Changes

The ==Cyberspace RealSlavoj Zizek. Between Perversion and Trauma==

Cyberspace Between Perversion As to [[the symbolic]] [[dimension]], the solution seems easy — it suffices to focus on the [[notion]] of authorship that fits the emerging [[domain]] of cyberspace narratives, that of the "procedural authorship": the [[author]] (say, of the interactive immersive [[environment]] in which we actively participate by [[role]]-playing) no longer writes detailed story-line, s/he merely provides the basic set of rules (the coordinates of the fictional universe in which we immerse ourselves, the limited set of actions we are allowed to accomplish within this [[virtual]] [[space]], etc.), which serves as the basis for the interactor's [[active]] engagement ([[intervention]], improvisation). This notion of "procedural authorship" demonstrates the [[need]] for a kind of equivalent to the Lacanian "[[big Other]]": in [[order]] for the interactor to become engaged in cyberspace, s/he has to operate within a minimal set of externally imposed accepted symbolic rules/coordinates. Without these rules, the [[subject]]/interactor would effectively become immersed in a psychotic [[experience]] of an universe in which "we do whatever we [[want]]" and Traumaare, paradoxically, for that very [[reason]] deprived of our [[freedom]], caught in a demoniac [[compulsion]]. It is thus crucial to establish the rules that engage us, that led us in our immersion into the cyberspace, while allowing us to maintain the distance towards the enacted universe. The point is not simply to maintain "the [[right]] measure" between the two extremes ([[total]] psychotic immersion versus non-engaged [[external]] distance towards the artificial universe of the cyber-[[fiction]]): distance is rather a positive condition of immersion. If we are to surrender to the enticements of the virtual environment, we have to "mark the border," to rely on a set of marks which clearly designate that we are dealing with a fiction, in the same way in which, in order to let ourselves go and [[enjoy]] a violent war movie, we somehow have to [[know]] that what we are [[seeing]] is a staged fiction, not real-[[life]] killing (imagine our horrible surprise if, while watching a war [[scene]], we would suddenly see that we are watching a snuff, that the actor engaged in face-to-face combat is effectively cutting the throat of his "[[enemy]]"…). Against the theorists who [[fear]] that cyberspace involves the [[regression]] to a kind of psychotic incestuous immersion, one should thus discern in today's often clumsy and ambiguous improvisations [[about]] "cyberspace rules" precisely the effort to establish clearly the contours of a new space of symbolic fictions in which we fully participate in the mode [[disavowal]], i.e. [[being]] aware that "this is not real life."

Are However, if this is the Symbolic, where is the Real? Is cyberspace, especially virtual [[reality]], not the pessimistic cultural criticists (from Jean Baudrillard realm of [[perversion]] at its puresy? Reduced to Paul Virilio) justified its elementary skeleton, perversion can be seen as a [[defense]] against the Real of [[death]] and [[sexuality]], against the [[threat]] of [[mortality]] as well as the [[contingent]] imposition of [[sexual]] [[difference]]: what the [[perverse]] scenario enacts is a "disavowal of [[castration]]" — a universe in their claim that cyberspace ultimately generates which, as in cartoons, a [[human]] being can survive any catastrophe; in which [[adult]] sexuality is reduced to a kind childish [[game]]; in which one is not [[forced]] to die or to choose one of proto-psychotic immersion into an imaginary the two [[sexes]]. As such, the [[pervert]]'s universe is the universe of hallucinationspure [[symbolic order]], unconstrained of the [[signifier]]'s game running its course, unencumbered by any symbolic Law or the Real of human [[finitude]]. So, again, does not our experience of cyberspace perfectly fit this perverse universe? Isn't cyberspace also a universe without closure, unencumbered by any impossibility the inertia of some the Real, constrained only by its [[self]]-imposed rules? If notIn this comic universe, as in a perverse [[ritual]], how same gestures and scenes are we to detect endlessly repeated, without any final closure, i.e. in cyberspace this universe, the contours [[refusal]] of a closure, far from signalling the other two dimensions undermining of the Lacanian triad ISR[[ideology]], the Symbolic and the Real?rather enacts a proto-[[ideological]] [[denial]]:

