bit. Is an event already in itself an event or does an event only retroactively through its nomination and through fidelity of its followers, what Badiou calls in this religious Marxist terms the patient work of love, where you work to inscribe the event into the order of being. Here I claim he is looking for different ways like er sometimes he sounds almost for me a little bit too close to deconstructionism in the sense that an event is only a retroactive effect of its nomination. That something happens it can be nothing, retroactively it becomes an event. Or infinite possibility or nothing. Infinite possibility or nothing? Yeah there's the paradox. Yeah but but again er if you say this it... which equals one. Yeah then I think you get a little bit too close to this standard the danger no? So er because er but sometimes he sounds again as if it's only the nomination which retroactively creates event. On the other hand sometimes he plays on an event as some traumatic occurrence for which we always look for a proper nomination but we find it difficult even to find a proper name for it. For example when he writes about about 20th century or 19th century revolutions. Sometimes he says that maybe all this Marxist terminology of class struggle is a wrong name. But fuck it, a wrong name for what? So is it as if... this you know he as it were oscillates oscillates oscillates between these two. So my solution here is er... he wouldn't agree, no it's of course the Hegelian-Lacanian both at the same time. My solution is even a very is that no er I want to avoid both deviations, as a Stalinist, right-wing and left-wing. Right-wing deviation would be a naive substantialism: there really is an event, a miracle happens whatever, and then we try to catch up with it, what it is blah blah but as we like to say there is a remainder we never can do it blah blah. Then the other deviation left-wing would be this deconstructionist game: all there is is only a flux game language and retroactively but in a totally contingent way some things are elevated into the status of event and so on. Well I quote what he said last night and that seems to be the deviation. He said this you know this theory of his is basically against the brutal use of dualism. So I think that that is the absolute er in him. Yeah, yeah. And okay so let me go on. So the negation is not describing it. No but er the negation of the object? Yeah. But my... okay so let's go back to the. My solution would be the following one, again maybe you know this I often this example but I found it beautiful in my books. What happens in Einstein—I simplify it very much I know but to simplify it—in Einstein's passage from special to general theory of relativity. As you probably know the key one of the key moments of Einstein there is this how do you pronounce it in English curved space curvature of space that the space is not straight blah blah no? Okay incidentally this has wonderful uses for psychoanalysis because what Lacan calls desire you know the paradox to put it in very simplistic term of curved space is that precisely sometimes the shortest way to get from A to B is not the straight line. But because the space is curved it's faster if you go around. But that's desire. Isn't the whole point of human desire that—sorry again I cannot—I love Christina if I just jump on her and screw her no. You must you know the whole point is to make the detour no? In other words the space of desire is a curved space no? Okay but you know what's the shift how to account for this curvature curved space in er Einstein? Einstein first defines matter the inertia of matter stuff as that which curves space. To put it very simply without matter empty space would have been like geometrical flat. Then you put like let's say it would be like this you put some matter here and it curves the space. So that the curvature of the space is the effect of matter. Ah but then comes the Hegelian genius no? You know what is then Einstein's move to turn things around to say that no the curvature of the space is original and matter is just an effect of the curved space. I love this purely formal materialism. You can get rid of this you know I hate this vulgar materialism where you think ooh it must smell you must feel it like the inertia inertia of matter. I claim that today and here I agree with Badiou let me go back to that point of infinity and so on. Did you notice something very strange how in the 20th century it started with Heidegger
women? Not only the Queen Christina in Sweden but... okay but nonetheless let's go back to point maybe this will bring it closer er Badiou that way Badiou event. Okay so er again I think you can deliver Badiou you can save Badiou from that standard reproach by look- always remembering it's not an inherent property which makes an event an event. It's the way it intervenes into a structure. Where I er so again in his *L'être et l'événement*, *Being and Event*, he still has this theory that an event includes its own nomination. Which means in another way that an event is an event only for those who are engaged in the event. His own example is for example French Revolution. If you are an objective historian you will never discover there was something the great French Revolution. Then you can play the game by that er how she called François Furet. The great liberal historian French whose whole point Badiou knows this is to de-eventualize er how should I put it to un-event the French Revolution. To show it wasn't a big thing it was just some local French confusion because blah blah and so on. So know this is why Badiou is very precise here when he refers to event as a grace, miracle. And but the way he understands miracle is in the in the Jansenist and Calvinist sense. You know how? You know that er it's a very beautiful theory of a miracle where they claim miracle doesn't violate the laws of nature miracle appears as a miracle only to those who believe in it. They don't... miracle is not something that you can convince like: 'You don't believe I do, okay, I will show you a miracle I can stand on my feet and jump up meters so...' No, no, no, miracle is and in this same sense there is no there are no neutral events. Events are events only for the engaged. Yeah. But but but let me go on. The problem and then you can counterfire... I just want to where you should do to Badiou... you know you showed me to you that famous image of balls hanging, no? It's not famous, but yeah. Okay but you should maybe do a little bit of this procedure to Badiou for his own good no? Squeeze his balls at this... so one later in his *Logic of the Worlds* he drops this. He no longer claims that an event includes its own nomination. What er he now on the one hand tends more and more to emphasize a gap between an event and its nomination. An event is something that just explodes and then for example in examples of Christianity: Christ's resurrection, it doesn't matter it happened or not, is the event. But it became an event only through its proper nomination with with Paul, not even in the Gospels, with Paul. Now the problem here is the following one, and Badiou knows it. Is there an... and I claim maybe I'm wrong that he tends to oscillate here a little bit. Is an event already in itself an event or does an event only retroactively through its nomination and through