dear mizz t-money: i have been eating halal since i moved to new york but today i got free soup from work that wasnt halal and i ait it. what is the word for being the freegan version of halal?
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:reposted from the LFEST PICS U GOT thread:
dear mizz t-money: i have been eating halal since i moved to new york but today i got free soup from work that wasnt halal and i ait it. what is the word for being the freegan version of halal?
gay
By opposing ‘patriarchal domination’, women simultane ously undermine the fantasy-support of their own ‘feminine’ identity. The problem is that once the relationship between the two sexes is conceived of as a symmetrical, reciprocal, voluntary partnership or contract, the fantasy matrix which first emerged in courtly love remains in power. Why? In so far as sexual difference is a Real that resists symbolization, the sexual relationship is condemned to remain an asymmetrical non-relationship in which the Other, our partner, prior to being a subject, is a Thing, an ‘inhuman partner’; as such, the sexual relationship cannot be transposed into a symmetrical relationship between pure subjects. The bourgeois principle of contract between equal subjects can be applied to sexuality only in the form of the perverse - masochistic - contract in which, paradoxically, the very form of balanced contract serves to establish a relationship of domination. It is no accident that in the so-called alternative sexual practices (‘sadomaso chistic’ lesbian and gay couples) the Master-and-lave relationship re-emer es with a vengeance, including all the ingredients of the masochistic theatre. In other words, we are far from inventing a new ‘formula’ capable of replacing the matrix of courtly love.
What Lacan aims at with the notion of ‘symbolic castration’ is this choice: either we accept the desexualization of the literal sense that entails the displacement of sexuality to a ‘co-sense’ , to the supplementary dimension of sexual connotation-innuendo; or we approach sexuality ‘directly’, we make sexuality the subject of literal speech, for which we pay with the ‘desexualization’ of our subjective attitude to it. What we lose in every case is a direct approach, a literal talk about sexuality, which would remain ‘sexualized’. In this precise sense, phallus is the signifier of castration: far from acting as the potent organ-symbol of sexuality qua universal creative power, it is the siinifier and/or organ of the very desexualization, of the ’ impossible’ passage of ‘body’ into symbolic ‘thought’ , the signifier that sustains the neutral surface of ‘asexual’ sense.
This is a Test
babyfinland posted:does the portly slovene properly address the lacanian dimensions of bourgeois gender politics aqui:
By opposing ‘patriarchal domination’, women simultane ously undermine the fantasy-support of their own ‘feminine’ identity. The problem is that once the relationship between the two sexes is conceived of as a symmetrical, reciprocal, voluntary partnership or contract, the fantasy matrix which first emerged in courtly love remains in power. Why? In so far as sexual difference is a Real that resists symbolization, the sexual relationship is condemned to remain an asymmetrical non-relationship in which the Other, our partner, prior to being a subject, is a Thing, an ‘inhuman partner’; as such, the sexual relationship cannot be transposed into a symmetrical relationship between pure subjects. The bourgeois principle of contract between equal subjects can be applied to sexuality only in the form of the perverse - masochistic - contract in which, paradoxically, the very form of balanced contract serves to establish a relationship of domination. It is no accident that in the so-called alternative sexual practices (‘sadomaso chistic’ lesbian and gay couples) the Master-and-lave relationship re-emer es with a vengeance, including all the ingredients of the masochistic theatre. In other words, we are far from inventing a new ‘formula’ capable of replacing the matrix of courtly love.
What Lacan aims at with the notion of ‘symbolic castration’ is this choice: either we accept the desexualization of the literal sense that entails the displacement of sexuality to a ‘co-sense’ , to the supplementary dimension of sexual connotation-innuendo; or we approach sexuality ‘directly’, we make sexuality the subject of literal speech, for which we pay with the ‘desexualization’ of our subjective attitude to it. What we lose in every case is a direct approach, a literal talk about sexuality, which would remain ‘sexualized’. In this precise sense, phallus is the signifier of castration: far from acting as the potent organ-symbol of sexuality qua universal creative power, it is the siinifier and/or organ of the very desexualization, of the ’ impossible’ passage of ‘body’ into symbolic ‘thought’ , the signifier that sustains the neutral surface of ‘asexual’ sense.
