Movie Nite

October 21, 2008

So, I’ve done terribly at organizing a movei nite, but…

Anybody up for movies this Thursday?

I think I’m gonna vote for Ivan the Terribele.

Other suggestions?



17 Responses to “Movie Nite”

  1. The Universal Singular said

    I don’t think I can do the next two Thursdays.

    But I would go for Ivan.

  2. sonnyburnett said

    I definately can’t do this Thursday.

  3. battleofthegiants said

    Ha! I can’t do Thursday either…

  4. The Thing said

    Well alrighty then.

    What about, uh… next Tuesday?

  5. The Universal Singular said

    So far, next Tuesday looks good.

  6. battleofthegiants said

    I think Tuesday works for me too.

  7. veiledphallus said

    I thought ‘Tarrying’ would be the next read. :(
    I was looking forward to meeting you guys!

    On a side note, what does the ‘veiled phallus’ mean to you?

  8. The Thing said

    Possible answers:

    2) the name of an unsuccessful eurobar
    4) I dunno, but what’s that blue and white thing?
    5) I tend to associate the notion of a veil with Derrida’s aporia of responsibility (shameless plug: read my paper on IJZS!): absolute responsibility involves retaining a veiled space for the subejct’s free self-determination, while accountability involves an attempt to reveal all the reasons for one’s act, thus rendering oneself an object of cause-and-effect rather than a free subject (Che vuoi? What am I as an object for the Other?). Which dovetails nicely with the notion of the phallus as the signifier of lack: the whole point of absolute responsibility is that it veils something which essentially isn’t there – one never actually knows (has?) the reasons for one’s act, they come from the extimate “outside” (the unconscious/God). Which puts me in mind of the link between hysteria and femininity – female body as phallus so long as it remains veiled/elusive, and the “faithlessness” of hysterical drama (?) Keeping in mind, my chummy chums, that the Z-meister priveleges both femininity (men are just idiot women who mistakenly think that they’re men) and hysteria (over perversion as a way to the unconscious and over obsessionality as the genus which is simultaneously its own sub-species).
    6) I agree, we should read Ticklish next. It’s the bomb diggity.


  9. The Universal Singular said

    1) Why are numbers missing in your comment?
    2) I thought we said we were going to do Tarrying before Ticklish (so that we do all Z’s majors in order)
    3) Why aren’t you guys posting these comments about readings on my previous post with the big title “Next Reading”?

  10. sonnyburnett said

    (Derrida’s?) Absolute responsibility sounds a lot like the way I picture Kant’s transcendental freedom operating – delineating & preserving the empty place that shows that behind our choices, ultimately there is nothing, no meta-foundation of freedom.

    In Sublime Object, Z defines the phallus of the signifier of the conversion of the lack of a signifier into the signifer of the lack.

    I thought one week on the Ecrit ‘K w/ S’, then Tarrying is next. I like the idea of reading in order. I’m endeavoring to tune into the subtle nuances of his reading of Kant as it develops over time.

    S’long as we’re into names, I’ve always wondered why ‘Battleofthegiants’?

  11. battleofthegiants said

    Check out the “about” page. It’s a quote from Freud, re: the 2 drives (which Lacan and Zizek fold into one – see my little ‘rough work up of an idea’ a few posts back…)


  12. battleofthegiants said

    UniSing: you need to go to the dashboard and delete some of your ‘drafts’ – messes drive me nuts.

    re: ‘veiled phallus’ – my confusion stems from the end of “The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis”, where Lacan uses the Greek fable about the painting of the veil to describe the phallus. I.e. The ‘ultimate painting’ wasn’t hidden behind the veil, the painting of a veil was the ultimate. That is, the phallus IS the veil…so, my question is, what does it mean to say that the phallus is veiled?

  13. The Universal Singular said

    Isn’t phallus as signifier of a lack simply a fetish. And isn’t fetish the master-signifier in the symbolic order (this is what Zizek says in ‘The Fetish of the Party’).

    Then again, there is the paradox of the phallus qua signifier of the lack of the signifier, and the penis as lost (castrated) Thing.

    I’m wondering if ‘veiled phallus’ refers to the fetish, signifier of the lack, or objet a qua lost Thing. Since the fetish conceals the lack, I’m inclined to suggest the latter is THAT which is veiled: the lost (impossible) Thing, substance of jouissance.

  14. The Universal Singular said

    … just to add to that…

    Perhaps the veiled phallus the ‘maternal signifier’… the lack itself…

    But here’s a more daring question: Where did you come across this?

  15. sonnyburnett said

    I think this is a great topic…

    Again, Z clearly makes the Lacanian distinction bet. the Signifier of the Lack and the Phallus.

    The latter is the signifier of the CONVERSION of the lack of a signifier into the signifer of the lack. (Sublime Object, 209)

    If this distinction (or some other way of expressing it) is not made, the symbolic phallus would be equated to the S(A/) – the signifier of the lack of the Other.

    (And yes, early Lacan doesn’t make this distinction, but the later Lacan does, as well as Z).

    I don’t have Sublime Object in front of me, and Google Scholar isn’t giving me access to the page I want, but Z says somewhere that the Phallus signifier in question is a transcendental signifier. Possession of this signifier no one has, but look to the Master, to a Clint Eastwood or a George Clooney or to someone else that may have possession of the ‘key’ to the conversion of lack into a signifier that would fill in that lack.

    This latter signifier, S(A/), is indeed an object of sorts we CAN grasp, in a way. A critical turning point in analysis is when the analysand grasps it, experiences this signifier that allows a ‘glimpse’ into the non-existence of the big Other.

    The Phallus as a signifier of this transcendental conversion of nothing into something is thinkable, but we can’t experience it as such. It is nameable. I’d say its veiled precisely b/c it ‘happens’ transcendentally.

  16. sonnyburnett said

    Line above should read “Possession of this signifier no one has, but WE TEND TO look to SOME OTHER, TO SOME Master, to a Clint Eastwood or a George Clooney or to someone else that WE may THINK HAS possession of the ‘key’ to the conversion of lack into a signifier that would fill in that lack. This looking is being caught in a (transcental) illusion, since the object which fills in the loss only comes to be through its loss.”

  17. The Thing said

    look your email

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: