تأمل‌ات ناگزیر

در باب تحمل‌ امر ناگزیر

imanian — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:42:18 GMT

...

زندگی نزد افرادی که قادر به رفع تناقض میان فانتزی محال بشر و سکوت هولناک امر واقعی نیستند، اساساً تحمل‌ناپذیر است.
آنهایی که قادر به تحمل آن‌اند، یا فانتزی را بیش از اندازه جدی گرفته‌اند و یا ‌از تحمل‌ناپذیری زندگی ناآگاه‌اند.

The Real

imanian — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:23:18 GMT

...

The Creative Function of the Word:
The Symbolic and the Real

THINKING always begins from our position within the symbolic order; in other
words, we cannot but consider the supposed "time before the word" from
within our symbolic order, using the categories and filters it provides. We may
try to think ourselves back to a time before words, to some sort of presymbolic
or preinguistic moment in the development of homo sapiens or in our own
individual development, but as long as we are thinking, language remains
essential.
In order to conceive of that time, we give it a name: the real. Lacan tells us
that "the letter kills": it kills the real which was before the letter, before words,
before language. It is, of course, the letter itself—which, at the stage at which
Lacan formulates this (1956, "Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter"), is not
distinguished from the signifier, words, or language—that informs us of its
own lethal properties,' and thus of the real that would have been but for the
letter's advent.
The real is, for example, an infant's body "before" it comes under the sway
of the symbolic order, before it is subjected to toilet training and instructed in
the ways of the world. In the course of socialization, the body is progressively
written or overwritten with signifiers; pleasure is localized in certain zones,
while other zones are neutralized by the word and coaxed into compliance with
social, behavioral norms. Taking Freud's notion of polymorphous perversity
to the extreme, we can view the infant's body as but one unbroken erogenous
zone, there being no privileged zones, no areas in which pleasure is circumscribed
at the outset.
So too, Lacan's real is without zones, subdivisions, localized highs and
lows, or gaps and plenitudes: the real is a sort of unrent, undifferentiated fabric,
woven in such a way as to be full everywhere, there being no space between
the threads that are its "stuff."2 It is a sort of smooth, seamless surface or space
which applies as much to a child's body as to the whole universe. The division
of the real into separate zones, distinct features, and contrasting structures is a
result of the symbolic order, which, in a manner of speaking, cuts into the
smooth facade of the real, creating divisions, gaps, and distinguishable entities
and laying the real to rest, that is, drawing or sucking it into thc symbols used
to describe it, and thereby annihilating it.

...

Bruce Fink, THE LACANIAN SUBJECT, Chapter 3

سالبه به انتفای موضوع

imanian — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:33:14 GMT

ما در "ایران" ،‌"فقیری که نیازمند نان شب باشد" نداریم.

احمدی نژاد

دانشگاه

imanian — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:56:18 GMT

یکی از شعارهای معروف دانشجویان 68 در ایتالیا این بود :

دانشگاه ما کارخانه فیات است، کارخانه فیات دانشگاه ماست.

مفهومِ شکستنِ درهای دانشگاه: سیاستِ یک مکان / امید مهرگان / رخداد

وقت بشر

imanian — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:40:11 GMT

دیکتاتور تنها زمان رخداد پیروزی را به تاخیر می‌اندازد.
او با این کار وقت تاریخ را بیهوده تلف می‌کند.
...
در حالی که دیگر کاری از کسی برنمی‌آید،
جز پذیرش رخداد پایانی
با همه‌ی عظمت و ویرانگری‌اش ...

میرحسین در مقام آنتی‌گونه

imanian — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:10:18 GMT

...

