Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
01/13
development, discerning in every determinate
form the seeds of its own destruction and self-
overcoming, his system endeavors to render the
totality of being as an achieved order in which no
further development is in view. With the
twentieth century interpreters of Hegel who
stand under Heideggers influence, this
contradiction between the logical and the
historical acquires a deeper radical
Slavoj iek underpinning: what they try to outline is a more
fundamental ontological frame that is both the
Hegel versus source of Hegels dialectical systematizing, and
is, simultaneously, betrayed by this
systematizing. The historical dimension is here
Heidegger not simply the unending evolution of all life
forms. It is also not the life-philosophical
opposition between the young Hegel trying to
grasp the historical antagonisms of social life
and the old Hegel compulsively steamrolling all
content with his dialectical machine, but the
inherent tension between Hegels systematic
drive of notional self-mediation (or sublation)
and a more original ontological project that,
following Heidegger, Alexandre Koyre describes
as the historicity of the human condition
oriented towards future.1 The root of what Hegel
calls negativity is (our awareness of) future:
future is what is not (yet), the power of negativity
is ultimately identical to the power of time itself,
this force that corrodes every firm identity. The
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
Ilya Kabakov, They are looking downward, 1998-1999. Postcard and edition of 300ceramic tiles.
03/13
Heidegger himself who, in a series of seminars systematically exemplifies or makes appear the
and written texts, proposed the most elaborate differences between the terms rejection,
version of such a critical reading of Hegel. Since negation, nothing, is not, and so forth.3
this is not the Heidegger of Sein und Zeit (Being Hegelian dialectics just presupposes the
and Time), but the later Heidegger, he tries to occultation of its own phenomenologico-
decipher the unthought dimension of Hegel ontological foundation; the name of this
through the close reading of Hegels notion of the occultation is, of course, subjectivity. Hegel
experience (Erfahrung) of consciousness from always-already subordinates negativity to the
his Phenomenology of Spirit. Heidegger reads subjects work of the negative, to the work of
Hegels famous critique of Kantian skepticism the subjects conceptual mediation/sublation of
we can only get to know the Absolute if the all phenomenal content. In this way, negativity is
Absolute already in advance wants to be bei uns reduced to a secondary moment in the subjects
(with us) through his interpretation of parousia work of self-mediation. This blindness for its
as the epochal disclosure of being: parousia own foundation is not a secondary feature, but
names the mode by which the Absolute (Hegels the very enabling feature of Hegels metaphysics
name for the Truth of Being) is already disclosed of subjectivity: the dialectical logos can only
to us prior to any active effort on our part, i.e., function against the background of a pre-
the way this disclosure of the Absolute grounds subjective Absage, renunciation or saying-no.
and directs our very effort to grasp it or, as There nonetheless is a privileged
mystics and theologians put it, you wouldnt have phenomenal mode in which negativity can be
been searching for me if you had not already experienced, although a negative one: pain. The
found me. path of experience is the path of painful
04/13
reaches Absolute Knowing. When he speaks And this brings us back to Heideggers reproach
about transcendental pain as the fundamental that Hegel doesnt provide the phenomenal
Stimmung of Hegels thought, Heidegger is experience of negativity: What if negativity
following a line that begins in Kants Critique of precisely names the gap of phenomenality,
Practical Reason.4 There Kant determines pain something that does NOT (and cannot ever)
as the only a priori emotion, the emotion of my appear? Not because it is a transcendental
pathological ego being humiliated by the gesture that by definition eludes the phenomenal
injunction of the moral law. (Lacan sees in this level, but because it is the paradoxical, difficult-
transcendental privilege of pain the link between to-think negativity that cannot be subsumed
Kant and Sade.) under any agent (experiential or not), what Hegel
What Heidegger misses in his description of calls self-relating negativity, negativity that
the Hegelian experience as the path of despair precedes all positive grounding and whose
(Verzweiflung) is the proper abyss of this negative gesture of withdrawal opens up the
process: it is not only the natural consciousness space for all positivity. And from this point, one
that is shattered, but also the transcendental can even reverse Heideggers reproach to Hegel
standard, measure, or framing ground against and claim that it is Heidegger who is not able to
which natural consciousness experiences its think this transcendental pain and that he
inadequacy and failure as Hegel put it, if what misses the path to think it precisely by dropping
we thought to be true fails the measure of truth, all too early the term subject needed to think
this measure itself has to be abandoned. This is the (inhuman) core of being-human.
