Jump to content
Da Fightin' Materialist

STEAL THIS KRITIK

Recommended Posts

Benoit,

 

I didnt read all the evidence, I will be honest, but I am really interested in what YOU are assuming in this argument. It seems as if the act of remembrance is something that occurs through or by the rational subject vis a vis the will. The way this would manifest itself specifically would be to say that the affirmative says "hey, remember the violence of east timor, we cannot let that happen again" as if the violence remained in the past and the present or future actions, in reference to that past traumatic event, will respond to it or emerge in relation to its occurence.

 

But I know you have read Freud and you have to at least take into account The Pleasure Principle here, in which case what you call the act of remembering or remembrance as the ethical impetus of the affirmative is not memory or the act of remembrance but the delayed emergence of the traumatic event such that if the aff says "remembrance" what they are really describing is a potentiality to remember, but this cashes out such that what is remembered never appears in its totality, never appears as "trauma" as such, but only comes to be "traumatic" or what "must be remembered" vis a vis Nachtraeglichkeit and for that there is some powerful shit to be said about the ethical, ie, Cathy Caruth and Shoshana Felman's work on Traum...go get it!

 

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benoit,

 

I didnt read all the evidence, I will be honest, but I am really interested in what YOU are assuming in this argument. It seems as if the act of remembrance is something that occurs through or by the rational subject vis a vis the will. The way this would manifest itself specifically would be to say that the affirmative says "hey, remember the violence of east timor, we cannot let that happen again" as if the violence remained in the past and the present or future actions, in reference to that past traumatic event, will respond to it or emerge in relation to its occurence.

 

But I know you have read Freud and you have to at least take into account The Pleasure Principle here, in which case what you call the act of remembering or remembrance as the ethical impetus of the affirmative is not memory or the act of remembrance but the delayed emergence of the traumatic event such that if the aff says "remembrance" what they are really describing is a potentiality to remember, but this cashes out such that what is remembered never appears in its totality, never appears as "trauma" as such, but only comes to be "traumatic" or what "must be remembered" vis a vis Nachtraeglichkeit and for that there is some powerful shit to be said about the ethical, ie, Cathy Caruth and Shoshana Felman's work on Traum...go get it!

 

Enjoy!

 

If you're saying remembrance is an extrinsic component to the affirmative project, then yeah I figure thats the aff offense since it becomes basically a slightly specific version of the K's alternative, which is to love the traumatic event, a relationship which allows us to creatively and externally affirm the event in order to open up new avenues in our being, existence, etc without having to have our action in life constrained by memory. If not, run that bottom portion of your post by me one more time.

 

My only question is what would the Pleasure Principle (or its Beyond) have to do with this? You seem to use it to say that it delays the tramautic or something, but the only the PP is capable of delaying is, well, pleasure. Whatever is unconcious, whatever repeats, generally give it the finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only question is what would the Pleasure Principle (or its Beyond) have to do with this? You seem to use it to say that it delays the tramautic or something, but the only the PP is capable of delaying is, well, pleasure. Whatever is unconcious, whatever repeats, generally give it the finger.

 

I was actually referencing Beyond the Pleasure Principle to bring up Freud's concept of Nachtraelichkeit as something that would provide a counter way of thinking about trauma than they paradigm of remembrance that might be at play in in the affs framework.

 

Finally, how can you say give the unconcious the finger and lets be careful to distinguish return from repitition, since i think Freud and Nietzsche would make that distinction. The repitition seems to assume the events re-currence in its totality, but this never happens. I do not think the point of Freud or Lacan is to give what returns and the unconscious the finger, I think its these areas where psychoanalysis broaches ethics or raises the question of responsibility and we can talk about what that project is going to look like. My point however is to give what returns the finger or the unconscious the finger seems very much against what Freud, Nietzsche, and Lacan would suggest and those thinkers seem to be who you are working with in this argument, at least they are influencing it.

 

enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was actually referencing Beyond the Pleasure Principle to bring up Freud's concept of Nachtraelichkeit as something that would provide a counter way of thinking about trauma than they paradigm of remembrance that might be at play in in the affs framework.

 

Finally, how can you say give the unconcious the finger and lets be careful to distinguish return from repitition, since i think Freud and Nietzsche would make that distinction. The repitition seems to assume the events re-currence in its totality, but this never happens. I do not think the point of Freud or Lacan is to give what returns and the unconscious the finger, I think its these areas where psychoanalysis broaches ethics or raises the question of responsibility and we can talk about what that project is going to look like. My point however is to give what returns the finger or the unconscious the finger seems very much against what Freud, Nietzsche, and Lacan would suggest and those thinkers seem to be who you are working with in this argument, at least they are influencing it.

 

enjoy!

 

For some reason, the frequent use of finger messed up my comprehension of what you were trying to say here.

 

Also, I meant to say 'whatever repeats gives the pleasure principle the finger,' meaning it undermines the dominance of the tendency, not give the Ucs the finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
unfortunately, addmission into Emory does not include a light saber.

 

Um, I don't know what admissions process you went through, but mine definately involved lightsabres.

 

Learn2Play and CrymoreN00b!

 

Rob

 

P.S. Are you a graduate student in Comp Lit? I wouldn't expect one of the undergrad comp-lit peons to be able to write, as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...