fidelity of its followers, what Badiou calls in this religious Marxist terms the patient work of love, where you work to inscribe the event into the order of being. Here I claim he is looking for different ways like er sometimes he sounds almost for me a little bit too close to deconstructionism in the sense that an event is only a retroactive effect of its nomination. That something happens it can be nothing, retroactively it becomes an event. Or infinite possibility or nothing. Infinite possibility or nothing? Yeah there's the paradox. Yeah but but again er if you say this it... which equals one. Yeah then I think you get a little bit too close to this standard the danger no? So er because er but sometimes he sounds again as if it's only the nomination which retroactively creates event. On the other hand sometimes he plays on an event as some traumatic occurrence for which we always look for a proper nomination but we find it difficult even to find a proper name for it. For example when he writes about about 20th century or 19th century revolutions. Sometimes he says that maybe all this Marxist terminology of class struggle is a wrong name. But fuck it, a wrong name for what? So is it as if... this you know he as it were oscillates oscillates oscillates between these two. So my solution here is er... he wouldn't agree, no it's of course the Hegelian-Lacanian both at the same time. My solution is even a very is that no er I want to avoid both deviations, as a Stalinist, right-wing and left-wing. Right-wing deviation would be a naive substantialism: there really is an event, a miracle happens whatever, and then we try to catch up with it, what it is blah blah but as we like to say there is a remainder we never can do it blah blah. Then the other deviation left-wing would be this deconstructionist game: all there is is only a flux game language and retroactively but in a totally contingent way some things are elevated into the status of event and so on. Well I quote what he said last night and that seems to be the deviation. He said this you know this theory of his is basically against the brutal use of dualism. So I think that that is the absolute er in him. Yeah, yeah. And okay so let me go on. So the negation is not describing it. No but er the negation of the object? Yeah. But my... okay so let's go back to the. My solution would be the following one, again maybe you know this I often this example but I found it beautiful in my books. What happens in Einstein—I simplify it very much I know but to simplify it—in Einstein's passage from special to general theory of relativity. As you probably know the key one of the key moments of Einstein there is this how do you pronounce it in English curved space curvature of space that the space is not straight blah blah no? Okay incidentally this has wonderful uses for psychoanalysis because what Lacan calls desire you know the paradox to put it in very simplistic term of curved space is that precisely sometimes the shortest way to get from A to B is not the straight line. But because the space is curved it's faster if you go around. But that's desire. Isn't the whole point of human desire that—sorry again I cannot—I love Christina if I just jump on her and screw her no. You must you know the whole point is to make the detour no? In other words the space of desire is a curved space no? Okay but you know what's the shift how to account for this curvature curved space in er Einstein? Einstein first defines matter the inertia of matter stuff as that which curves space. To put it very simply without matter empty space would have been like geometrical flat. Then you put like let's say it would be like this you put some matter here and it curves the space. So that the curvature of the space is the effect of matter. Ah but then comes the Hegelian genius no? You know what is then Einstein's move to turn things around to say that no the curvature of the space is original and matter is just an effect of the curved space. I love this purely formal materialism. You can get rid of this you know I hate this vulgar materialism where you think ooh it must smell you must feel it like the inertia inertia of matter. I claim that today and here I agree with Badiou let me go back to that point of infinity and so on. Did you notice something very strange how in the 20th century it started with Heidegger
unknown
er finitude become more and more the last resort of spiritualism idealism. Before in the 19th century to be for
er finitude become more and more the last resort of spiritualism idealism. Before in the 19th century to be for
Slavoj Žižek
finitude was
finitude was
unknown
usually
usually
Slavoj Žižek
the vulgar materialism: only finite real material things exist, infinity is a metaphysical dream and so on and so on. But then today more and more it is science in its pure formalism which gets more and more infinities and here Badiou is right as far as I can understand. I talk with some mathematicians partially I hope I understand them. That this is the result of Cantor revolution where you know what's the point? Till Cantor infinity was linked to the One. Infinity was the transcending One and so on. From Cantor you have a material multiple infinity, infinity of the multiple. But what I'm saying is that for example look at the cinema. Isn't it strange that the author who is maybe the most spiritualist movie maker of the 20th century the Russian guy Tarkovsky is at the same time the most materialist. Do you remember how a spiritual experience looks in Tarkovsky? It's not up heaven. You immerse yourself deeply into the earth: all the dirt, mud, water and so on. This idea of materialized spirituality. So I think that er in this sense we live in paradoxical time where finitude no longer acts but to emphasize that we humans are thrown into a world always a finite situation precisely this limitation opens then up a space for some divine spiritual otherness. Of course as they will say this is er er er post-metaphysical otherness you know all this crap I don't like it maybe you do pseudo-Levinasian or whatever where you say of course there is no God as a positive entity but there is a void of otherness and out of this void some X is addressing us and so on you know all this er game and so on and so on. So in this sense I totally agree with Badiou when he claimed that today this kind of what Einstein did this kind of that this is a very materialist move not idealist. This idea that er er it's not that you need some substantial