why Heidegger misses the vertiginous abyss of Throughout his own work, Lacan, in turn,
the dialectical process: there is no standard of modifies Heideggers motif of language as the
truth gradually approached through painful house of being. Language is not mans creation
experiences; this standard itself is caught in the and instrument, it is man who dwells in
process, undermined again and again. language: psychoanalysis should be the science
This is also why Heideggers reproach of of language inhabited by the subject.5 Lacans
Hegels machination misses the point. paranoiac twist, his additional Freudian turn of
According to Heidegger, the Hegelian process of the screw, comes from his characterization of
experience moves at two levels, that of lived- this house as a torture-house: in the light of the
experience (Erlebnis) and that of conceptual Freudian experience, man is a subject caught in
and tortured by language.6 Not only does man
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
one, as the necessary outcome of its crisis. The signs of an original and irremediable gap
authentic lived-experience, the opening to the between subject and language, so many signs
New, is thus revealed as something that is that man cannot ever be at home in his own
underpinned by notional work: what the subject home. This is what Heidegger ignores: this dark,
experiences as the unexplainable rise of a new torturing other side of our dwelling in language
world is actually, behind its back, the result of its and this is why there is also no place for the Real
own conceptual work, and can thus ultimately be of jouissance in Heideggers edifice, since the
read as produced by subjects own machination. torturing aspect of language concerns primarily
There is no experience of genuine otherness, the the vicissitudes of libido. This is also why, in
subject only encounters the results of its own order to get the truth to speak, it is not enough to
(conceptual) work. This reproach only holds if suspend the subjects active intervention and let
one ignores how both sides, the phenomenal for language itself speak as Elfriede Jelinek put it
itself of the natural consciousness and the for with extraordinary clarity: language should be
us of the subterranean conceptual work, are tortured to tell the truth. It should be twisted,
caught in the groundless abyss of repeated denaturalized, extended, condensed, cut and
vertiginous loss. The transcendental pain is not reunited, made to work against itself. Language
06/13
free flow of speech into a Procrustean bed of a Mirror, in which the heroine, who works as a
fixed shape of rhythm and rhyme. So what about proof-reader for a daily newspaper in the Soviet
Heideggers procedure of listening to the Union of the mid-1930s, runs in rain from her
soundless word of language itself, of bringing out home to the printing office because there is a
the truth that already dwells in it? No wonder suspicion that she missed an obscene misprint
late Heideggers thinking is poetic. Recall the of Stalins name. Sean Martin is right to
means he uses to do this: can one imagine a emphasize the unexpected feature of its
torture more violent than what he does in, say, immediate physical beauty:
his famous reading of Parmenidess proposition It is as if Tarkovsky were content just to
thinking-speaking and being are the same? To watch Margarita Terekhova running through the
extract the intended truth from it, he has to refer rain, down steps, across yards, into corridors.
to the literal meaning of words (legein as Here, Tarkovsky reveals the presence of beauty in
gathering), to counter-intuitively displace the something that is apparently mundane and,
accent and scansion of the sentence, to paradoxically (given the period), also potentially
translate single terms in an idiosyncratic, fatal for Maria if the mistake she thinks shes
descriptive way, and so on. It is from this made has gone to press.8
perspective that late Wittgensteinian ordinary This effect of beauty is generated precisely
language philosophy, which perceives itself as a by the excessive length of the scene: instead of
medical cure meant to correct the usages of just watching Maria running and, immersed in
ordinary language that give rise to philosophical the narrative, worrying if she will arrive on time
problems, wants to eliminate precisely the to prevent the catastrophe, we are seduced into
torturing of language that forces it to deliver looking at the scene, taking note of its
truth. (Remember Rudolph Carnaps famous phenomenal features, the intensity of
critique of Heidegger from the late 1920s, which movements, and so forth. One can thus well
claims that Heideggers ratiocinations are based characterize Tarkovskys polemics against
on the wrong use of nothing as a substantive). Eisenstein as a polemic of one torturer with his
And does the same not go for cinema? Does professional colleague about the use of different
cinema also not force its visual material to tell devices.
