Христо > Recent Status Updates

Again, what I dislike is the author doesn't labor to hide his political preferences, and that comes out as condescending at times. Otherwise, the text is engaging thus far.

Oh this might be just what I've been looking for.

Eidelsztein keeps promoting an a-responsible subject, countering subjective responsibility as something Lacan has done, which I find not to be the case. This is weird!

I didn't really care for chapter 5. I suppose it might feel less dense to a literary student, but for me, it was barely half a step from boring.

Jesus, I've had enough of Proust literary theory, thank you.

I'm so pissed this is so profoundly important yet so didactically dense you need to labor through it immensely, even with the provided aids!

Chapter 3, the supposed high point of the book, was extremely disappointing, repetitive, unsubstantiated and militant. Pity.

Already in the Intro S. is parroting the presups. of his immediate influencers: "Restructuring the symbolic coordinates .. facilitating a complete break .. from capitalism. Only then will we .. relate to the world in a novel way .. How do we revolt without being .. hysterical? .. I can’t give a direct answer .. but I do believe the clue .. [is to] go 'mad' to become 'mature'". Not so sure chief.

Ch. 3 is just demolishing me.

I have decided to re-read this, give it another go, and see if my position about remains sustainable or not.

I am shocked by how good essay 6 is, however I owe it to Laclau to point out his own hypocrisy showing in his EU-federalism. For his subjective stance misses the corollary of his theory: trans-national unions ALSO reinforce "fully fledged identities" and are therefore not NECESSARILY guarantors of sustained radical democracy vis-a-vis national identities!

Separate sections from the same chapter feel disjointed, like they were slapped together from varying essays. This entails repetition, to say the least

So far it has the appearance of being easy to follow, but feels extremely tough to grasp for me. We are aiming to show Marx and Lacan approach the same problem not from two but from the same viewpoint. Which is autonomous value and meaning production.

The piece by Zaloua and Zizek's response characterize completely what I call the post-Trumpian era of his praxis. Lacan is made to serve a populist Far-Left movement which denies admitting it is merely the polar opposite of what it pretends to emancipate (someone) from. The first sentence itself, the definition of anti-racism, is profoundly Fascist, if these Far-Left standards are to be applied.