Agreed
discipline posted:I dunno, I don't really keep halal at all tbqh. I'll do it if there is an apparent choice.
you make me sick you fucking munafiq!!!!
tpaine posted:i dont keep halal except for the part about not imbibing the thing that can keep you sane in a post-capitalist world lma.
I think it's just that's all she can easily get in ramallah lady, but in jolly olde england she drank like a right proper brit
babyfinland posted:does the portly slovene properly address the lacanian dimensions of bourgeois gender politics aqui:
By opposing ‘patriarchal domination’, women simultane ously undermine the fantasy-support of their own ‘feminine’ identity. The problem is that once the relationship between the two sexes is conceived of as a symmetrical, reciprocal, voluntary partnership or contract, the fantasy matrix which first emerged in courtly love remains in power. Why? In so far as sexual difference is a Real that resists symbolization, the sexual relationship is condemned to remain an asymmetrical non-relationship in which the Other, our partner, prior to being a subject, is a Thing, an ‘inhuman partner’; as such, the sexual relationship cannot be transposed into a symmetrical relationship between pure subjects. The bourgeois principle of contract between equal subjects can be applied to sexuality only in the form of the perverse - masochistic - contract in which, paradoxically, the very form of balanced contract serves to establish a relationship of domination. It is no accident that in the so-called alternative sexual practices (‘sadomaso chistic’ lesbian and gay couples) the Master-and-lave relationship re-emer es with a vengeance, including all the ingredients of the masochistic theatre. In other words, we are far from inventing a new ‘formula’ capable of replacing the matrix of courtly love.
What Lacan aims at with the notion of ‘symbolic castration’ is this choice: either we accept the desexualization of the literal sense that entails the displacement of sexuality to a ‘co-sense’ , to the supplementary dimension of sexual connotation-innuendo; or we approach sexuality ‘directly’, we make sexuality the subject of literal speech, for which we pay with the ‘desexualization’ of our subjective attitude to it. What we lose in every case is a direct approach, a literal talk about sexuality, which would remain ‘sexualized’. In this precise sense, phallus is the signifier of castration: far from acting as the potent organ-symbol of sexuality qua universal creative power, it is the siinifier and/or organ of the very desexualization, of the ’ impossible’ passage of ‘body’ into symbolic ‘thought’ , the signifier that sustains the neutral surface of ‘asexual’ sense.
This is a Test
video games?
tpaine posted:i dont keep halal except for the part about not imbibing the thing that can keep you sane in a post-capitalist world lma.
hahahahah
tpaine posted:i dont keep halal except for the part about not imbibing the thing that can keep you sane in a post-capitalist world lma.
glu
babyfinland posted:does the portly slovene properly address the lacanian dimensions of bourgeois gender politics aqui:
By opposing ‘patriarchal domination’, women simultane ously undermine the fantasy-support of their own ‘feminine’ identity. The problem is that once the relationship between the two sexes is conceived of as a symmetrical, reciprocal, voluntary partnership or contract, the fantasy matrix which first emerged in courtly love remains in power. Why? In so far as sexual difference is a Real that resists symbolization, the sexual relationship is condemned to remain an asymmetrical non-relationship in which the Other, our partner, prior to being a subject, is a Thing, an ‘inhuman partner’; as such, the sexual relationship cannot be transposed into a symmetrical relationship between pure subjects. The bourgeois principle of contract between equal subjects can be applied to sexuality only in the form of the perverse - masochistic - contract in which, paradoxically, the very form of balanced contract serves to establish a relationship of domination. It is no accident that in the so-called alternative sexual practices (‘sadomaso chistic’ lesbian and gay couples) the Master-and-lave relationship re-emer es with a vengeance, including all the ingredients of the masochistic theatre. In other words, we are far from inventing a new ‘formula’ capable of replacing the matrix of courtly love.