the truth through torture? First, there was This is also the ultimate reason why, against
Eisensteins montage of attractions, the Heideggers historicization of the subject as
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
replaced the frantic Eisensteinian montage with for the revelation of Being and thus ignores
its opposite: a stretching-out of time, the human creativity. Lacans point is, on the
cinematic equivalent of the rack, a classic contrary, that Heidegger misses the properly
torturing machine made to stretch the victims traumatic impact of the very passivity of being
limbs. Suffice it to recall Tarkovskys formal caught in language, the tension between human
procedure, which, given his Soviet origins, animal and language: there is subject because
cannot but ironically evoke the (in)famous the human animal doesnt fit language, the
dialectical law of the inversion of quantity in Lacanian subject is the tortured, mutilated,
quality, and supplement it with a kind of negation subject. Insofar as the status of the Lacanian
of negation (which was excluded by Stalin from subject is real, i.e., insofar as the real Thing is
the list of these laws as too Hegelian, not ultimately (the impossible core of) the subject
properly materialist): itself, one should apply to the subject Lacans
Tarkovsky proposed that if a take is definition of the Thing as that part or aspect of
lengthened, boredom naturally sets in for the the real which suffers from the signifier. The
audience. But if the take is extended even most elementary dimension of the subject is not
further, something else arises: curiosity. activity, but passivity, enduring. This is how
07/13
announces itself as such, through which the and flesh, it is only through such a sacrifice that
subject, if one can put it this way, fully becomes the flesh becomes receptive for the Word.
a man, but also a woman. The mutilation serves This brings us, finally, to the topic of
here to orientate desire, enabling it to assume jouissance. Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe located
precisely this function of index, of something very precisely the gap that separates Lacans
which is realized and which can only articulate interpretation of Antigone from Heideggers (to
itself, express itself, in a symbolic beyond, a which Lacan otherwise abundantly refers): what
beyond which is the one we today call being, a is totally missing in Heidegger is not only the
realization of being in the subject.9 dimension of the real, of jouissance, but, above
The gap that separates Lacan from all, the dimension of the between-two-deaths
Heidegger is here clearly discernible precisely on (the symbolic and the real), which designates
account of their proximity; by the fact that, in Antigones subjective position after she is
order to designate the symbolic function at its excommunicated from the polis by Creon. In
most elementary, Lacan still uses Heideggers exact symmetry with her brother Polynices who
term being. In a human being, desires lose their is dead in reality, but denied the symbolic death,
mooring in biology, they are operative only the rituals of burial, Antigone finds herself dead
insofar as they are inscribed within the horizon symbolically, excluded from the symbolic
of Being sustained by language; however, in order community, while biologically and subjectively
for this transposition from the immediate still alive. In Agambens terms, Antigone finds
biological reality of the body to the symbolic herself reduced to bare life, to a position of
space to take place, it has to leave a mark of homo sacer, whose exemplary case in the
torture in the body in the guise of its mutilation. twentieth century is that of the inmates of the
08/13
Nazi temptation: logical premise of philosophy, Lacan focuses on
the real of jouissance as something that,
But the between-two-deaths is the hell although it is far from being simply external to
which our century realized or still promises language (it is rather ex-timate with regard to
to realize, and it is to this that Lacan replies it), resists symbolization, remains a foreign
and to what he wants to make kernel within it, appears within it as a rupture,
psychoanalysis responsible. Did he not say cut, gap, inconsistency or impossibility:
that politics is the hole of metaphysics?
The scene with Heidegger and there is I challenge whichever philosopher to
one is in its entirety located here.11 account now for the relation that is
between the emergence of the signifier and
This also accounts for the disturbing ambiguity the way jouissance relates to being.No
of Heideggers description of the death in philosophy, I say, meets us here today. The
extermination camps: this death is no longer wretched aborted freaks of philosophy
authentic death the individuals assuming of which we drag behind us from the
ones death as the possibility of his highest beginning of the last nineteenth century as
impossibility but just another anonymous the habits that are falling apart, are nothing
industrial-technological process. People do not but a way to frisk rather than to confront
really die in the camps, they are just this question which is the only question
industrially exterminated. Heidegger not only about truth and which is called, and named
obscenely suggests that the victims burned in by Freud, the death drive, the primordial
the camps somehow did not die authentically, masochism of jouissance.All
thereby translating their utter suffering into philosophical speech escapes and
subjective non-authenticity. The question he withdraws here.13
fails to raise is precisely: how did THEY
subjectivize (relate to) their predicament? Their It is in this sense that Lacan designates his
death was an industrial process of extermination position as the one of the realism of
for their executioners, not for themselves. jouissance. A realism whose natural enemy
Francois Balms makes here a perspicuous cannot but appear Hegels panlogism as the
remark that it is as if Lacans implicit clinical climactic point of ontology, of logic (self-
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
reproach to Heideggers existential analytic of deployment of logos) as the total explanation for
Dasein as being-towards-death is that it is being, through which being loses its opacity and
appropriate only for neurotics and fails to becomes totally transparent. But does Lacan not
account for psychotics.12 A psychotic subject proceed all too fast here? Are things with Hegel
occupies an existential position for which there really so simple? Is the obverse of Hegels basic
is no place in Heideggers mapping, the position thesis there is nothing which is not logos not,
of someone who in a way survives his own following Lacans formulas of sexuation, the
death. Psychotics no longer fit Heideggers assertion of a non-All? That is to say, not-all is
Hegel versus Heidegger
description of Daseins engaged existence, their logos, i.e., logos is not-all, rather isnt it
life no longer moves in the coordinates of a corroded and truncated from within by
futural project freely engaged against the antagonisms and ruptures, and thereby never
background of ones assumed past: their life is fully itself?