the vulgar materialism: only finite real material things exist, infinity is a metaphysical dream and so on and so on. But then today more and more it is science in its pure formalism which gets more and more infinities and here Badiou is right as far as I can understand. I talk with some mathematicians partially I hope I understand them. That this is the result of Cantor revolution where you know what's the point? Till Cantor infinity was linked to the One. Infinity was the transcending One and so on. From Cantor you have a material multiple infinity, infinity of the multiple. But what I'm saying is that for example look at the cinema. Isn't it strange that the author who is maybe the most spiritualist movie maker of the 20th century the Russian guy Tarkovsky is at the same time the most materialist. Do you remember how a spiritual experience looks in Tarkovsky? It's not up heaven. You immerse yourself deeply into the earth: all the dirt, mud, water and so on. This idea of materialized spirituality. So I think that er in this sense we live in paradoxical time where finitude no longer acts but to emphasize that we humans are thrown into a world always a finite situation precisely this limitation opens then up a space for some divine spiritual otherness. Of course as they will say this is er er er post-metaphysical otherness you know all this crap I don't like it maybe you do pseudo-Levinasian or whatever where you say of course there is no God as a positive entity but there is a void of otherness and out of this void some X is addressing us and so on you know all this er game and so on and so on. So in this sense I totally agree with Badiou when he claimed that today this kind of what Einstein did this kind of that this is a very materialist move not idealist. This idea that er er it's not that you need some substantial
unknown
reality which curves the space but that curved space comes
reality which curves the space but that curved space comes
Slavoj Žižek
first. And er and the inertia of matter is just some kind of illusory imaginary perception of curved space. Now you will say I'm dreaming here. Let me conclude with and we are back to Hegel here because my idea ah you thought I lost my trap I often do but this time exceptionally I didn't we are back at Hegel. Because I think that this passage to put it in very simplistic terms this passage from er first er special theory of relativity that is to say the space is curved because of the presence of matter to the second stage where the curvature of the space is original is in philosophical terms er er the the the shift from Kant to Hegel. Kant still needs the Thing-in-Itself which as it were curves the space. For Hegel this and this is the primary and now you will say but these are totally abstract stupid associations what this has to do with reality. You allow me to conclude then you get your shitty break or whatever er two examples one from politics the other from er psychoanalysis. Trauma. Er how does Freud relate to trauma? Let's take the most classical example although I don't see what is so traumatic about it I would rather like to see it if it would not make me throw out er Wolfman again you know Freud reconstructs the trauma of at one year and a half or it doesn't matter the small boy observing er parents copulating *a tergo*. But er look closely at what Freud er says there. His point is not the guy was doing nice and then oh my God he saw this his father screwing my mom what does this mean whatever and he was traumatized. It's totally... read Freud. He says that when the child saw this one and a half year or it doesn't matter er there was absolutely nothing traumatic about it. He simply registered it as a total... nothing. Neutral. It remains er but as a totally latent, not even as a latent trauma but just as some kind of a neutral trace. Then only later to be precise at er when I don't know when does it start I think around four five six that children start to er bother er about the origin of how did children and they when they start to develop this sexual so-called children sexual theories. At that point being perplexed by what is sexuality he retraumatized this neutral experience. He elevated it as an answer. It was it was elevated er resuscitated as a traumatic er fantasy. So you see the point. The point is er first there was let's say vaguely that a trauma curves the space of our mental perception. In what sense? In even in almost literal primitive sense. Let's say you have a certain straight geometric er classification of space: left right up down apples whatever a neutral category. Then let's say that something traumatic er happens like er sorry for the tasteless you were er you saw something horrible or you were attacked beaten er raped whatever I don't know. Er er er er er an er sorry for the tasteless idea an apple was stuck up into your ass on the fourth floor in a er certain part of the city. Then of course this would have literally er curved your space you would probably er blank how should I put it erase that and er you know it would no longer be er er straight but er er for er Freud this is the lesson of er when er it er the so-called traumatic fact the small boy observing the parent screwing *a tergo* didn't curve his space. His er mental space er got curved by a totally symbolic it means within the symbolic order enigma of sexuality. He had blanks there. Er er so you get my point he was his space was curved and then he mobilized er the stuff the matter of this memory as a trauma to fill in the gap. Er so the trauma is first a formal trauma in the sense of er er the mental space is curved. Now you will say er what could this mean politically? Ah I give you a very simple example the one we were already talking about anti-semitism. Er precisely fascists are Kantians Marxists should be Hegelians in what sense? Er er for fascists er clearly er er er the social space is symmetrical non-curved in an ideal sense if you have a nice Aryan or whatever for example Tibetan do you know that Nazis loved Tibet you know why their dream was that all the land down is already er er er er er er er penetrated by er Semitic corruption and that you have to go up er for for them Tibet was even more than Nordic Europe the er island of not yet corrupted er by by Semitic decadent society. Okay but let me go on so er er er er er here you have the idea is then we have a nice harmonious social edifice Jew is the matter which er intervenes and curves the space introducing imbalance blah blah. Er er for a Marxist the social space is curved originally because of class struggle and so on antagonism and er er the Jew as the trauma comes second as a fake to fill it in to fill er in er er the curve and so on and so on. The last conclusion to be drawn from this is that er this I think it's crucial to read the er Lacanian notion of the real in this way. It's not a substantial real it's not I'm here nicely and then something terribly er in- it's it's kind of a purely formal real it's just some inherent er impossibility you know er it's a very dialectical Hegelian thought it's not I would have been fully what I am but something prevents me an obstacle from being no it's I am er blocked in myself and er every positive cause comes secondary already fills in the gap of a certain inherent impossibility. What has this to do with Hegel? That's the whole point of what Hegel calls the primacy of er internal of sorry inherent self-contradiction with regard to external opposition. For Hegel er external opposition always comes er second with regard to inherent self-contradiction and so on and so on. You know what let's make a break and then we go on. Okay so we did a little bit of identity. Let me go on with er er er what does Hegel mean just a couple of simple examples just that you get the motion. What does Hegel mean by negation of negation? It's a self-related negation but in a very precise sense. It's not simply it's not simply you know if as Badiou explained yesterday you have let's say two possibilities er only A or B there is no third so if you negate A you get B if you negate B you get are back to A. No no no it's er something different one can even