As to the symbolic dimension, the solution seems easy — it suffices to focus on the notion of authorship that fits the emerging domain of cyberspace narratives, that of the "procedural authorship": the author (say, The refusal of the interactive immersive environment in which we actively participate by role-playing) no longer writes detailed story-line, s/he merely provides the basic set of rules (the coordinates of the fictional universe in which we immerse ourselvesclosure is always, the limited set of actions we are allowed to accomplish within this virtual spaceat some level, etc.), which serves as the basis for the interactor's active engagement (intervention, improvisation). This notion of "procedural authorship" demonstrates the need for a kind of equivalent refusal to the Lacanian "big Other": in order for the interactor to become engaged in cyberspace, s/he has to operate within a minimal set of externally imposed accepted symbolic rules/coordinatesface mortality. Without these rules, the subject/interactor would effectively become immersed in a psychotic experience of an universe in which "we do whatever we want" Our [[fixation]] on electronic [[games]] and are, paradoxically, for that very reason deprived of our freedom, caught in a demoniac compulsion. It stories is thus crucial to establish the rules that engage us, that led us in our immersion into the cyberspace, while allowing us to maintain the distance towards the enacted universe. The point is not simply to maintain "the right measure" between the two extremes (total psychotic immersion versus non-engaged external distance towards the artificial universe part an enactment of the cyber-fiction): distance is rather a positive condition this denial of immersiondeath. If we are to surrender to They offer us the enticements of the virtual environment, we have [[chance]] to "mark the bordererase [[memory]]," to rely on a set of marks which clearly designate that we are dealing with a fictionstartover, in the same way in which, in order to let ourselves go replay an [[event]] and enjoy try for a violent war moviedifferent [[resolution]]. In this respect, we somehow electronic [[media]] have to know that what we are seeing is a staged fiction, not real-life killing (imagine our horrible surprise if, while watching a war scene, we would suddenly see that we are watching a snuff, that the actor engaged in face-to-face combat is effectively cutting the throat advantage of his "enemy"…). Against the theorists who fear that cyberspace involves the regression to enacting a kind deeply comic [[vision]] of psychotic incestuous immersionlife, one should thus discern in today's often clumsy and ambiguous improvisations about "cyberspace rules" precisely the effort to establish clearly the contours of a new space vision of symbolic fictions in which we fully participate in the mode disavowal, i.e. being aware that "this is not real liferetrievable mistakes and open options."

However, if this The final alternative with which cyberspace confronts us is the Symbolic, where is the Real? Is thus: are we necessarily immersed in cyberspace, especially virtual reality, not in the realm mode of perversion at its puresy? Reduced the imbecilic [[superego]] compulsion-to its elementary skeleton-[[repeat]], perversion can be seen as a defense against in the Real mode of death and sexuality, against the threat of mortality as well as the contingent imposition of sexual difference: what immersion into the perverse scenario enacts is a "disavowal of castrationundead" — a perverse universe in which, as in of cartoons, a human being can survive any catastrophe; in which adult sexuality there is reduced to a childish game; no death, in which one is not forced to die or to choose one of the two sexes. As suchgame goes on indefinitely, the pervert's universe or is the universe of pure symbolic order, of the signifier's game running its course, unencumbered by the Real of human finitude. So, again, does not our experience it possible to [[practice]] a different modality of relating to cyberspace perfectly fit in which this perverse universe? Isn't cyberspace also a universe without closure, unencumbered imbecilic immersion is perturbed by the inertia "[[tragic]]" dimension of the Real, constrained only by its self-imposed rulesreal/impossible? In this comic universe, as in a perverse ritual, same gestures and scenes are endlessly repeated, without any final closure, i.e. in this universe, the refusal of a closure, far from signalling the undermining of ideology, rather enacts a proto-ideological denial:

There are two standard uses of cyberspace [[narrative]]: the linear, single-path maze adventure and the "[[postmodern]]" hypertext undetermined [[form]] of rhizome fiction. The refusal single-path maze adventure moves the interactor towards a single solution within the [[structure]] of a win-lose contest (overcoming the enemy, finding the way out…). So, with all possible complications and detours, the overall path is clearly predetermined: all roads lead to one final [[Goal]]. In contrast to it, the hypertext rhizome does not privilege any order of closure [[reading]] or [[interpretation]]: there is no ultimate [[overview]] or "cognitive [[mapping]]," no possibility to unify the dispersed fragments in acoherent encompassing narrative framework, one is alwaysirreducibly enticed in conflicting directions — we, at some levelthe interactors, a refusal just have to face mortality. Our fixation on electronic games accept that we are lost in the inconsistent complexity of multiple referrals and stories connections… The [[paradox]] is in part that this ultimate [[helpless]] confusion, this [[lack]] of final orientation, far from causing an enactment unbearable [[anxiety]], is oddly reassuring: the very lack of the final point of closure serves as a kind of this denial which protects us from confronting the [[trauma]] of our finitude, of death. They offer us the chance fact that there our story has to erase memoryend at some point — there is no ultimate irreversible point, since, in this multiple universe, there are always other paths to startoverexplore, alternate realities into which one can take refuge when one seems to replay an event and try for reach a different resolutiondeadlock. In — So how are we to escape this respect[[false]] alternative? Janet Murray refers to the story structure of the "[[violence]]-hub", electronic media have similar to the advantage famous [[Rashomon]] predicament: an account of enacting some violent or otherwise [[traumatic]] incident (a deeply comic vision Sunday trip fatality, a [[suicide]], a rape…) is placed at the center of life, a vision web of retrievable mistakes and open options."narratives-files that explore it from multiple points of view (perpetrator, [[victim]], [[witness]], survivor, investigator…):

