[Repost] On Tragedy

Tragedy happens.

For those affected by (a) tragedy, it is trouble enough. For those who are not affected by (a) tragedy, what unfolds in the aftermath of an event—the regression to ideology (i.e., the functional ‘blind spot’ of our worldview)—should be, troubling.

Instead of doing compassion to those affected by (a) tragedy, we (almost immediately) skip past those devastated by the event, and attempt to assimilate the tragedy into some sort of Symbolic Totality (for ourselves).  

In other words, we cannot cope with reality touching the Real—of something ‘happening’ with no meaning attached to it—thereby we take a horrific, meaningless event, and attach a meaning to it to show our ‘compassion’, that we may go on with our lives as if ‘it’ never happened.

If we are able to attach a meaning to an event (per leveling blame on some transcendent Other: society, our political system, the Church, ‘Nature’, etc.), we may dismiss it as quickly as possible, and get back to ‘real life’.

In this way, it does not much matter who blames who, who says what, or who feels what—everyone does/says/feels the same (which is nothing).

The One to ‘blame’ directly for any given tragedy is not society, nor our political system, nor the Church, nor ‘Nature’. Much talk about who (or what) is to blame, and what ‘we’ are going to ‘do’ about ‘it’, only fulfills a deep existential need to de-traumatize ourselves by ‘doing something’, even as this ‘something’ is essentially nothing.

We talk about what we should ‘do’, precisely to preserve us from action—we are satisfied in simply having a conversation at the expense of those affected by (a) tragedy.

So, in the end, those who actually do something are (those affected, as well as) those who do compassion to the affected (for whom all ‘meaning’ is meaningless).

Why?

If there is no meaning attached to a traumatic event, the impact on us will be much greater than otherwise, and the result will be some sort of change in how we live.

Thus (and here is the key) in refusing to assign blame, we will actually begin to reform/improve/care-for those ‘bodies’ whose influence played a secondary role automatically (whether it be wider society, our political system, the Church, ‘Nature’, etc.).

In sum, the only way to help prevent the next tragedy is to resist the attachment of any Symbolic meaning to the last.

Why?

It is not when we symbolically declare ourselves ‘lost’ that a space opens up to generate a solution—rather, it is only when we actually become lost that a solution is possible through (some form of difficult sacrifice of) mediation.

It is not that words have no place after an event—they do.

But words only matter if they reflect (real) change in the way we live.

Being and Nothingness: A Sentence

When man, seeking to empty himself of all thoughts, advances in the shadowless gleam of imaginary space, abstaining from even awaiting what will emerge from it, a dull mirror shows him a surface in which nothing is reflected.

—Jacques Lacan, Écrits [Presentation on Psychical Casualty]

The Inclusion of Exclusion

Contrary to popular opinion, most want to be excluded (i.e. do not want to ‘fit in’).

This is why most are included (i.e. do ‘fit in’).

Most want a certain social status that is unique, special, etc.—and it is the quest to effect this differentiation that properly solidifies their inclusion in capitalist society proper.

The semblance of a nonequivalence is required so that equivalence itself can constitute a process.¹  

In other words, one’s desire to not ‘fit in’ is precisely what ensures they will fit nicely into the ‘unique’ consumerist box capitalism has created for them.

The appearance of a choice (what products shall I consume to define who I am, my personality and so forth) is the mode of appearance of its very opposite: of the absence of any real choice (of whether or not one may refuse to participate in an exploitative capitalist system—as we all need shoes, a hotel room while away from home, etc., etc.).

Such is unfreedom feigning to be freedom.

For example, hipsters relish how ‘different’ they are, how their tastes and views are not mainstream and so forth, yet this supposed difference (and ‘choice’ to be different) is merely another capitalist consumer subcategory—their ‘uniqueness’ simply another array of products.

And this is necessary (in capitalist society proper), for capital demands a permanent creation of subjective and territorial identities in order for its principle of movement to homogenize it space of action; identities, moreover, that never demand anything but the right to be exposed in the same way as others to the uniform prerogatives of the market.² 

To be different is to be the same.

True difference is difference from difference that is indifferent to difference.

1. Alain Badiou, Saint Paul, 10

2. Ibid., 11

The Imperial Cult

The gods have chosen us as chosen—i.e. the gods are on our side.

We must do everything we can to ensure this remains true.

We must condemn ‘the other’ who upsets the gods.

We must rid ourselves of ‘the other’.

We must protect the empire.

We must protect us.

God Bless America.

A Crown of Thorns

Talent works for money and fame: the motive which moves genius to productivity is, on the other hand, less easy to determine. It isn’t money, for genius seldom gets any. It isn’t fame: fame is too uncertain and, more closely considered, of too little worth. Nor is it strictly for its own pleasure, for the great exertion involved almost outweighs the pleasure. It is rather an instinct of a unique sort by virtue of which the individual possessed of genius is impelled to express what he has seen and felt in enduring works without being conscious of any further motivation. It takes place, by and large, with the same sort of necessity as a tree brings forth fruit, and demands of the world no more than a soil on which the individual can flourish. More closely considered, it is as if in such an individual the will to live, as the spirit of the human species, had become conscious of having, by rare accident, attained for a brief span of time to a greater clarity of intellect, and now endeavors to acquire at any rate the results, the products of this clear thought and vision for the whole species, which is indeed also the intrinsic being of this individual, so that their light may continue to illuminate the darkness and stupor of the ordinary human consciousness. It is from this that there arises that instinct which impels genius to labor in solitude to complete its work without regard for reward, applause, or sympathy, but neglectful rather even of its own well-being and thinking more of posterity than of the age it lives in, which could lead it astray. To make its work, as a sacred trust and the true fruit of its existence, the property of mankind, laying it down for a posterity better able to appreciate it: this becomes for genius a goal more important than any other, a goal for which it wears the crown of thorns that shall one day blossom into a laurel-wreath. Its striving to complete and safeguard its work is just as resolute as that of the insect to safeguard its eggs and provide for the brood it will never live to see: it deposits its eggs where it knows they will one day find life and nourishment, and dies contented.

—Arthur Schopenhauer