Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Immigrant !jJEom8Ii3E started this discussion 10 years ago#55,250
[...]
The question we should confront here is what, then, does the pervert miss, in his endeavor to absolutely separate the Truth from Lies? The answer is, of course: the Truth of the Lie itself, the truth that is delivered in and through the very act of lying. Paradoxically, the pervert's falsity (lie) resides in his very unconditional attachment to truth, in his refusal to hear the truth resonating in a lie. It was Shakespeare whose plays, long ago, provided a breathtakingly refined insight into the entanglement of truth and lies.
[...]
This brings us back to perversion: for Lacan, a pervert is not defined by the content of what he is doing (his weird sexual practices, etc.). Perversion, at its most fundamental, resides in the formal structure of how the subject relates to truth and speech. The pervert claims direct access to some figure of the big Other (from God or history to the desire of his partner), so that, dispelling all the ambiguity of language, he is able to act directly as the instrument of the big Other's will. In this sense, both Osama bin Laden and President Bush, although politically opponents, share a pervert structure: they both act upon the presupposition that their acts are directly ordered and guided by the divine will.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#715,363
Glug, no it's not.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#715,367
It's like reading Wittingstein all over again
meaning I'd have to read it ten fuckin times and restraslate the already translated German from English to English I recognize
Immigrant !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,435
That's a good question. I don't know, I guess that i imagined it like walking with someone who explains things to you. I don't mean as if it would be easy to understand but at least you would have some idea of what it is you don't understand. Instead you understand nothing and even the introduction is complex.
I sometimes just want to slap their faces and demand they cut the bs and get to the case.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 45 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,440
@previous (Immigrant !jJEom8Ii3E)
The classic Grecian pedagogy which is literally the walkthrough process you refer to has long since ceased being a particular intellectual fashion.
Immigrant !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,442
Aww damn. Do you think it's rightfully out of fashion?
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,447
@previous (Immigrant !jJEom8Ii3E)
It still occurs occasionally. I've heard of many close relationships which have developed out of the classic Engelian friendship.
悟 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,477
are you this fucking annoying in real life denmark guy
its almost impressive
Immigrant !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 52 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#715,478