"The final alternative with which cyberspace confronts us proliferation of interconnected files is thus: are we necessarily immersed in cyberspace in an attempt to answer the perennial and ultimately unanswerable question of why this incident happened. /…/ These violence-hub stories do not have a single solution like the mode adventure maze or a refusal of solution like the imbecilic superego compulsion-to-repeatpostmodern stories; instead, in the mode they combine a clear [[sense]] of story structure with a [[multiplicity]] of meaningful plots. The navigation of the immersion into labyrinth is like pacing the "undead" perverse universe floor; a [[physical]] manifestation of cartoons in which there is no death, in which the game goes on indefinitelyeffort to come to [[terms]] with the trauma, or is it possible represents the [[mind]]'s repeated efforts to keep returning to practice a different modality of relating shocking event in an effort to cyberspace in which this imbecilic immersion is perturbed by the absorb it and, finally, get [[past]] it."tragic" dimension of the real/impossible?

There are two standard uses It is easy to perceive the crucial difference between this "retracing of cyberspace narrativethe [[situation]] from different perspectives" and the rhizomatic hypertext: the linearendlessly repeated reenactment is referred to the trauma of some [[impossible]] Real which forever resists its [[symbolization]] — all these different narrativizations are ultimately just so many failures to cope with this trauma, single-path maze adventure and with the contingent abyssal occurrence of some catastrophic Real like suicide apropos of which no "postmodernwhy" hypertext undetermined form can ever serve as its sufficient explanation. — In a later closer elaboration, Murray even proposes two different versions of presentifying a traumatic suicidal occurrence, apart from such a [[texture]] of rhizome fictiondifferent perspectives. The single-path maze adventure moves first is to transpose us into the labyrinth of the interactor towards a single solution within subject's mind just prior to his suicide; the structure is here hypertextual and interactive, we are free to choose different options, to pursue the subject's ruminations in a [[multitude]] of a win-lose contest (overcoming directions — but whichever direction or link we choose, we sooner or later end up with the enemy, finding blank [[screen]] of the way out…)suicide. So, with all possible complications and detoursin a way, the overall path is clearly predetermined: all roads lead our very freedom to one final Goal. In contrast to it, pursue different venues imitates the hypertext rhizome does not privilege any order tragic self-closure of reading or interpretationthe subject's mind: no matter how desperately we look for a solution, we are compelled to acknowledge that there is no ultimate overview or "cognitive mappingway out," no possibility to unify that the final outcome will always be the same. The second version is the dispersed fragments in acoherent encompassing narrative framework, opposite one is irreducibly enticed in conflicting directions — : we, the interactors, just have to accept that we are lost put in the inconsistent complexity situation of multiple referrals and connections… The paradox is that this ultimate helpless confusiona kind of "lesser god, this lack " having at our disposal a limited [[power]] of intervention into the life-story of final orientationthe subject doomed to kill himself — say, we can "rewrite" the subject's past so that his girlfriend would not have [[left]] him, far from causing an unbearable anxietyor that he would not have failed the crucial exam; yet whatever we do, the outcome is oddly reassuring: the very lack of the final point same, so even God himself cannot [[change]] Destiny… (We find a version of this same closure serves as in a kind series of denial alternative [[history]] sci-fi stories, in which protects us from confronting the trauma of our finitude, of hero intervenes in the fact that there our story has past in order to end at prevent some point — there catastrophic event to occur, yet the unexpected result of his intervention is no ultimate irreversible pointan even worse catastrrophy, sincelike Stephen Fry's Making History, in this multiple universe, there are always other paths which a [[scientist]] intervenes in the past making [[Hitler]]'s [[father]] impotent just prior to exploreHitler's conception, alternate realities into which so that Hitler is not [[born]] — as one can take refuge when one seems to reach a deadlock. — So how are we to escape this false alternative? Janet Murray refers to the story structure of the "violence-hub"expect, similar to the famous Rashomon predicament: an account result of some violent or otherwise traumatic incident (a Sunday trip fatality, a suicide, a rape…) this intervention is placed at that [[another]] [[German]] officer of aristocratic origins takes over the center of a web role of narratives-files that explore it from multiple points of view (perpetratorHitler, victim, witness, survivor, investigator…develops the atomic bomb in [[time]] and wins the [[World]] War II.):