say that only the negation of negation er is er a radical is a true negation or one can also put it in this way the first negation moves within a certain field. It's only in a negation of negation that the field itself is negated. What I mean by this okay okay let's go to examples. Er er er er I think I use a little bit of this if you know it but it's not so popular which I like this theological book of debate that I'm engaged with *Monstrosity of Christ* with er er that er theologian John Milbank. Er er I think I refer there to Wagner, Richard Wagner, he wrote already in when he was relatively young a piece of drama which he then planned to put the opera *Jesus of Nazareth*. And there I think er he interprets in a wonderful way this er you know these big formulas of Jesus this radicalization of the simple Jewish injunctions like you know it's not only if you er if you er if you if you er have sex with er a woman I mean with er a non er er er illegitimate er I mean er outside marriage sex that you sin it's already if you desire that or all these famous asymmetrical formulas or er or er if somebody not eye for an eye but if somebody... how does Wagner interpret this? He gives a wonderful example for example of er of er er sex. Wagner starts with the simple opposition between er er sex within marriage let's call it legal sex and er how should we call it illegitimate sex er cheating or whatever. And then he does he says of course first one is the domain of the law legal sex and then he says but er er er er not only is er er er er illegitimate sex sinful but er sex within marriage which is not er grounded in love is even a greater sin. And then he does a wonderful rhetorical turn where he says because er illegitimate sex doesn't undermine marriage from within it's just from the outside it er er transgresses marriage but he says sex in marriage without love ruins the idea of marriage from within. It's kind of a er er er er er corruption from within which is why this is the true er er you get my point if er for Wagner er er sex outside marriage is a simple negation of a proper sex sex in marriage without love is the negation of a negation in the sense of radical destruction the true catastrophe. And then er very nicely in a way with reference to Proudhon, Wagner does the same with er er er er er property and er theft. He says okay er we have legal property of course it's bad to steal but then he says if you have legal property with which you exploit er others it's even worse than theft because you undermine the er ethical foundations of the notion of property from within. So er you er see this would be at a very elementary level what Hegel aims at with his er negation of negation. You start with an er internal er opposition let's say legal marriage sin but then you discover that er er the legal term already contains its own much more radical negation which as it were explodes undermines the entire field. In other words at the level of for example property we have property and theft but the ultimate result is you know the saying of Proudhon that property as such already is theft. It means er er er er er er er you er isolate it steal it from the collective and so on and so on. This is the mechanism that first you have the external negation and that you discover how er the first term already is in this sense your its own negation. Er property already is theft. Er er how er er er in Hegel er you find er this er and that's the whole point of Hegel in a wonderfully precise way apropos of the dialectic of law and crime. The elementary relationship if of course one of transgression: we have property, we have the law, and we have its violation, crime. But er and then er people usually think that the Hegelian dialectics is a kind of a negation of negation through judicial punishment no like: rule of law, somebody breaks the law, negation, punishment is the negation of negation. No I find very thing many things very important here where I'm fully a Hegelian up to the point of madness. For example to show you you know what is Hegel's defense of death penalty no that it's the ultimate recognition of er of of the criminal as a free human being. He said er the only way to treat a criminal respectfully is to punish him because only by punishing him fully you treat him as a er er proper autonomous human being. And incidentally er reading sometimes some kind of weird er er er er er er politically correct stuff I er can er almost er agree with him because it er er er er er sounds very politically correct namely this duality which you sometimes er er find you know how for example er er if a white man does something horrible it's bad, if a er black guy does it er it's er er victims slave circumstances blah blah. Of course this is true but all I'm saying is er we are walking in dangerous waters there because it's er also you are also depriving er him or her of the autonomy the you know this is what is always false in this self-flagellation self-humiliation of whites you know. We want to be guilty for everything even if there is now a civil war in some African independent states these are still er consequences of our colonialism etc. It is as if we whites sometimes it reads like this want to say if we can no longer be white man's burden in the sense of er we take care for and er are good colonial masters er er er that at least we want to be the ultimate bad guys like whatever happens we are responsible. But I claim that er er er er er er er er er er often er er er there is a hidden er arrogance in this. You know like in er I er I I er er er you know who wrote one okay so that I don't get lost in it again read the one whom I really appreciate and he's not a soft liberal if there was a hard-liner it's him, Frantz Fanon. Read the last pages of his *Black Skin, White Masks* where he says it's a wonderful I claim manifesto *avant la lettre* against political correctness where he where he openly he says I find no satisfaction in eternally putting the blame on the white man and so on and so on. He sees the utter falsity of this eternal er er er victimization. Are you aware you are guilty for slavery five and er he even in advance attacks that *Black Athena* stuff where he said I know it would be wonderful to discover that there was somewhere in Egypt let us say er years before Christ a philosopher who was in constant dialogue with Plato and to prove that Plato stole ideas for him, but he says brutally it matters nothing for liberation er politically today and so on and so on. So again I fully subscribe to Fanon, you know where Fanon is much more er problematic for some people all he said about er liberating force of violence and so on and so on. I'm not a soft guy here all I'm saying is er beware of this er how should I call it er beware of this er you know there is a way to humiliate yourself er er er er which is really an er er perverted way to re-assert your priority. For example look at how er er in the politically correct universe de facto how it works: how you are allowed er to assert your identity. Er did you notice how the zero-level standard is WASP, a White Protestant man? There if you assert your identity if you say I want my culture my rituals hehe you are a worse than Nazi. Then the logic is that I'm very brutal here but unfortunately I claim it works like this in reality. Er the