Fragments of knowledge #1

[femme_letale]

To love is to be recognized.

Comments

[signicure]

I stared at this statement for a while trying to make sense of it. Does being recognized make allowance for love, or does loving cause one to be recognized? Then I thought, oh of course, Lacan, and realized that maybe this is one of those fundamentally ambiguous statements he's so famous for.

[femme_letale]

Although I don't think the sentence is Lacan's (statistically and thematically he may have actually said those words in that order) you are right on your statement. It is good that you stared at the statement. In a sense, I meant it to be a nucleus, the spool around which a thread goes. A little ȧ la Dor, who introduced me to most Lacanian theory from the statement: "The unconscious is structured like a language".

Also Oblique Strategies. I can't hide my admiration for Brian Eno.

[bibermx]

Or,to love is to be terrorized...

[femme_letale]

Unravel, please.

[bibermx]

Does being terrorized impels one to love(the "horror vacui" of existence pushing us to melt with someone) or does the openness of our love make us prey of any forms of terrorism from the other,with our acquiescence,of course?
The statement of my earlier post occurred to me on a whim,after reading your entry.

[femme_letale]

Spot on! Have you ever read Lacan? He talks about the anxiety love brings and the impossibility of being One, what he called: "There's no sexual relation", the "horror vacui" you referred to. The other way round also works: our desire is always the Other's desire and that is, in a sense, terrorizing...

Or,

[vanduo]

To love is to remove distance ...

Re: Or,

[femme_letale]

Ah, this is interesting. lacan said that this is what love may aspire to, but it is an impossibility. this is what is behond his statement "there is no sexual relation". Could we say "to love is to want to remove distance"?

Re: to love is to want to remove distance

[vanduo]

yep

[ksandetmos]

locals looking to meet Go Here dld.bz/chwZM