outside care (Sorge), their being is no longer Maybe, Lacan was obscurely aware of all
directed towards death. this, as indicated above by the curious limitation
This excess of jouissance that resists of his brutal dismissal of philosophy to the
symbolization (logos) is the reason why, in the wretched aborted freaks of philosophy which
last two decades of his teaching, Lacan we drag behind us from the beginning of the
(sometimes almost pathetically) insists that he nineteenth century. A dismissal that begins with
considers himself an anti-philosopher, someone post-Hegelian thought. The obvious thing would
who rebels against philosophy: philosophy is have been to say that it is precisely post-
onto-logy, its basic premise is, as Parmenides, Hegelian thought that breaks with onto-logy,
the first philosopher, put it, thinking and being asserting the primacy of a trans-logical Will or
are the same, the mutual accord between Life the anti-logos (anti-philosophy) that runs
thinking (logos as reason/speech) and being. Up from late Schelling through Schopenhauer to
09/13
because (as Heidegger demonstrated) being can transcendent beyond of reality in itself,
only arise through logos. The difference from independently of us. In a Leninist way (the
Heidegger is that Lacan, instead of accepting Leninism of Materialism and Empiriocriticism),
this accord (sameness) between Being and logos, he then asserts that we can access and think
tries to move outside of it, to a dimension of the reality in itself. But something is lost in this very
real indicated by the impossible joint between field of the transcendental dilemma, something
subject and jouissance. No wonder, then, that, that concerns the very core of the Freudian
with regard to anxiety, Lacan prefers Kierkegaard discovery (as formulated by Lacan): the inherent
to Heidegger: he perceives Kierkegaard as the twisting figuration that is constitutive of the
anti-Hegel for whom the paradox of Christian subject itself. That is to say, what Lacan asserts
faith signals a radical break with ancient Greek is precisely the irreducible (constitutive) discord
ontology (in contrast to Heideggers reduction of and non-correlation, between subject and
Christianity to a moment in the decline of Greek reality: in order for the subject to emerge, the
ontology within medieval metaphysics). Faith is impossible object-that-is-subject must be
an existential jump into what (from the excluded from reality, since it is its very
ontological view) cannot but appear as madness, exclusion that opens up the space for the
it is a crazy decision unwarranted by any reason subject. The problem is not to think the real
Kierkegaards God is effectively beyond outside transcendental correlation,
Being, a God of the Real, not the God of independently of subject; the problem is to think
philosophers. Which is why, again, Lacan would real INSIDE the subject, the hard core of the real
accept Heideggers famous statement, from the in the very heart of the subject, its ex-timate
1920s, when he abandoned Catholic Church, that center.
religion is a mortal enemy of philosophy but he Simultaneously, the exclusion of this object
would see this as the reason to stick to the core is constitutive of the appearance of reality: since
of the Real in the religious experience. reality (not the real) is correlative to the subject,
It is against this background of the radical it can only constitute itself through the
asymmetry or non-correlation between subject withdrawal from it of the object, of that which
and object (or thinking and reality) that one can is the subject, or, in other words, through the
clearly see where Meillassouxs critique of withdrawal of the subjects objectal correlate. To
correlationism falls short: in his rejection of put it in the old jargon of the logic of the signifier,
10/13
is the subject itself.14 This is the true fossil, real object: before relating to objects, which are
the bone that is the spirit, to paraphrase Hegel, part of external reality, the subject is haunted by
and this object is not simply the full objective its own objectal shadow. In the guise of this
reality of the subject (the successful scientific additional virtual object, the subject is ex-posed
reduction of the subjective experience to to the real, constitutively de-centered, much
objective processes as in biogenetics), but the more radically even than in the symbolic order.