«میرحسین» به جز سیمای اودیپوسی و آنتی‌گونی سیمای سومی هم دارد: او نیازی ندارد خود را کور و مطرود کند، نیازی ندارد خود را بکشد تا رستگار شود، میرحسین چیزی دارد که او را از خود فراتر می‌برد، خواسته‌ای برنیاوردنی که او را از مرزهای تراژدیِ میل مبارزه آن‌سوتر می‌برد و به کران‌های کمدیِ رانه زندگی و امید نزدیک می‌کند: میر‌حسین در مرز تمیز‌ناپذیر تذکار و تکرار، اصول‌گرایی و اصلاح‌طلبی، «مردم» را دارد- عنصری که در جهان اودیپوس و آنتی‌گونه هنوز متولد نشده است. بدین‌اعتبار است که در «میرحسین»، تنشِ حذف‌ناشدنیِ قانون و تخطی، پیروی از سوپراگو و تشدید احساس گناه، در قالب «اخلاق جنبش» رفع مي‌شود و سیمای «وفاداری به وفاداری» می‌یابد و نظم موجود را وامی‌دارد تا دقیقاً از طریق تلاش برای حفظ خود(به‌مدد امنیتی‌کردن روزافزونِ فضا) در جهت تخریب خود گام بردارد.

صالح نجفی - رخداد
متن کامل

توهم بزرگ

imanian — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:26:18 GMT

هنگامی که یک نفر دچار توهم می‌شود، دیوانه‌اش می‌گویند.
هنگامی که افراد بسیاری دچار یک توهم می‌شوند، مومن‌شان می‌خوانند.

رابرت پیرسینگ

Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

imanian — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:38:18 GMT

How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd;
Labour and rest, that equal periods keep;
"Obedient slumbers that can wake and weep;"
Desires compos'd, affections ever ev'n,
Tears that delight, and sighs that waft to Heav'n.
Grace shines around her with serenest beams,
And whisp'ring angels prompt her golden dreams.
For her th' unfading rose of Eden blooms,
And wings of seraphs shed divine perfumes,
For her the Spouse prepares the bridal ring,
For her white virgins hymeneals sing,
To sounds of heav'nly harps she dies away,
And melts in visions of eternal day...

...

Alexander Pope
Full Text

imanian — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:21:12 GMT

...

! 22 = 16 + 13

...