"==The proliferation of interconnected files is an attempt to answer the perennial and ultimately unanswerable question of why this incident happened. /…/ These violence-hub stories do not have a single solution like the adventure maze or a refusal of solution like the postmodern stories; instead, they combine a clear sense of story structure with a multiplicity of meaningful plots. The navigation of the labyrinth is like pacing futur anterieur in the floor; a physical manifestation History of the effort to come to terms with the trauma, it represents the mind's repeated efforts to keep returning to a shocking event in an effort to absorb it and, finally, get past it."Art==

It In a closer historical [[analysis]], it is easy crucial not to perceive the crucial difference between conceive this "retracing narrative procedure of the situation from different perspectives" and the rhizomatic hypertext: the endlessly repeated reenactment is referred to the trauma multiple-perspective encircling of some an impossible Real which forever resists its symbolization — all these different narrativizations are ultimately just so many failures to cope with this trauma, with the contingent abyssal occurrence of some catastrophic Real like suicide apropos of which no "why" can ever serve as its sufficient explanation. — In a later closer elaboration, Murray even proposes two different versions of presentifying a traumatic suicidal occurrence, apart from such a texture of different perspectives. The first is to transpose us into the labyrinth direct result of the subject's mind just prior to his suicide; the structure is here hypertextual cyberspace [[technology]]: technology and interactive, we ideology are free to choose different optionsinextricably intertwined, to pursue ideology is inscribed already in the subject's ruminations in a multitude very technological features of directions — but whichever direction or link we choosecyberspace. More precisely, what we sooner or later end up are dealing with here is yet another example of the blank screen well-known phenomenon of the suicide. Soold artistic forms pushing against their own boundaries and using procedures which, in a wayat least from our [[retroactive]] view, our very freedom seem to pursue different venues imitates the tragic self-closure of the subject's mind: no matter how desperately we look for point towards a solution, we are compelled to acknowledge that there is no way out, new technology that the final outcome will always be the same. The second version is the opposite one: we, the interactors, are put in the situation of able to serve as a kind of more "[[natural]]" and appropriate "lesser god,[[objective]] correlative" having at our disposal a limited power of intervention into to the life-story of experience the subject doomed old forms endeavoured to kill himself — say, we can render by means of their "rewriteexcessive" experimentations. A [[whole]] series of narrative procedures in the subject's past so that his girlfriend would not have left him, or that he would l9th century novels announce not have failed only the crucial exam; yet whatever we do, standard narrative [[cinema]] (the outcome is the sameintricate use of "flashback" in Emily Bronte or of "cross-cutting" and "close-ups" in Dickens), so but sometimes even God himself cannot change Destiny… the modernist cinema (We find a version the use of this same closure "off-space" in Madame Bovary) — as if a series new [[perception]] of alternative history sci-fi storieslife was already here, in which the hero intervenes in the past in order but was still struggling to prevent some catastrophic event to occur, yet the unexpected result find its proper means of his intervention is an even worse catastrrophy, like Stephen Fry's Making Historyarticulation, until it finally found it in which a scientist intervenes in the past making Hitler's father impotent just prior to Hitler's conception, so that Hitler cinema. What we have here is not born — as one can expect, thus the result [[historicity]] of a kind of this intervention futur anterieur: it is only when cinema was here and developed its standard procedures that another German officer we can really grasp the narrative [[logic]] of aristocratic origins takes over the role Dickens's great novels or of Hitler, develops the atomic bomb in time and wins the World War IIMadame Bovary.)

