/lit/ - Literature

>>12374758
>it knows
and just briefly, on this: how much of politics itself derives from this sense of saying, 'i already know what you are going to say?' the more that we learn to anticipate other human beings, the greater the temptation to technologize them, to build on our acquired learning of other human beings. we all become very skilled game-players in the world of human affect.

what strikes me as being the truly enlightened or noble thing to do is to act in such a way that we do not deprive others of what it is that makes them unique: for the lack of a better term, we can call this a soul. it is absolutely the thing that made me fall in love with Heidegger: his recognition of the metaphysics of production at the ontological level, and on which Lacan developed his own praxis. *people need to talk.* they don't necessarily know why. *but something in them needs to come out.* it is the same for you as for that other guy. Lacan wove a remarkable web of thought around this idea, and he is who he is because he brings together Hegel, Heidegger, and Nietzsche into a single operation: that there is something in you that needs to come out, and for it every substitution will be death.

perhaps what was underneath that was a form of schizophrenia, or even a schizophrenic god itself. such was Deleuze's perspective. i find myself these days aware of another twist in the plot: that because the world is not my own psychoanalytic office, i can't (or shouldn't) carry on as if i am the carrier of some lost or arcane knowledge. things go both ways. but this i think was Meister Eckhart's feel, the eye that sees god is the eye with which god sees me. Christianity meant a kind of a realm in which people agreed to play by the same set of rules, agreed to share at least one common item: that there was a third figure in all human interactions, a literal and not figurative god of the gaps, and this changed the nature of human interaction. no points will be awarded for pointing out the fact that in Eckhart's day the idea of socialism (or Hegel) had not yet been invented.

we are none of us either as schizophrenically free as Deleuze would perhaps have liked, nor as normatively robust as we suspect we need to be so as to avoid becoming beings requiring an infinite patience from our fellow man. perhaps we are much more like Agent Smiths in search of a Matrix, each of us both a single and a crowd, a pack of one. call it intersectional nihilism. but the Matrix is gone; it vanished with its own acceptance. and now we wait for something to happen.