Changes

The problem with today's [[superego ]] [[injunction ]] to [[enjoy ]] is that, in contrast to previous modes of [[ideological ]] [[interpellation]], it opens up no "[[world]]" proper - it just refers to an obscure Unnameable. Even [[Nazi ]] [[anti-Semitism ]] opened up a world: by way of describing the [[present ]] critical [[situation]], naming the [[enemy ]] ("[[Jewish ]] conspiracy"), the [[goal ]] and the means to achieve it, [[Nazism ]] disclosed [[reality ]] in a way which allowed its [[subjects ]] to acquire a [[global ]] "cognitive [[mapping]]," including the [[space ]] for their meaningful engagement. Perhaps, it is here that one should locate the "[[danger]]" of [[capitalism]]: although it is global, encompassing the [[whole ]] worlds, it sustains a stricto sensu "worldless' ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of [[people ]] of any meaningful "cognitive mapping."<ref>I rely here on conversations with [[Alain ]] [[Badiou]].</ref>

In what, more precisely, does this "worldlessness" consist? As [[Lacan ]] points out in his [[Seminar ]] XX, [[Encore]], [[jouissance ]] involves a [[logic ]] strictly homologous to that of the [[ontological ]] proof for the [[existence ]] of God. In the classic version of this proof, my [[awareness ]] of myself as a finite, limited [[being ]] immediately gives [[birth ]] to the [[notion ]] of an infinite, perfect being, and since this being is perfect, its very notion contains its existence; in the same way, our [[experience ]] of jouissance accessible to us as finite, located, [[partial]], "[[castrated]]," immediately gives birth to the notion of a [[full]], achieved, unlimited jouissance whose existence is necessarily presupposed by the [[subject ]] who imputes it to [[another ]] subject, his/her "subject supposed to enjoy."

* [[The Politics of Jouissance]]. ''[[Lacanian ]] Ink''. Volume 24/25. Spring. pp. 126-135. <http://www.lacan.com/frameXXIV6.htm>.