The futur anterieur And is it not that today, we are approaching a homologous threshold: a new "life experience" is in the air, a perception of life that explodes the form of the linear centered narrative and renders life as a multiform flow — even and up to the domain of "hard" [[sciences]] (quantum [[physics]] and its Multiple Reality interpretation, or the utter [[contingency]] that provided the spin to the actual evolution of the life on Earth — as Stephen Jay Gould demonstrated in his Wonderful Life, the fossils of Burgess Shale bear witness to how evolution may have taken a wholly different turn) we seem to be haunted by the chanciness of life and the alternate versions of reality. Either life is experienced as a series of multiple parallel destinies that interact and are crucially affected by meaningless contingent encounters, the points at which one series intersects with and intervenes into another (see Altman's Shortcuts), or different versions/outcomes of the same plot are repeatedly enacted (the "parallel universes" or "alternative possible worlds" scenarios — see [[Kieslowski]]'s Chance, Veronique and Red; even "serious" historians themselves recently produced a volume Virtual History , the reading of the crucial Modeern Age century events, from Cromwell's victory over Stuarts and American independence war to the disintegration of [[Communism]], as hinging on unpredictable and sometimes even improbable chances). This perception of our reality as one of the possible — often even not the most probable — outcomes of an "open" situation, this notion that other possible outcomes are not simply cancelled out but continue to haunt our "[[true]]" reality as a [[spectre]] of what might have happened, conferring on our reality the status of extreme fragility and contingency, implicitly clashes with the predominant "linear" narrative forms of our [[literature]] and cinema — they seem to call for a new artistic medium in which they would not be an eccentric [[excess]], but its "proper" mode of functioning. One can argue that the cyberspace hypertext is this new medium in which this life experience will find its "natural," more appropriate objective correlative, so that, again, it is only with the advent of Artcyberspace hypertext that we can effectively grasp what Altman and Kieslowski were effectively aiming at.

In a closer historical analysisAre not the ultimate example of this kind of futur anterieur [[Brecht]]'s (in)famous "learning plays," especially his The Measure Taken, often dismissed as the justification of Stalinist purges. Although "learning plays" are usually conceived as an intermediary phenomenon, the passage between Brecht's early carnavalesque plays critical of bourgeois [[society]] and his late "mature" epic theatre, it is crucial not to conceive this narrative procedure [[recall]] that, just before his death, when asked about what part of his works effectively augurs the multiple-perspective encircling of an impossible Real as a direct result "drama of the cyberspace technology: technology [[future]]," Brecht instantly answered "The Measure Taken." As Brecht emphasized again and ideology are inextricably intertwinedagain, ideology The Measure Taken is inscribed already in ideally to be performed without the very technological features of cyberspace. More preciselyobserving [[public]], what just with the actors repeatedly playing all the roles and thus "learning" the different subject-positions — do we are dealing with not have here is yet another example the [[anticipation]] of the wellcyberspace "immersive [[participation]]," in which actors engage in the "educational" collective role-known phenomenon of playing. What Brecht was aiming at is the old artistic forms pushing against their own boundaries and using procedures immersive participation which, nonetheless, avoids the trap of emotional [[identification]]: we immerse ourselves at least from our retroactive viewthe level of "meaningless," "mechanical" level of what, in Foucauldian terms, seem one is tempted to call "revolutionary disciplinary micro-practices," while at the same time critically observing our [[behavior]]. Does this not point towards a new technology that will be able also to serve as a more possible "naturaleducational" use of participatory cyberspace role-playing games in which, by way of repeatedly enacting different versions/outcomes of a same basic predicament, one can become aware of the ideological presuppositions and appropriate surmises that unknowingly [[guide]] our daily behavior? Do Brecht's [[three]] versions of his first great "learning play," Der Jasager, effectively not [[present]] us with such hypertext / alternate reality experience: in the first version, the boy "objective correlativefreely accept the necessary," subjecting himself to the life-experience old custom of being thrown into the valley; in the second version, the old forms endeavoured boy refuses to render by means die, rationally demonstrating the futility of their "excessive" experimentations. A whole series of narrative procedures the old custom; in the l9th century novels announce [[third]] version, the boy accepts his death, but on [[rational]] grounds, not only out of the standard narrative cinema (respect for mere [[tradition]]. So when Brecht emphasizes that, by participating in the intricate use of situation staged by his "flashbacklearning plays," in Emily Bronte or of actors/agents themselves have to change, progressing towards a different [[subjective]] stance, he effectively points towards what Murray adequately calls "cross-cuttingenactment as a transformational experience." and In other [[words]], apropos of Brecht's "close-upslearning plays," one should ask a naive straightforward question: what, effectively, are we, spectators, supposed to learn from [[them]]? Not some [[corps]] of positive [[knowledge]] (in Dickens)this [[case]], but sometimes even instead of trying to discern the modernist cinema ([[Marxist]] [[idea]] wrapped in the use of "off-spacedramatic" in Madame Bovaryscenery, it would certainly be better to read directly the [[philosophical]] [[work]] itself…) — as if , but a new perception certain subjective attitude, that of life was already here, but was still struggling "saying YES to find its proper means of articulationthe inevitable, until it finally found it in cinema" i.e. What we have here is thus the historicity of readiness to self-obliteration — in a kind way, one learns precisely the virtue of futur anterieur: it is only when cinema was here and developed its standard procedures that we can really grasp accepting the Decision, the narrative logic of Dickens's great novels or of Madame Bovary.Rule, without [[knowing]] why…