Peripeteia

imanian — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:37:18 GMT

/* /*]]>*/ Peripeteia (Greek, Περιπέτεια) is a reversal of circumstances, or turning point. The term is primarily used with reference to works of literature. The English form of peripeteia is peripety. Peripety is a sudden reversal dependent on intellect and logic. In modern Greek περιπέτεια means adventure. Aristotle's view Aristotle defines it as "a change by which the action veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity." According to Aristotle, peripeteia, along with discovery, is the most effective when it comes to Drama, particularly in a Tragedy. Aristotle wrote “The finest form of Discovery is one attended by Peripeties, like that which goes with the Discovery in Oedipus…”[1]. In 1961 Peter Szondi, one of the most distinguished of recent German literary critics, tried to prop up the universal significance of the dialectical manner with an allusion to Aristotle. Author M.S. Silk wrote in his book “Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond” that “Aristotle's theory of tragedy and its underlying philosophical tenets have little in common with the tragic philosophy of German idealism, as analyzed by Szondi. Aristotle concerns himself with an effective structural element of the dramatic action, Szondi explains his tragic dialectic in an abstract sort of 'mode of action which follows on a unity of opposites', as 'conversion of one state of affairs to its opposite' a principle which, in its dramatic realizations, may take on many different forms and shapes.' But having said this, one must insist that the two concepts have a common denominator: they both emphasize the importance of a paradoxical yet inevitable shift of a (dramatic) movement to its exact opposite.” Szondi's grasp of the Poetics was heavily predisposed by Max Kommerell, whose explanation of peripeteia as 'change of fortune' “may have prevented him from realizing the dialectical significance of Aristotle's definition.” Aristotle says that peripeteia is the most powerful part of a plot in a tragedy along with discovery. A peripety is the change of the kind described from one state of things within the play to its opposite, and that too in the way we are saying, in the probable or necessary sequence of events. There is often no element like Peripetia; it can bring forth or result in terror, mercy, or in comedies it can bring a smile or it can bring forth tears (Rizo). This is the best way to spark and maintain attention throughout the various form and genres of drama “Tragedy imitates good actions and, thereby, measures and depicts the well-being of its protagonist. But in his formal definition, as well as throughout the Poetics, Aristotle emphasizes that” ... Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but also of events inspiring fear or pity" (1452a 1); in fact, at one point Aristotle isolates the imitation of "actions which excite pity and fear" as "the distinctive mark of tragic imitation" (1452b 30). Pity and fear are effected through reversal and recognition; and these "most powerful elements of emotional interest in Tragedy-Peripetia or Reversal of the Situation, and recognition scenes-are parts of the plot (1450a 32). has the shift of the tragic protagonist's fortune from good to bad, which is essential to the plot of a tragedy. It is often an ironic twist. Good uses of Peripetia are those that especially are parts of a complex plot, so that they are defined by their changes of fortune being accompanied by reversal, recognition, or both”(Smithson). Peripeteia includes changes of character, but also more external changes. A character who becomes rich and famous from poverty and obscurity has undergone peripeteia, even if his character remains the same. When a character learns something he had been previously ignorant of, this is normally distinguished from peripeteia as anagnorisis or discovery, a distinction derived from Aristotle's work. Aristotle considered anagnorisis, leading to peripeteia, the mark of a superior tragedy. Two such plays are Oedipus the King, where the oracle's information that Oedipus had killed his father and married his mother brought about his mother's death and his own blindness and exile, and Iphigenia in Tauris, where Iphigenia realizes that the strangers she is to sacrifice are her brother and his friend, resulting in all three of them escaping Tauris. These plots he considered complex and superior to simple plots without anagnorisis or peripeteia, such as when Medea resolves to kill her children, knowing they are her children, and does so. Aristotle identified Oedipus the King, as the principal work demonstrating peripety. (See Aristotle's Poetics.) Thane Heins' Perepiteia was named after this concept. Examples Oedipus Rex In Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, the peripeteia occurs towards the end of the play when the Messenger brings Oedipus news of his parentage. In the play, Oedipus is fated to murder his father and marry his mother. His parents, Laius and Jocasta, try to forestall the oracle by sending their son away to be killed, but he is actually raised by Polybus, king of Corinth, and his wife Merope. The irony of the Messenger’s information is that it was supposed to comfort Oedipus and assure him that he was the son of Polybus. Unfortunately for Oedipus, the Messenger says, “ Polybus was nothing to you, [Oedipus] that’s why, not in blood” (Sophocles 1113). The Messenger received Oedipus from one of Laius’ servants and then gave him to Polybus. The plot comes together when Oedipus realizes that he is the son and murderer of Laius as well as the son and husband of Jocasta. Martin M. Winkler says that here, peripeteia and anagnôrisis, occur at the same time “for the greatest possible impact” because Oedipus has been “struck a blow from above, as if by fate or the gods. He is changing from the mighty and somewhat arrogant king of Thebes to a figure of woe” (Winkler 57). In order to try to save himself, he blinds himself. If he is not able to see the truth with his own eyes, he should not be able to enjoy the gift of sight. Oedipus falls from saving the city of Thebes and being praised as the “best of men” (58) to "a sight, a horror/even his mortal enemy would pity” (Sophocles 1431-1432). The Three Apples The earliest use of peripety in a murder mystery was in "The Three Apples", a medieval Arabian Nights tale that uses the device twice, once for the worse during a plot twist near the middle of the story and then for the better during the twist ending.