non-corporeal, fantasmatic, lamella. In some of This is how one can read one of Lacans re-
Francis Bacons drawings, we find a (naked, statements of Descartess cogito ergo sum: I am
usually) body accompanied by a weird dark at that impossible piece of the real where I
stain-like, circular, formless form that seems to cannot think. We can also see in what way, two
grow out of it, barely attached to it, as a kind of lacks overlap in this impossible object: the
uncanny protuberance that the body cannot ever constitutive lack of the subject (what the subject
fully recuperate or reintegrate, and that thereby has to lose in order to emerge as the subject of
destabilizes beyond repair the organic Whole of the signifier) and the lack in the Other itself
the body this is what Lacan aimed at with his (what has to be excluded from reality so that
notion of lamella (or hommelette). reality can appear). Again, the object is not
Why this primordial loss, why this simply there at the crosscut of the two lacks: it
constitutive withdrawal from reality of a part of literally, and much more radically, emerges
the real? Precisely because the subject is a part through the overlapping of the two lacks. (Once
of reality. Because it emerges out of it. This is Lacan got this point, he changed the status of
why, if the subject is to emerge as the non- objet a from imaginary to real.) So the real is not
substantial cogito, his being should be elevated some kind of primordial Being lost with the
11/13
symbolic operation. than a decade of struggling with Heidegger,
In the opposition between the symbolic Lacan accomplishes his paradoxical and (for
order and reality, the real is on the side of the someone who adheres to Heideggers notion of
symbolic it is the part of reality that clings to modern philosophy) totally unexpected move
the symbolic (in the guise of its from Heidegger back to Descartes, to Cartesian
inconsistency/gap/impossibility). The real is the cogito. There really is a paradox here: Lacan first
point at which the external opposition between accepts Heideggers point that the Cartesian
the symbolic order and reality is immanent to the cogito, which grounds modern science and its
symbolic itself, mutilating it from within: it is the mathematicized universe, announces the highest
non-all of the symbolic. There is a real not forgetting of Being; but for Lacan, the Real of
because the symbolic cannot grasp its external jouissance is precisely external to Being, so that
real, but because the symbolic cannot fully what is for Heidegger the argument AGAINST
become ITSELF. There is being (reality) because cogito is for Lacan the argument FOR cogito the
the symbolic system is inconsistent, flawed. The real of jouissance can only be approached when
real is thus an impasse of formalization. One we exit the domain of being. This is why, for
should give to this thesis all its idealist weight: Lacan, not only is cogito not to be reduced to the
it is not only that reality is too rich, so that every self-transparency of pure thought, but,
formalization fails to grasp it, stumbles upon it; paradoxically, cogito IS the subject of the
the real IS nothing but the impasse of unconscious the gap/cut in the order of Being
formalization there is dense reality out there in which the real of jouissance breaks in.
BECAUSE of the inconsistencies and gaps in the Of course, this cogito is the cogito in
symbolic order. The real is nothing but the non- becoming, not yet the res cogitans, the thinking
all of formalization, not its external exception. substance that fully participates in Being and in
Since reality is in itself fragile and logos. In the seminar on the logic of fantasy,
inconsistent, it needs the intervention of a Lacan reads the truth of Descartess cogito ergo
Master-Signifier to stabilize itself into a sum more radically than in his earlier seminars,
consistent field; this Master-Signifier marks the where he played endlessly on the variations of
point at which a signifier falls into the real. The subverting the subject. He started with
Master-Signifier is a signifier that not only decentering being with regard to thought: I am
designates features of reality, but also not where I think, the core of our being (Kern
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
fragments of the real into the consistent field of passed to the much more refined I think where I
objective reality. In the same way that, for Kant, am not, which decenters thinking with regard to
it is the addition of the subjective synthesis that my Being. As the awareness of my full presence:
transforms the multiplicity of subjective the Unconscious is a purely virtual (in-existing,
impressions into objective reality, for Lacan, it is insisting) Other Place of a thought, which
the intervention of the Master-Signifier, which escapes my being. Then comes a different
transforms the confused field of impressions punctuation: I think: therefore I am my
into extra-linguistic reality. This, then, would be Being is devalued to an illusion generated by my
the Lacanian answer to correlationism: while thought. What all these versions share, however,
transcendental correlationism can think the is the accent on the gap that separates cogito