further you go the more they are allowed. If Inuit or er er Native Americans assert their identity oh er er wonder they do they do. Then the more you approach it the worse it goes. Blacks it's still okay er er er er suspicion begins. Er then with Italians ah er er er no Mexicans is okay, Italians er suspicion began er Catholics er er er but with white... Now this you will say but this is correct the people who are closer er as in racist way who were more oppressive should have it is true but the problem is that er this position of the most guilty one like also er er reserves to you the universal position. These same white people who er are ready to renounce their identity, 'yes we are guilty the worst exploiters we do not have right to celebrate our identity' and so on, these same white people nonetheless usually act as the one who are er to put it bluntly teaching all others how to re-assert their identity. You know there is always er er er er er this lie that in renouncing your particularity as a white man you er er er er er er secretly re-assert your universality. There is a trick there. So I claim that er er er the best er anti- er er this is the true victory over colonialism when er er er of course they did it with a little bit of irony I remember when Margaret Thatcher visited China I don't know if you er when it happened when she was or even after I think it was after er her er er the position. The Chinese president in a toast er er er er er er celebrated said we should be nonetheless in spite of all the horrors be grateful to British colonization of Hong Kong, Shanghai, it er er er er did shake us out of our lethargy and so on and so on. Er only the one who is already free can do this. The message was we can say this because you are really no longer our master. We are in now. They no longer er need to play this game 'oh but' and so on and so on and so on no. So er okay but now nonetheless so to go back to my point with Hegel. Yes I was with punishment and so on how er er er this is not the main point of Hegel that you have the law, the law gets alienated or negated in the crime, and then the negation of negation the punishment the rule of law is re-established. Er this dialectic is er er as it is very clear in Hegel is er er er er er as it were er and if you look at where Hegel speaks about er er founding of states great heroes and so on er with another much more interesting dialectics which is the opposite dialectics that er er er it is not that crime is a subspecies of law part of the er er er er er safe mediation dialectic of law in the sense of again law transgression of the law crime re-establishment. No, it is that law itself is a moment of crime in the er er er sense of law is universalized crime. Law is the crime with Hegel for example er he is very open here when he speaks about great heroes founders of state er he said these are er er er er er er criminals who impose their crime as universal. And at that point so that er er er it is rather law the rule of law which is a subspecies of crime as it were. And er er er er er er er again that's the er you can study it in detail about how Hegel is very clear that er er er er every power er at er the origin you know as Benjamin would have put it and all that stuff not divine but not divine violence but but but er er mythic violence and so on this idea of violent origins of the law and so on and so on. So in other words er er er it's it's er er er okay maybe this is enough for today I would prefer to go into this stuff more in detail tomorrow we already did all that retroactivity stuff. Let's go a little bit on as far as we can and then tomorrow we conclude Hegel if it's okay with you and then the last day er we can maybe do some general stuff which is still connected with Hegel er er ethics of psychoanalysis and so on all that stuff. Okay er er er er one way to make er clear er er what I was aiming at in this reading of Hegel would have been er the er er distinction between er er potentiality and virtuality. You know that pupil okay he refers to Badiou the er er half er father of this speculative terms speculative realism Quentin Meillassoux. Maybe you know his book it's an excellent book of ontology er er er er *After Finitude*. Er er er it's one big attack against this Kantian er er er transcendental horizon finitude thinking. Okay but let's not go into this what interests me is the way this guy Meillassoux er er er proposes a distinction between potentiality and er virtuality. Er er er his idea is that potentiality is a er er er er er er is er and along the same lines he distinguishes between chance and contingency. Potentiality is er something possible that can happen er but er er it is as such already inscribed as a possibility within the frame of what is possible at a certain level. For example if er you throw a dice how do you call it no with six numbers er you have one of six that it will be I don't know which number or whatever no. Er er er er so er of course er you can say that if you analyze it in detail it's not it's not a chance but let us say at least it appears so. Er so er you throw it one of the numbers will appear it's a chance and it's a potentiality but for him contingency er is er er er er er er when something no sorry virtuality is er something which emerges in a contingent way er er er er er is er something which formally has the status of a miracle this would be what Badiou called an event something which emerges and which er precisely you cannot reduce it to the set of what er already er pre-exists er er of what already pre-exists. So er his idea is that er he tries er to link this then er to the relationship er between er between er er er er er er er time and space er that er er in er in potentiality er space has priority over time. That is to say what can emerge in the course of time is always already inscribed as a possibility er er er er er er in the spatial er er er er er er constellation. For example again you throw a dice one of the six numbers er er er er er er it's a chance potentiality but er er er er possibilities are realized which er pre-exist. For him virtuality is when something er emerges as it were *ex nihilo* from nothing in the sense that it's genuinely er new it's literally a product of time you cannot reduce it er er er er er to its er causes or er as Meillassoux puts it in very nice er term er that er it's the actualization something happening which er er er er er creates its own possibility you cannot er isolate it in advance er er er er er as er possible. And er then er er er of course I love this er er er er er er in so far as we er do as we usually do in so far as we er er er er er er er understand God as this er eternal atemporal er er er er er set network of all possible worlds God knew everything in advance for him I love this er er er er er miracle is the ultimate proof of materialism because miracle er means precisely that something happened which er was not yet included into this matrix of all this eternal matrix of all er er er er er er possibilities er er er by God. Er okay er er er er what all I wanted to tell you is that then the great problem here and here I disagree with Meillassoux er er er er incidentally his er reasoning is er er er much more er complex er here because er er sorry er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er.