[citation needed] After the murderer reveals himself near the middle of the story, he explains his reasons behind the murder in a flashback, which begins with him going on a journey to find three rare apples for his wife, but after returning finds out she cannot eat them due to her lingering illness. Later at work, he sees a slave passing by with one of those apples claiming that he received it from his girlfriend, a married woman with three such apples her husband gave her. He returns home and demands his wife to show him all three apples, but she only shows him two. This convinces him of her infidelity and he murders her as a result. After he disposes of her body, he returns home where his son confesses that he had stolen one of the apples and that a slave, to whom he had told about his father's journey, had fled with it. The murderer thus realizes his guilt and regrets what he has just done.[2][3] The second use of peripety occurs near the end. After finding out about the culprit behind the murder, the protagonist Ja'far ibn Yahya is ordered by Harun al-Rashid to find the tricky slave within three days, or else he will have Ja'far executed instead. After the deadline has passed, Ja'far prepares to be executed for his failure and bids his family farewell. As he hugs his youngest daughter, he feels a round object in her pocket, which is revealed to be the same apple that the culprit was holding. In the story's twist ending, the daughter reveals that she obtained it from their slave, Rayhan. Ja'far thus realizes that his own slave was the culprit all along. He then finds Rayhan and solves the case, preventing his own execution.[4][5] Othello In William Shakespeare's tragedy Othello, the peripety occurs in the mere middle of the play, act II, scene 3. Othello is slowly deceived by Iago's rhetoric, persuasiveness and imagery, yet in this scene the transition occurs. Iago says 'Indeed' with emphasis, where after Othello replies: "Indeed? Ay, indeed. Discerns't thou aught in that? Is he not honest?". Iago keeps using rhetorical emphasis to corrupt Othello: "Honest, my lord? [...] Think, my lord?". Othello who is of weak character and easily persuaded replies: "Think, my lord! By heaven, he echoes me, / As if there was some monster in his thought / Too hideous to be shown". The corruption continues until the peripety. There are two stanzas indicating this change. Othello has just got married to the beautiful Desdemona, whom he seemed unlikely to marry because he is a Moor (of North African descent), nevertheless he has been very lucky. Yet the peripety arrives and Othello exclaims: "Why did I marry? This honest creature [Iago] doubtless / Sees and knows more, much more, than he unfolds". [III, 3, 243-4]. Othello concludes that: "This fellow's of exceeding honesty / And knows all qualities with a learned spirit / Of human dealings" [III, 3, 260]. The peripety has happened and Othello degrades mentally and the transition can be observed in his usage of language. Othello is very eloquent and uses subtle imagery ("Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them" [I, 2, 59]). After the peripety his language degrades to the usage of diabolical and physical imagery. Following the confirmation of his absolute belief in what Iago has told him he remarks: "I had rather be a toad / And live upon the vapour of a dungeon" [III, 3, 272]. Hamlet In Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, the peripeteia occurs in Act 3 scene 3 when Hamlet sees King Claudius praying alone. It is the perfect opportunity to avenge his father and kill Claudius. Hamlet draws his sword, but then hesitates. He realizes that Claudius is praying, and that if he killed Claudius, then Claudius would go straight to heaven and Hamlet would not have avenged his father. Hamlet decides not to “take him [Claudius] in the purging of his soul,/ When he is fit and seasoned for passage” (Shakespeare 90-91). He resolves to “know thou a more horrid hent”, or wait for a more horrible occasion (93). The irony of the situation is that, unbeknownst to Hamlet, Claudius cannot ask for forgiveness for murdering his brother because he is “still possessed/ Of those effects for which I [Claudius] did the murder./ My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen” (57-59). This scene marks Hamlet’s point of no return in avenging his father and his hesitation allows Claudius to constantly be one step ahead. In the end, it is Hamlet’s hesitation that causes the death of himself, his mother, Laertes, and Ophelia. On the other hand, according to Hegel’s theory of the tragic, tragedy is “set in train by a peripatetic act that rebounds upon the agent as a conflict between ethical powers” (Finlayson 500). The downfall of the hero is because of an act done in error rather than from a character flaw, so therefore, the character is responsible, at least in part, for his or her downfall (501). In Hamlet’s case, it is the lack of action that causes his downfall and eventual death. از ویکیپدیا