And is it not that todayIn his much underrated The Lost Highway, we are approaching a homologous threshold[[David Lynch]] transposes the vertical into the horizontal: a new [[social]] reality (the everyday aseptic/impotent modern couple) and its "life experience[[repressed]]" is in [[fantasmatic]] [[supplement]] (the noir universe of [[forbidden]] masochistic passions and [[Oedipal]] triangles) are directly posited one next to the airother, as two alternate universes. This co-[[existence]] and mutual envelopment of different universes led some New Age tilted reviewers to claim that The Lost Highway moves at a perception more fundamental [[psychic]] level than that of life that explodes the form [[unconscious]] fantasizing of the linear centered narrative and renders life as one subject: at a multiform flow — even and up level, closer to the domain mind of "hard[[primitive]]" sciences (quantum physics and its Multiple Reality interpretationcivilizations, of reincarnation, or the utter contingency that provided the spin to the actual evolution of the life on Earth — as Stephen Jay Gould demonstrated in his Wonderful Life[[double]] identities, the fossils of Burgess Shale bear witness to how evolution may have taken being reborn as a wholly different turn) we seem to be haunted by person, etc. Against this "multiple reality" talk, one should insist on the chanciness of life and fact that the alternate versions fantasmatic support of realityis in itself necessarily multiple and inconsistent. Either life And this is experienced what Lynch does in The Lost Highway: he "traverses" our late-[[capitalist]] fantasmatic universe not by way of direct social criticism (depicting the grim [[social reality]] which serves as a series of multiple parallel destinies that interact and are crucially affected its actual foundation), but by meaningless contingent encountersstaging these [[fantasies]] openly, without the points at "secondary perlaboration" which one series intersects with usually masks their inconsistencies. That is to say, the undecidability and intervenes into another (see Altmanambiguity of what goes on in the [[film]]'s Shortcuts), or different versions/outcomes of narrative (are the two [[women]] played by Patricia Arquette the same plot are repeatedly enacted (women? Is the "parallel universes" or "alternative possible worlds" scenarios — see Kieslowskiinserted story of Fred's younger reincarnation just Fred's Chance[[hallucination]], Veronique and Red; even "serious" historians themselves recently produced imagined to provide a volume Virtual History, the reading post-festum rationale for his [[murder]] of the crucial Modeern Age century events, from Cromwellhis wife whose true [[cause]] is Fred's victory over Stuarts and American independence war hurted [[male]] pride due to his [[impotence]], his inability to [[satisfy]] the disintegration [[woman]]?) renders the very ambiguity and [[inconsistency]] of Communism, as hinging on unpredictable the fantasmatic framework which underlies and sometimes even improbable chancessustains our experience of (social)reality. This perception of It was often claimed that Lynch throws us, the spectators, open in our reality as one face the underlying fantasies of the possible noir universe — often even not yes, but he simultaneously also renders [[visible]] the most probable — outcomes INCONSISTENCY of an "open" situation, this notion that other possible outcomes are not simply cancelled out but continue fantasmatic support. The two main story-lines in The Lost Highway can thus be [[interpreted]] as akin to haunt our the [[dream]]-logic in which you can both "true" reality as a spectre of what might have happened, conferring on our reality the status of extreme fragility your cake and contingencyeat it", implicitly clashes with like in the predominant "linearTea or coffee? Yes, please!" narrative forms of our literature and cinema — they seem to call for a new artistic medium in which they would [[joke]]: you first dream about eating it, then about having/possessing it, since [[dreams]] does not be an eccentric excess, but its "proper" mode know of functioning[[contradiction]]. One can argue that The dreamer resolves a contradiction by staging two exclusive situations one after the cyberspace hypertext is this new medium other; in which this life experience will find its "naturalthe same way," more appropriate objective correlativein The Lost Highway, so thatthe woman (the dark Arquette) is destroyed/killed/punished, again, it is only with and the same woman (the blond Arquette) eludes the advent of cyberspace hypertext that we can effectively male grasp what Altman and Kieslowski were effectively aiming at.triumphantly disappears…

