miércoles, 10 de diciembre de 2008

Lo que entiendo (en este momento) por Deconstrucción. Ustedes deberán (lo harán) entender otra cosa, ya que el texto les es impresente.

No se puede. Está prohibido entender, entenderlo (a él o al texto) es ir en contra de su compresión, puede ser que sea más un hacer que un entender, sin embargo no se dice cómo se hace, sino que se debe de-construir.


No es término, porque no termina en un punto metafísico, sino en el juego del lenguaje (Espectro de Wittgenstein). Puede ser lo que puede ser, pero que no es: De (es privación, espectro de Heideeger) de cons [unión en Uno, el cuerpo (Espectro de Freud)] y al fin por cción (efecto de Nietzche). (De todas formas ahí/hay que usar paréntesis). Se disemina, es differánce, como el juego entre el decir y el hacer, la ausencia y presencia. No es el autor, sino lo que lees. Tú lo descubres, inconciente y concientemente. Hazlo y así harás deconstrucción (Espectro de Rousseau y de Freud, once again).

¿La deconstrucción es Jajaaja, en lugar de Jijiji? O es simple differánce.

lunes, 1 de diciembre de 2008

"Yes, we can't"

Obama me intriga, es de la generación política en donde la imagen lo es todo y el contenido metafísico es lo de menos. El discurso simple se traduce al sintagma "Yes we can" que concentra toda la ideología de las elecciones posmodernas: el medio es el mensaje. Es de esos presidentes kitsch como Fox, pura simpatía y una promesa hueca. Jacques Alain Miller, son of Lacan, tiene al igual que todos nosotros un blog. En donde habla, al igual que nosotros, de todo aquello que le pasa por la mente. A mi me llamó la atención su crítica sobre la fiebre del triunfo de Obama. Repetir sus ideas en estás líneas se me hace inútil , por ello copio su reflexión. (Only for those who read english, sorry). No obstante, les dejo el link para que se atasquen. Para ondar más en ello, recomiendo el capítulo 13 de la doceava temporada de South Park.


How do you explain the Obamania?

By the fact that Bush has become a phobic object. Already, after the diabolical Nixon of Watergate, America had given herself to a child choir that grew peanuts, Jimmy Carter. Bush did in fact much worse than Nixon, he camped himself with delight in the role of “the enemy of mankind”: rejection of the Kyoto Protocols, contempt for international institutions, pre-emptive war policy, the right to torture, the worship of force, chauvinism, etc… Cheney, his vice president, was nicknamed “Darth Vader”. The duo had managed to make of the USA the new “Evil Empire”. For Americans Obama is the equivalent of redemption. Kindness is all over his face. He is a listener. Inclined to consensus, he respects other’s beliefs (”we can disagree without being disagreeable”), he is attached to differences, he appears considerate with the poor and the weak, “everybody is beautiful, everybody is nice.”

Yes, but the fascination for Obama goes beyond the USA, he just became a global phenomenon.

Because the United States remains the only global super power. Bushophobia is widespread over the entire planet; it is now logically reversed into universal Obamania. Obama is the mirror-man of the Universe, “the microcosm- man” as it was called during the Renaissance, the one that represents the world in its diversity, who reconciles within his own person the races and the sexes: he is African, he is American, he is black, he is white, he is a man and yet he is very fashionable, very “mannequin”, almost feminine, he is smooth, he epitomizes “coolness’ itself, he can be sweet and at the same time is able to reveal himself as tough, just the opposite of John McCain, who at times appears handicapped, confused, stiff (almost inelastic), reckless and hotheaded, positing an aggressive masculinity which appears now as simply outdated. Métis and hermaphrodite, who says better?

With Obamania we are beyond the political realm; we now talk about “hope”, we are expecting “miracles” both in the economic and political fields, we compare his “Yes we can” to John Paul II’s “Do not be afraid”.

Obama has indeed cleverly cultivated the image of the Savior and Redeemer of the world, he has promised to “heal” and he assured us “change”. His genius consisted in not to shy away from the “phony” (loufoquerie) and draw without shame or hesitation in the stock of ancient myths, of the oldest beliefs of humanity. And that works for him, even in our age, the age of science and impiety, even when we are supposed to believe that we no longer believe. At the same time, his campaign masterly utilized the latest fads and gadgets of technology. He knowingly played the part of the Messiah, while repeatedly modernizing the role with a Hollywood rhetoric: Obama talks like in a movie.

Currently Obama is the most loved man on the planet. But we know that disappointment is inevitable. Will Obama be able to love and be loved?

This is raw politics. Obama made his political career in Chicago, where blue flowers do not make old bones. Everything indicates that he at least does not take himself for Obama. Who will be his first accomplice? His buddy, another Chicagoan, Rahm Emanuel, he will be the real number two: the political hyper-efficient hit man, someone who doesn’t take prisoners. He will mercilessly operate behind the scenes, while on the stage our Saint John Chrysostom (golden mouth) sings lullabies for us.





(Obama el nuevo baywatch).