Again with this Love?

…Here Kate spells out the truth of Densher’s betrayal: he feels guilty, and refuses to profit from Milly’s death, not because he doesn’t love her and is for this reason unworthy of her gift, but because he does love her—not while she was alive, but from the moment she died.

— from “The Parallax View” by Slavoj Zizek used in the post by Neotenionos

The difficulty of speaking about love in the sense that Zizek wishes to convey in this segment is that the manner we have to use language is close to, what we can call, the point of contention in discourse. The meaning is quite similar to what Jaques Derrida attempts to convey, and even Theador Adorno, both who attempt to grant examples reflecting definitions in one setting. For conventional philosophers, it is that arena where ‘discourse’ begins to collapse into the space that brings an equanimity that is called demonic in one sense, and ridiculous in the next, nonsense to those worried about stature, and undifferentiated contradiction in still the next.

Where Zizek does succeed, though, is at remaining in the exact middle of what we could call, and as well locate through understanding the views inscribed by parallax, two states. The psychoanalytic of Lacan allows for an inscription upon the text of history; unfolding as contradiction (Adorno), Zizek represents an understanding that is repellant, or rather, that those who would understand him specifically or particularly are unable and indeed incapable of grasping, so offensive (Kierkegaard) to what we generally call the Real world. Zizek speaks, thus, the break, the gap, but in doing so manifests an historical-politcal moment that founds itself through the engagement with it (capitalism), since this engagement that does not see its own offense but instead understands the offense through the context of excess, perpetually finds itself drawn into this moment even as it resists and reestablishes its own mass (substance) and thus gravitas (objective identity).

We might see now where we are being lead even now.

We should not shy away from Francois Laruelle’s non-philosophy, and for a quite similar reason that we often confidently engage with Zizek even while we are effectively repelled. Slavoj does not often (at all?) engage with Laruelle, and the most probable reason is because Laruelle represents the explanation of the Hegel-Lacan-Zizek psychanalysis that effectively places it outside of the frame in which and through which Zizek works so fluently; the frame that most others think they can expose, confront, challenge and overcome through various agencies, Zizek knows is unassailable, yet he behaves concordant with the rules presented with any particular moment of how the frame is being challenged; he cannot but do so. This is the point that is so offensive.

The significance of this segment is in that Densher “refuses to profit from Milly’s death, not because he doesn’t love her…but because he does love her”. This is what is offensive to the conventionally oriented philosopher/critic. It is not that he is not choosing to profit; it is that due to his love that was not real love during her life, but only after, that by virtue of her sacrifice he is only able to love then, which is to say, because thereby does he realize how much she loved him. He there by is already sentenced, but it is a sentence that he suspected all along, and one that only now, once she dies, comes to fruition. The trauma of guilt is relieved by Kate helping him to be honest. He will be then the post-traumatic subject who no longer “lives” and yet is still alive, one who no longer ‘exists’ within the ethical confines that the love that was in bad faith had defined. He is thus free to love beyond the confines of ethics, his ‘punishment’ is that he cannot choose to escape this situation: He is free.

If Denser profits, then it is because he could do nothing else, thus, it is in effect no profit (profit depends upon the ability to notice a distinction, which needs a space for choice, a situation with excess, with room to move), and as well, a noticeable point of contradiction in the fabric of sensible (structural) space.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s