Are not the ultimate example of this kind of futur anterieur Brecht's (Or, to put it in)famous "learning playsyet another way," especially his The Measure TakenLynch confronts us with a universe in which different, often dismissed as the justification of Stalinist purgesmutually exclusive fantasies co-[[exist]]. Although "learning plays" are usually conceived as an intermediary phenomenon, the passage between BrechtPeter Hoeg's early carnavalesque plays critical novel The Woman and the Ape [[stages]] sex with an [[animal]] as a [[fantasy]] of bourgeois society [[full]] sexual [[relationship]], and his late "mature" epic theatre, it is crucial to recall that, just before his death, when asked about what part of his works effectively augurs the "drama of the future," Brecht instantly answered "The Measure Taken." As Brecht emphasized again and again, The Measure Taken this animal is ideally as a rule male: in contrast to be performed without the observing public, just with the actors repeatedly playing all the roles and thus "learning" the different subjectcyborg-positions — do we not have here the anticipation of the cyberspace "immersive participationsex fantasy," in which actors engage in the "educational" collective role-playingcyborg is as a rule a woman, i.e. What Brecht was aiming at is the immersive participation in which, nonetheless, avoids the trap fantasy is that of emotional identification: we immerse ourselves at the level of "meaningless," "mechanical" level of what, in Foucauldian terms, one is tempted to call "revolutionary disciplinary microWoman-practices[[Machine]] ([[Blade Runner]])," while at the same time critically observing our behavioranimal is a male ape copulating with a human woman and fully [[satisfying]] her. Does this not point also to materialize two standard vulgar notions: that of a woman who wants a strong animal partner, a possible "educationalbeast," use of participatory cyberspace role-playing games in which, by way of repeatedly enacting different versions/outcomes of not a same basic predicament[[hysterical]] impotent weakling, one can become aware of the ideological presuppositions and surmises that unknowingly guide our daily behavior? Do Brecht's three versions of a man who wants his first great "learning play," Der Jasager[[feminine]] partner to be a perfectly programmed doll meeting all his wishes, effectively not present us with such hypertext / alternate reality experience: in the first version, the boy "freely accept the necessary," subjecting himself to the old custom of an effective [[living]] being thrown into the valley; in the second version. What Lynch does by staging inconsistent fantasies together, at the boy refuses to diesame level, rationally demonstrating the futility of the old custom; in the third versionis, the boy accepts his death, but on rational grounds, not out of the respect for mere tradition. So when Brecht emphasizes that, by participating in the situation staged by his "learning plays," actors/agents themselves have to change, progressing towards a different subjective stance, he effectively points towards what Murray adequately calls "enactment as a transformational experience." In other words, apropos terms of BrechtHoag's "learning plays," one should ask a naive straightforward question: whatnovel, effectively, are we, spectators, supposed something akin to learn from them? Not some corps of positive knowledge (in this case, instead confronting us with the unbearable scene of trying to discern the Marxist idea wrapped in the "dramatic[[ideal]] couple" sceneryunderlying this novel, it would certainly be better to read directly the philosophical work itself…), but scene of a male ape copulating with a certain subjective attitude, that of "saying YES [[female]] cyborg — the most efficient way to undermine the inevitable," ihold this fantasy exerts over us.e. the readiness to self-obliteration — in a way, one learns precisely the virtue of accepting the Decision, the Rule, without knowing why…