intervention of the Master-Signifier as from sum, thought from being Lacans aim was
constitutive of reality, it misses this other to undermine the illusion of their overlap by
inverted correlation between the Master- pointing out a fissure in the apparent
Signifier and objet a, i.e., it cannot think the stain homogeneity of thinking-being. It was only
of the real that de-centers from within the toward the end of his teaching that he asserted
subject. their overlapping and only a negative one, for
12/13
void in the order of being, to a gap, a bance. Of course, the only way for us to articulate
(Recall how, for Lacan, the discourse of science this truth is within language by way of torturing
presupposes the foreclosure of the subject to language. As Hegel already knew, when we think,
put it in nave terms, the subject of science is we think in language against language. This
reduced to zero: a scientific proposition should brings us to Benjamin: Could we not apply his
be valid for anyone who repeats the same distinction of mythic violence and divine violence
experiment. The moment we have to include the to the two modes of violence we were dealing
subjects position of enunciation, we are no with? The violence of language to which
longer in science, but in a discourse of wisdom or Heidegger refers is mythic violence: it is a
initiation.) I DONT THINK: here, again, Lacan sprach-bildende Gewalt, a language-forming
paradoxically accepts Heideggers thesis that violence, to paraphrase Benjamins definition of
(modern mathematized) science doesnt think mythic violence as staats-bildend the force of
but for him, this precisely means that it breaks mythos as the primordial act of narrativization or
out of the frame of onto-logy, of thinking as logos symbolization. In Badious terms, the violent
correlative to Being. As pure cogito, I dont think, imposition of the transcendental coordinates of
I am reduced to pure (form of) thought which a World onto the multiplicity of Being. The
coincides with its opposite, i.e., which has no violence of thinking (and of poetry, if we
content and is as such non-thinking. The understand it differently from Heidegger) is, on
tautology of thinking is self-canceling in the the contrary, the case of what Benjamin calls
same way as the tautology of being, which is why, divine violence, it is a language-destroying
for Lacan, the I am that which I am announced (sprach-zerstoerend) twisting of language in
by the burning bush to Moses on the Mount Sinai order to enable a trans-symbolic real of a Truth
indicates a God beyond Being, God as Real.15 to transpire in it.
The importance of Lacans assertion of
cogito is that, with regard to the couple This paper was originally presented at the conference "One
Divides Into Two: Negativity, Dialectics, and Clinamen," held
language-world, it assures a point external to it, at the Institute for Cultural Inquiry Berlin in March 2011.
a minimal point of singular universality, which is
literally world-less, trans-historical. This means
we are condemned to our world, to the
hermeneutic horizon of our finitude, or, as
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
13/13
Graduate School. He has been a visiting professor at, milieu,de Hegel aux
among others, the University of Chicago, Columbia neurosciences, (Paris: Hermann,
2009).
University, London Consortium, Princeton University,
New York University, The New School, the University of 3
Minnesota, the University of California, Irvine and the Martin
Heidegger,Gesamtausgabe, vol
University of Michigan. He is currently the 68, Hegel, (Frankfurt: Vittorio
International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Klostermann 1993), 37.
Humanities at Birkbeck, University of London and
president of the Society for Theoretical 4
Ibid, 103. See generally Martin
Psychoanalysis, Ljubljana. Heidegger,Hegels
Phenomenology of Spirit, trans.
Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly
(Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, 1988).
5
Jacques Lacan,Seminar III: The
Psychoses, ed. Jacques Alain
Miller (New York: W. Norton,
1997),222.
6
Ibid.
7
Sean Martin,Andrei Tarkovsky,
(Harpenden: Pocket Essentials,
2005), 49.
8
Ibid, 135.
9
Jacques Lacan,Le desir et son
interpretation (unpublished
seminar), 20 May 1959.
10
See Giorgio Agamben,Homo
Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare
Life, trans.Daniel Heller-Roazen
(Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1998).
e-flux journal #32 february 2012 Slavoj iek
11
Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, De
lethique: a propos dAntigone,
in Lacan avec les philosophes,
(Paris: Albin Michel, 1991), 28.
12
See Francois Balmes,Ce que
Lacan dit de letre, (Paris: PUF,
1999),73
13
Hegel versus Heidegger
Jacques Lacan,Lobjet de la
psychanalyse (unpublished
seminar), 8 June 1966.
14
See Alenka Zupani,Realno in
njegovo nemozno (The Real and
its Impossible), unpublished
manuscript.
15
Here we can also establish the
link with Meillassouxs design of
speculative materialism: the
scientific mathematized Real is
outside the transcendental
correlation of logos and being.
See Quentin Meillassoux,After
Finitude, London: Continuum
Books 2008.