first. And er and the inertia of matter is just some kind of illusory imaginary perception of curved space. Now you will say I'm dreaming here. Let me conclude with and we are back to Hegel here because my idea ah you thought I lost my trap I often do but this time exceptionally I didn't we are back at Hegel. Because I think that this passage to put it in very simplistic terms this passage from er first er special theory of relativity that is to say the space is curved because of the presence of matter to the second stage where the curvature of the space is original is in philosophical terms er er the the the shift from Kant to Hegel. Kant still needs the Thing-in-Itself which as it were curves the space. For Hegel this and this is the primary and now you will say but these are totally abstract stupid associations what this has to do with reality. You allow me to conclude then you get your shitty break or whatever er two examples one from politics the other from er psychoanalysis. Trauma. Er how does Freud relate to trauma? Let's take the most classical example although I don't see what is so traumatic about it I would rather like to see it if it would not make me throw out er Wolfman again you know Freud reconstructs the trauma of at one year and a half or it doesn't matter the small boy observing er parents copulating *a tergo*. But er look closely at what Freud er says there. His point is not the guy was doing nice and then oh my God he saw this his father screwing my mom what does this mean whatever and he was traumatized. It's totally... read Freud. He says that when the child saw this one and a half year or it doesn't matter er there was absolutely nothing traumatic about it. He simply registered it as a total... nothing. Neutral. It remains er but as a totally latent, not even as a latent trauma but just as some kind of a neutral trace. Then only later to be precise at er when I don't know when does it start I think around four five six that children start to er bother er about the origin of how did children and they when they start to develop this sexual so-called children sexual theories. At that point being perplexed by what is sexuality he retraumatized this neutral experience. He elevated it as an answer. It was it was elevated er resuscitated as a traumatic er fantasy. So you see the point. The point is er first there was let's say vaguely that a trauma curves the space of our mental perception. In what sense? In even in almost literal primitive sense. Let's say you have a certain straight geometric er classification of space: left right up down apples whatever a neutral category. Then let's say that something traumatic er happens like er sorry for the tasteless you were er you saw something horrible or you were attacked beaten er raped whatever I don't know. Er er er er er an er sorry for the tasteless idea an apple was stuck up into your ass on the fourth floor in a er certain part of the city. Then of course this would have literally er curved your space you would probably er blank how should I put it erase that and er you know it would no longer be er er straight but er er for er Freud this is the lesson of er when er it er the so-called traumatic fact the small boy observing the parent screwing *a tergo* didn't curve his space. His er mental space er got curved by a totally symbolic it means within the symbolic order enigma of sexuality. He had blanks there. Er er so you get my point he was his space was curved and then he mobilized er the stuff the matter of this memory as a trauma to fill in the gap. Er so the trauma is first a formal trauma in the sense of er er the mental space is curved. Now you will say er what could this mean politically? Ah I give you a very simple example the one we were already talking about anti-semitism. Er precisely fascists are Kantians Marxists should be Hegelians in what sense? Er er for fascists er clearly er er er the social space is symmetrical non-curved in an ideal sense if you have a nice Aryan or whatever for example Tibetan do you know that Nazis loved Tibet you know why their dream was that all the land down is already er er er er er er er penetrated by er Semitic corruption and that you have to go up er for for them Tibet was even more than Nordic Europe the er island of not yet corrupted er by by Semitic decadent society. Okay but let me go on so er er er er er here you have the idea is then we have a nice harmonious social edifice Jew is the matter which er intervenes and curves the space introducing imbalance blah blah. Er er for a Marxist the social space is curved originally because of class struggle and so on antagonism and er er the Jew as the trauma comes second as a fake to fill it in to fill er in er er the curve and so on and so on. The last conclusion to be drawn from this is that er this I think it's crucial to read the er Lacanian notion of the real in this way. It's not a substantial real it's not I'm here nicely and then something terribly er in- it's it's kind of a purely formal real it's just some inherent er impossibility you know er it's a very dialectical Hegelian thought it's not I would have been fully what I am but something prevents me an obstacle from being no it's I am er blocked in myself and er every positive cause comes secondary already fills in the gap of a certain inherent impossibility. What has this to do with Hegel? That's the whole point of what Hegel calls the primacy of er internal of sorry inherent self-contradiction with regard to external opposition. For Hegel er external opposition always comes er second with regard to inherent self-contradiction and so on and so on. You know what let's make a break and then we go on. Okay so we did a little bit of identity. Let me go on with er er er what does Hegel mean just a couple of simple examples just that you get the motion. What does Hegel mean by negation of negation? It's a self-related negation but in a very precise sense. It's not simply it's not simply you know if as Badiou explained yesterday you have let's say two possibilities er only A or B there is no third so if you negate A you get B if you negate B you get are back to A. No no no it's er something different one can even say that only the negation of negation er is er a radical is a true negation or one can also put it in this way the first negation moves within a certain field. It's only in a negation of negation that the field itself is negated. What I mean by this okay okay let's go to examples. Er er er er I think I use a little bit of this if you know it but it's not so popular which I like this theological book of debate that I'm engaged with *Monstrosity of Christ* with er er that er theologian John Milbank. Er er I think I refer there to Wagner, Richard Wagner, he wrote already in when he was relatively young a piece of drama which he then planned to put the opera *Jesus of Nazareth*. And there I think er he interprets in a wonderful way this er you know these big