Kristeva says, regarding a shift from Levitical to Christic abjection, "What is happening is that a new arrangement of differences is being set up, an arrangement whose economy will regulate a wholly different system of meaning, hence a wholly different speaking subject" (Powers of Horror, p. 113). I would say that where a new meaning emerges, a new subject emerges. Well, perhaps the subject isn't very interesting anymore. Kristeva is really talking about a type of subject. Hmm. I am interested in the economy that would regulate a system of meaning. Perhaps it isn't enough for me to specify the heterogeneity of such an economy. I'm interested in the imperfections of its regulation, its slippages and drifts. Maybe for me then the question is not so much of a nomos as a logos, i.e. a heterogeneous ecology of relations.
Labels: Kristeva, meaning, subject
5 Comments:
Hi, Its John from Melbourne.
This essay addresses this topic of the culturally constructed conception of "self" and the type of culture that is inevitably created in the image of the dominant "self"-idea.
1. www.dabase.org/polunity.htm
Plus please check out this even more radical and comprehensive critique of the ruling paradigm.
2. www.ispeace723.org
I'm glad to see that you're reading my posts, John.
I always read the content of your posts. Cant always make much sense of them though.
And the references I point you to always in one way or another address the theme(s) of your posting.
Any comments on the Is Peace reference.
I think that the subject in Adi Da's utopia would be mute, and that's a kind of horror.
I wonder if you have read the contents of the site? There is a lot on there. It is in no way calling for anyone to become or remain a passive spectator/victim.
Neither is He calling for "utopia". Indeed he specifically points out that "utopia" is never possible in a binary world.
Altogether it is an extraordinary critique of our current dreadful sanity and simultaneously a signpost and guidelines for creating a culture of sanity.
It in no way reduces anyone to muteness. On the contrary He is calling everyone to exercise an uncommon degree of self-responsibility both individually and collectively.
In YOU THE PEOPLE for instance He points out that life and politics has been reduced to a form of spectator sport TV entertainment. And that the very essence of the current system is that it thoroughly dis-empowers everyone. And because we have all been reduced to passive irresponsible spectators we inevitably become "victims" of the dreadful "news" that our collective irresponsibilty INEVITABLY creates/generates.
And then we wonder why the system is so rotten and the "news" is always bad. Irresponsible people always generate bad "news".
This essay is also in the book, though not on the website.
1. www.dabase.org/radicpol.htm
Does this essay look like a calling for "muteness"?
Post a Comment
Fido the Yak front page