What Lacan aims at with the notion of ‘symbolic castration’ is this choice: either we accept the desexualization of the literal sense that entails the displacement of sexuality to a ‘co-sense’ , to the supplementary dimension of sexual connotation-innuendo; or we approach sexuality ‘directly’, we make sexuality the subject of literal speech, for which we pay with the ‘desexualization’ of our subjective attitude to it. What we lose in every case is a direct approach, a literal talk about sexuality, which would remain ‘sexualized’. In this precise sense, phallus is the signifier of castration: far from acting as the potent organ-symbol of sexuality qua universal creative power, it is the siinifier and/or organ of the very desexualization, of the ’ impossible’ passage of ‘body’ into symbolic ‘thought’ , the signifier that sustains the neutral surface of ‘asexual’ sense.
This is a Test
english feels very ill suited for this kind of writing as though the structural limitations of the english language makes conveying ideas in this manner needlessly convoluted; ideas shoehorned and crammed into sentences in awkward, unaesthetic ways. somewhat similar to solving a calculus problem with different variables to solve for on opposite ends of the equation. even though it's solvable, you are ultimately left with an open ended answer
anyways, he seems right, i suppose. i agree with the overall aesthetic of the idea, but not the writing 'cuz it's an eyesore, much like the physical being that this dissertation manifested from!
babyfinland posted:does the portly slovene properly address the lacanian dimensions of bourgeois gender politics aqui:
By opposing ‘patriarchal domination’, women simultane ously undermine the fantasy-support of their own ‘feminine’ identity. The problem is that once the relationship between the two sexes is conceived of as a symmetrical, reciprocal, voluntary partnership or contract, the fantasy matrix which first emerged in courtly love remains in power. Why? In so far as sexual difference is a Real that resists symbolization, the sexual relationship is condemned to remain an asymmetrical non-relationship in which the Other, our partner, prior to being a subject, is a Thing, an ‘inhuman partner’; as such, the sexual relationship cannot be transposed into a symmetrical relationship between pure subjects. The bourgeois principle of contract between equal subjects can be applied to sexuality only in the form of the perverse - masochistic - contract in which, paradoxically, the very form of balanced contract serves to establish a relationship of domination. It is no accident that in the so-called alternative sexual practices (‘sadomaso chistic’ lesbian and gay couples) the Master-and-lave relationship re-emer es with a vengeance, including all the ingredients of the masochistic theatre. In other words, we are far from inventing a new ‘formula’ capable of replacing the matrix of courtly love.
What Lacan aims at with the notion of ‘symbolic castration’ is this choice: either we accept the desexualization of the literal sense that entails the displacement of sexuality to a ‘co-sense’ , to the supplementary dimension of sexual connotation-innuendo; or we approach sexuality ‘directly’, we make sexuality the subject of literal speech, for which we pay with the ‘desexualization’ of our subjective attitude to it. What we lose in every case is a direct approach, a literal talk about sexuality, which would remain ‘sexualized’. In this precise sense, phallus is the signifier of castration: far from acting as the potent organ-symbol of sexuality qua universal creative power, it is the siinifier and/or organ of the very desexualization, of the ’ impossible’ passage of ‘body’ into symbolic ‘thought’ , the signifier that sustains the neutral surface of ‘asexual’ sense.
This is a Test
Probrem????
deadken posted:im back in london lol
im sorry
animedad posted:why do you like america ken
the sun shines & people are happy
deadken posted:last night i went to the pub w/ my dad + my brother and there was light rain and i had to wear a coat. right now its drizzling with a cold-ass wind (cold ass-wind) and clouds everywhere. 36 hours ago i was sunning myself topless on the roof of a building and drinking vodka from the bottle. fuck this country
oh jesus christ ken. oh god. ohohohohohoho i'm dying here. keep going. what stilted conversation did you have w. your dad and brother in the pub over your warm pint of fosters. were there a couple of men with no necks playing pool and calling each other cunts. was there a sad, frail old man reading the paper when you arrived who was still there when you left, and a trio of unmarried, 40-something CAMRA nerds having a loud inebriated argument about Dr. Who