formulas of Jesus this radicalization of the simple Jewish injunctions like you know it's not only if you er if you er if you if you er have sex with er a woman I mean with er a non er er er illegitimate er I mean er outside marriage sex that you sin it's already if you desire that or all these famous asymmetrical formulas or er or er if somebody not eye for an eye but if somebody... how does Wagner interpret this? He gives a wonderful example for example of er of er er sex. Wagner starts with the simple opposition between er er sex within marriage let's call it legal sex and er how should we call it illegitimate sex er cheating or whatever. And then he does he says of course first one is the domain of the law legal sex and then he says but er er er er not only is er er er er illegitimate sex sinful but er sex within marriage which is not er grounded in love is even a greater sin. And then he does a wonderful rhetorical turn where he says because er illegitimate sex doesn't undermine marriage from within it's just from the outside it er er transgresses marriage but he says sex in marriage without love ruins the idea of marriage from within. It's kind of a er er er er er corruption from within which is why this is the true er er you get my point if er for Wagner er er sex outside marriage is a simple negation of a proper sex sex in marriage without love is the negation of a negation in the sense of radical destruction the true catastrophe. And then er very nicely in a way with reference to Proudhon, Wagner does the same with er er er er er property and er theft. He says okay er we have legal property of course it's bad to steal but then he says if you have legal property with which you exploit er others it's even worse than theft because you undermine the er ethical foundations of the notion of property from within. So er you er see this would be at a very elementary level what Hegel aims at with his er negation of negation. You start with an er internal er opposition let's say legal marriage sin but then you discover that er er the legal term already contains its own much more radical negation which as it were explodes undermines the entire field. In other words at the level of for example property we have property and theft but the ultimate result is you know the saying of Proudhon that property as such already is theft. It means er er er er er er er you er isolate it steal it from the collective and so on and so on. This is the mechanism that first you have the external negation and that you discover how er the first term already is in this sense your its own negation. Er property already is theft. Er er how er er er in Hegel er you find er this er and that's the whole point of Hegel in a wonderfully precise way apropos of the dialectic of law and crime. The elementary relationship if of course one of transgression: we have property, we have the law, and we have its violation, crime. But er and then er people usually think that the Hegelian dialectics is a kind of a negation of negation through judicial punishment no like: rule of law, somebody breaks the law, negation, punishment is the negation of negation. No I find very thing many things very important here where I'm fully a Hegelian up to the point of madness. For example to show you you know what is Hegel's defense of death penalty no that it's the ultimate recognition of er of of the criminal as a free human being. He said er the only way to treat a criminal respectfully is to punish him because only by punishing him fully you treat him as a er er proper autonomous human being. And incidentally er reading sometimes some kind of weird er er er er er er politically correct stuff I er can er almost er agree with him because it er er er er er sounds very politically correct namely this duality which you sometimes er er find you know how for example er er if a white man does something horrible it's bad, if a er black guy does it er it's er er victims slave circumstances blah blah. Of course this is true but all I'm saying is er we are walking in dangerous waters there because it's er also you are also depriving er him or her of the autonomy the you know this is what is always false in this self-flagellation self-humiliation of whites you know. We want to be guilty for everything even if there is now a civil war in some African independent states these are still er consequences of our colonialism etc. It is as if we whites sometimes it reads like this want to say if we can no longer be white man's burden in the sense of er we take care for and er are good colonial masters er er er that at least we want to be the ultimate bad guys like whatever happens we are responsible. But I claim that er er er er er er er er er er often er er er there is a hidden er arrogance in this. You know like in er I er I I er er er you know who wrote one okay so that I don't get lost in it again read the one whom I really appreciate and he's not a soft liberal if there was a hard-liner it's him, Frantz Fanon. Read the last pages of his *Black Skin, White Masks* where he says it's a wonderful I claim manifesto *avant la lettre* against political correctness where he where he openly he says I find no satisfaction in eternally putting the blame on the white man and so on and so on. He sees the utter falsity of this eternal er er er victimization. Are you aware you are guilty for slavery five and er he even in advance attacks that *Black Athena* stuff where he said I know it would be wonderful to discover that there was somewhere in Egypt let us say er years before Christ a philosopher who was in constant dialogue with Plato and to prove that Plato stole ideas for him, but he says brutally it matters nothing for liberation er politically today and so on and so on. So again I fully subscribe to Fanon, you know where Fanon is much more er problematic for some people all he said about er liberating force of violence and so on and so on. I'm not a soft guy here all I'm saying is er beware of this er how should I call it er beware of this er you know there is a way to humiliate yourself er er er er which is really an er er perverted way to re-assert your priority. For example look at how er er in the politically correct universe de facto how it works: how you are allowed er to assert your identity. Er did you notice how the zero-level standard is WASP, a White Protestant man? There if you assert your identity if you say I want my culture my rituals hehe you are a worse than Nazi. Then the logic is that I'm very brutal here but unfortunately I claim it works like this in reality. Er the further you go the more they are allowed. If Inuit or er er Native Americans assert their identity oh er er wonder they do they do. Then the more you approach it the worse it goes. Blacks it's still okay er er er er suspicion begins. Er then with Italians ah er er er no Mexicans is okay, Italians er suspicion began er Catholics er er er but with white... Now this you will say but this