Pussy Riot II: Origin of the Fraud or "hysteria" means Pussy

Pussy Riot: s'il vous plait - Have it your way - Enjoy -

a Hollywood style propaganda aim to increase the presence of Russia in the media - as we now too contribute to its distribution. Indeed, who would ever care of ex East? Do we really care? As Medvedev promotes Free Thought in Russia, Putin is watching Wag the Dog... the Slave speaks for the Master and His Master's voice is the voice of the pussies inflicted by Western punk... Indeed, who would ever care about the "riot" without pussies?   

Adresseavisen on Woman of Institutet at Bastardfestival, Trondheim, 11-12/9 2012

"Det var veldig ubehagelig"


http://www.adressa.no/kultur/article4792883.ece

Woman by Institutet, Trondheim, Bastardfestival, 11-12/9 2012

WOMAN by Institutet

Trondheim, Bastadrfestival, 11-12 September 2012

*

Man's desire for Woman is a symptom of what he lacks: What he lacks he desires.

The problem of the man: Woman possesses what he desires: the lack.

He... he has a penis - but, he has no idea what to do whit it. Eventually, he wants to embody Woman.

Woman is a phallus, the symptom of man's desire. The phallus is a signifier of the lack.

We know this: Woman holds the lack, desired by man.

It turns him on. And he becomes aware of his penis.

The Greek word for instrument is “organ”. Man believes his organ makes her enjoy.

Make the enjoyment of Woman instrumental! Orchestrated by man...

Having a penis and holding a phallus are two very different things. Woman holds the phallus;

The phallus (!) is not a penis!

Could he possibly supplement her enjoyment, while she enjoys? Give Her MORE.

Woman enjoys. There is nothing MORE to it.

He fills Her. With love, with bliss, makes her complete. Make himself complete.

Woman enjoy. Are you not? [to the female audience] Do you? [to the male audience] Want to fill Her lack? In each other's arms, are you aware of him [to female audience], are you aware of her [to male audience] when it CUMS?

And this is what the man cannot: enjoy the penis alone... He is not capable to orchestrate anything with One instrument alone. No Woman, no organisation of man's desire. Without Her; the man is doomed, to man-sturbate, left alone to la jouissance de l'idiot...

Man lacks what he desires. His lack is REAL. Really a problem.

And he desires Woman.

He desires. Every-Thing for-It-Self.

Her, partial objects:

a foot,

a tongue,

an eye...

Every PIECE of Her he desires. With each piece he creates: Woman.

What does the man want?

Be true to his desire.

So be It.

So be It.

So be It.

So be It.

Be. It. Be. It.

Be.

I.

Be.

I.

Be.

I.

Ai

Ai

Ai

Ai

Ai

http://www.avantgarden.no/program/woman/
http://www.avantgarden.no
http://institutet.eu
http://ervikcejvan.blogspot.se

nOne of the Two: Idiot of Love

Intimacy of desire and eroticism of drive: separate instances intertwined in the idea of love. Hence, from a displacement of desire and drive, love emerges as spiritual, religious, idealist and mystic concept. The knowledge of love is awareness of a narrative of one's desire for the enjoyment of the other; retracing the desire at the void of being or the force of life, the Freudian drive. Libido. Any desire is wish and fantasy. Always at work, indeed in manic-erotic obsession the idea of love, of loving beloved person is more than just desiring the agalma (Lacan's objet petit a). The compulsory instance of this misperceived identification of the fantasy of beloved with the actual person want-to-be story of "true love". The problem of love-idealism of the Two is however posed by psychoanalytic practice of love-transfer, which renders love as pure altruism; disinterested to profit on the economy of desire – but to profit on money – whereas the previous animates the idea of the love of Two. Yet, there is the idea of Love of Two that cannot be disregarded as illusion: the idea of One; impossible idea, as of the Two becoming One in Love there is no-one of the two left. This is an operation that annihilates the subject, for good or bad. Love idealism is then the idea of absolute void, an annihilation of Being. And the One is impossible to make "in love". What truth is now revealed in this dialectical movement of reasoning? The truth that One is always already One-self. So, why make one self an idiot of Love?

Recommended reading: J. Lacan, Encore.

It takes balls to be Pussy

"On Wednesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry denounced Western criticism of the trial as politically motivated and said there were "elements of a clash of civilizations" in the Western condemnation."

http://freepussyriot.org/news/female-punk-rock-band-appeals-conviction-russian-church-critical

Pussy Riot incident renders traditional antagonism between West and Russia meaningless as the "clash of civilizations" may be a matter of the internal political splitting in Russia. It is hard to believe that Pussy Riot are the only Pussies against Putin. But a significant note is that the action took place in the church performing a prayer to Maria. The hope for heavenly intervention agains Putin sends clear message about his monumental position in Russia. Putin's only rival is no less than the Mother of God! So, is there any real opposition, on the level of public opinion, really against Putin in Russia today?

Western sensationalism and false idealism which calls for an indeed impossible rescue mission not only attacks Russian idea of justice but motivates a serious conflict which at this stage, given Putins fast position, will only harden his rule and eventually mobilize or renew traditional Russian hostility to the West. Subsequently, in relation to the West most Russians are perhaps ready to choose to support the existing system than to introduce Western idea of democracy and justice. The former is not an option as Putin's propaganda apparently succeeds to create an apocalyptic vision of non-Putin Russia but perhaps most significantly because any change in Russia now requires an intervention of Biblical proportions. What is the core of this impossibility? Perhaps the people of Russia are perfectly contained to do anything but to prefer to be pussies.      

Speculative/Philosophy and so on

Exploring new frontiers of thought speculative philosophy is basically working on a level of fantasy. This is why the nature of desire and knowledge, as within the fantasy, was elaborated by Plato, closely connected to the idea of truth. However, working on the level of fantasy, philosophy's search for truth thus requires a company of (Lacanian) psychoanalysis and its discourse of the location of the real/ontic not in our faculties but beyond such Kantian discourse: into the domain of the unconscious; an eccentric place, whereas the locus of the subject is not entirely void but a force – the Freudian drive, force of life, Eros: a force of gravity, invisible and known only by its effects; a gravity holding together the singularity of individual being, related to the world and other singularities, animated and other, as an alien One to the Whole. Now, this circular reasoning, from the question of fantasy to the (false metaphysical) question of the Being - by dialectical necessity of the movement of thought - we arrive at a fundamental question, reasoning initially on the hypothesis of the ontic status of the subject of the unconscious. A move towards “ontology” locating the space of relations and non-relations in-between singularities to investigate speculative thought, the thinking itself, to anything it thinks (is thinking), as a fantasy to truth, is ultimately a move from Heideggerian "thinking" returning to philosophy - after its dead. 

The Subject Spoken

Consciousness is, psychoanalytically speaking, accompanied by the unconscious. The unconscious is articulated in language by means of distorted and disrupted elements of meaning, which on a level of understanding pertain to nonsense – the subject of psychoanalytical interpretation. Locating the disruptions in relation to the overall context of meaning the site of the trauma is revealed in a symptomatic occurrence of the signifiers of the unconscious meaning in the speech. While the subject speaks it is also according to Lacan spoken by the unconscious. Any strictly semantic analysis of the unconscious, as the unconscious according to Freud “knows no contradiction”, misses the hidden meaning of the unconscious. Both sides of the meaning, the conscious and the unconscious, which accounts for the whole meaning, and ultimately the truth, is structurally impossible to grasp at once. As Lacan claims, the truth can only be “half-spoken”. The other half is embodied; the language of speaking body, which is enjoyment (jouissance); a language by which one is spoken.