Monthly Archives: September 2014

Un Autre de l’Autre

Just finished listening to this. Discussing the new law that is being rushed through the Russian Parliament and which would limit foreign ownership in mass media enterprises in Russia to 20% (a measure directed at one particular independent newspaper), Pavel Gusev said, that “it is the right of any state to limit foreign ownership in its media”. (But in any event he is only supporting the current measure reluctantly, because he opposes the “motives” of the Government).

The problem with holding a view as schizophrenic as this one, is failure to recognize the apt Lacanian bit of “linguisterie”: there is no Other of the Other. Symbolic order (“The Other”) does not have any transcendental order behind it that would justify it on any higher level. The (symbolic) power of the state lies entirely in its citizens silent agreement to follow a set of rules. If tomorrow this agreement were to be voided so would be the rules, and the state would collapse. Whatever Government leaders may be feeling, in reality they are nothing more than Freud’s father, who did not know that he was dead (in Freud’s dream). Certainly no state has any innate right to do anything at all.

Comments Off on Un Autre de l’Autre

Filed under Lacan

History Lesson?

Heidegger said in his Nietzsche lectures (1936-1940)

Hölderlin und Nietzsche haben... ein Frageziechen vor der Aufgabe der Deutschen aufgerichtet, geschichtlich ihr Wesen zu finden. Werden wir dieses Zeichen verstehen? Eines ist gewiß: die Geschichte wird sich an uns rächen, wenn wir es nicht verstehen.

(Klett-Cota Ausgabe, 2008, Bd 1, S. 105)

(Holderlin and Nietzsche place a question mark at the task for the Germans to find their historical essence. Will we understand this mark? One thing is certain: if we do not understand it, history will take revenge on us).

This, of course, sounds incredibly ironic given the context in which it was said and the context in which it is read now. Of course, Heidegger himself was cognizant of this dissonance between the intent and meaning of these sentences caused by temporal refraction. He was, after all, reviewing the text for publication in 1961. Of course this is Heidegger and despite his patriotic fervor and embrace of Nazism, he remains… Heidegger. I wonder what some authors in Russia today are thinking selling their souls to the regime under the guise of patriotism. Do they deem themselves such Heideggers too, betting that their genius would outlive their shame?

Comments Off on History Lesson?

Filed under Note