is correct the people who are closer er as in racist way who were more oppressive should have it is true but the problem is that er this position of the most guilty one like also er er reserves to you the universal position. These same white people who er are ready to renounce their identity, 'yes we are guilty the worst exploiters we do not have right to celebrate our identity' and so on, these same white people nonetheless usually act as the one who are er to put it bluntly teaching all others how to re-assert their identity. You know there is always er er er er er this lie that in renouncing your particularity as a white man you er er er er er er secretly re-assert your universality. There is a trick there. So I claim that er er er the best er anti- er er this is the true victory over colonialism when er er er of course they did it with a little bit of irony I remember when Margaret Thatcher visited China I don't know if you er when it happened when she was or even after I think it was after er her er er the position. The Chinese president in a toast er er er er er er celebrated said we should be nonetheless in spite of all the horrors be grateful to British colonization of Hong Kong, Shanghai, it er er er er did shake us out of our lethargy and so on and so on. Er only the one who is already free can do this. The message was we can say this because you are really no longer our master. We are in now. They no longer er need to play this game 'oh but' and so on and so on and so on no. So er okay but now nonetheless so to go back to my point with Hegel. Yes I was with punishment and so on how er er er this is not the main point of Hegel that you have the law, the law gets alienated or negated in the crime, and then the negation of negation the punishment the rule of law is re-established. Er this dialectic is er er as it is very clear in Hegel is er er er er er as it were er and if you look at where Hegel speaks about er er founding of states great heroes and so on er with another much more interesting dialectics which is the opposite dialectics that er er er it is not that crime is a subspecies of law part of the er er er er er safe mediation dialectic of law in the sense of again law transgression of the law crime re-establishment. No, it is that law itself is a moment of crime in the er er er sense of law is universalized crime. Law is the crime with Hegel for example er he is very open here when he speaks about great heroes founders of state er he said these are er er er er er er criminals who impose their crime as universal. And at that point so that er er er it is rather law the rule of law which is a subspecies of crime as it were. And er er er er er er er again that's the er you can study it in detail about how Hegel is very clear that er er er er every power er at er the origin you know as Benjamin would have put it and all that stuff not divine but not divine violence but but but er er mythic violence and so on this idea of violent origins of the law and so on and so on. So in other words er er er it's it's er er er okay maybe this is enough for today I would prefer to go into this stuff more in detail tomorrow we already did all that retroactivity stuff. Let's go a little bit on as far as we can and then tomorrow we conclude Hegel if it's okay with you and then the last day er we can maybe do some general stuff which is still connected with Hegel er er ethics of psychoanalysis and so on all that stuff. Okay er er er er one way to make er clear er er what I was aiming at in this reading of Hegel would have been er the er er distinction between er er potentiality and virtuality. You know that pupil okay he refers to Badiou the er er half er father of this speculative terms speculative realism Quentin Meillassoux. Maybe you know his book it's an excellent book of ontology er er er er *After Finitude*. Er er er it's one big attack against this Kantian er er er transcendental horizon finitude thinking. Okay but let's not go into this what interests me is the way this guy Meillassoux er er er proposes a distinction between potentiality and er virtuality. Er er er his idea is that potentiality is a er er er er er er is er and along the same lines he distinguishes between chance and contingency. Potentiality is er something possible that can happen er but er er it is as such already inscribed as a possibility within the frame of what is possible at a certain level. For example if er you throw a dice how do you call it no with six numbers er you have one of six that it will be I don't know which number or whatever no. Er er er er so er of course er you can say that if you analyze it in detail it's not it's not a chance but let us say at least it appears so. Er so er you throw it one of the numbers will appear it's a chance and it's a potentiality but for him contingency er is er er er er er er when something no sorry virtuality is er something which emerges in a contingent way er er er er er is er something which formally has the status of a miracle this would be what Badiou called an event something which emerges and which er precisely you cannot reduce it to the set of what er already er pre-exists er er of what already pre-exists. So er his idea is that er he tries er to link this then er to the relationship er between er between er er er er er er er time and space er that er er in er in potentiality er space has priority over time. That is to say what can emerge in the course of time is always already inscribed as a possibility er er er er er er in the spatial er er er er er er constellation. For example again you throw a dice one of the six numbers er er er er er er it's a chance potentiality but er er er er possibilities are realized which er pre-exist. For him virtuality is when something er emerges as it were *ex nihilo* from nothing in the sense that it's genuinely er new it's literally a product of time you cannot reduce it er er er er er to its er causes or er as Meillassoux puts it in very nice er term er that er it's the actualization something happening which er er er er er creates its own possibility you cannot er isolate it in advance er er er er er as er possible. And er then er er er of course I love this er er er er er er in so far as we er do as we usually do in so far as we er er er er er er er understand God as this er eternal atemporal er er er er er set network of all possible worlds God knew everything in advance for him I love this er er er er er miracle is the ultimate proof of materialism because miracle er means precisely that something happened which er was not yet included into this matrix of all this eternal matrix of all er er er er er er possibilities er er er by God. Er okay er er er er what all I wanted to tell you is that then the great problem here and here I disagree with Meillassoux er er er er incidentally his er reasoning is er er er much more er complex er here because er er sorry er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er.