In his much underrated The Lost HighwayAnd, perhaps, David Lynch transposes along the vertical into the horizontal: social reality (the everyday aseptic/impotent modern couple) and same lines, cyberspace, with its "repressed" fantasmatic supplement (the noir universe of forbidden masochistic passions and Oedipal triangles) are directly posited one next capacity to the otherexternalize our innermost fantasies in all their inconsistency, as two alternate universes. This co-existence and mutual envelopment of different universes led some New Age tilted reviewers opens up to claim that The Lost Highway moves at artistic practice a more fundamental psychic level than that of unconscious fantasizing of one subject: at a levelunique possiblity to [[stage]], closer to the mind of "primitive" civilizations, of reincarnation, of double identitiesact out, of being reborn as a different person, etc. Against this "multiple reality" talk, one should insist on the fact that the fantasmatic support of reality is in itself necessarily multiple and inconsistent. And this is what Lynch does in The Lost Highway: he "traverses" our late-capitalist fantasmatic universe not by way of direct social criticism (depicting the grim social reality which serves as its actual foundation)existence, but by staging these fantasies openly, without up to the fundamental "secondary perlaborationsado-masochistic" which usually masks their inconsistenciesfantasy that can never be subjectivized. That is We are thus invited to say, risk the undecidability and ambiguity of what goes on in most radical experience imaginable: the film's narrative (are [[encounter]] with the two women played by Patricia Arquette Other Scene that stages the same women? Is [[foreclosed]] hard core of the inserted story of Fredsubject's younger reincarnation just Fred's hallucination, imagined Being. Far from enslaving us to provide a post-festum rationale for his murder of his wife whose true cause is Fred's hurted male pride due to his impotence, his inability to satisfy the woman?) renders the very ambiguity these fantasies and inconsistency of the fantasmatic framework which underlies and sustains our experience of (social) reality. It was often claimed that Lynch throws thus turning usinto desubjectivized blind puppets, the spectators, open it enables us to treat them in our face the underlying fantasies a playful way and thus to adopt towards them a minimum of the noir universe distance — yesin short, but he simultaneously also renders visible the INCONSISTENCY of this fantasmatic support. The two main story-lines in The Lost Highway can thus be interpreted as akin to the dreamachieve what [[Lacan]] calls la traversee du [[fantasme]], "going-logic in which you can both "have your cake and eat it"through, like in [[traversing]] the fantasy."Tea or coffee? Yes, please!" joke: you first dream about eating it, then about having/possessing it, since dreams does not know of contradiction. The dreamer resolves a contradiction by staging two exclusive situations one after the other; in the same way, in The Lost Highway, the woman (the dark Arquette) is destroyed/killed/punished, and the same woman (the blond Arquette) eludes the male grasp and triumphantly disappears…

Or, to put it in yet another way, Lynch confronts us with a universe in which different, mutually exclusive fantasies co-exist. Peter Hoeg's novel The Woman and ==Constructing the Ape stages sex with an animal as a fantasy of full sexual relationship, and it is crucial that this animal is as a rule male: in contrast to the cyborg-sex fantasy, in which the cyborg is as a rule a woman, i.e. in which the fantasy is that of Woman-Machine (Blade Runner), the animal is a male ape copulating with a human woman and fully satisfying her. Does this not materialize two standard vulgar notions: that of a woman who wants a strong animal partner, a "beast," not a hysterical impotent weakling, and that of a man who wants his feminine partner to be a perfectly programmed doll meeting all his wishes, not an effective living being. What Lynch does by staging inconsistent fantasies together, at the same level, is, in the terms of Hoag's novel, something akin to confronting us with the unbearable scene of the "ideal couple" underlying this novel, the scene of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg — the most efficient way to undermine the hold this fantasy exerts over us.Fantasy==

And, perhaps, along The strategy of "[[traversing the same lines, fantasy]]" in cyberspace, with its capacity can even be "operationalized" in a much more precise way. Let us for a [[moment]] [[return]] to Brecht's three versions of Der Jasager: these three versions seems to externalize our innermost fantasies in exhaust all their inconsistencypossible variations of the [[matrix]] provided by the basic situation (perhaps with the inclusion of the fourth version, opens up to artistic practice in which a unique possiblity to stageboy rejects his death not for rational reasons, as unnecessary, but out of pure egotistic fear — not to mention the [[uncanny]] fifth version in which the boy "act out,irrationally" endorses his death even when the fantasmatic support of our existence"old custom" does NOT ask him to do it…). However, up to already at the fundamental level of a discerning "sado-masochisticintuitive" fantasy reading, we can feel that can never be subjectivized. We the three versions are thus invited to risk not at the most radical experience imaginablesame level: it is as if the encounter with first version renders the Other Scene that stages underlying traumatic core (the foreclosed hard core "death-[[drive]]" situation of the subjectwillingly endorsing one's Being. Far from enslaving us radical self-erasure), and the other two versions in a way react to this trauma, "domesticating" it, displacing/translating it into more acceptable terms, so that, if we were to see just one of these fantasies and thus turning us into desubjectivized blind puppetstwo latter versions, the proper [[psychoanalytic]] reading of them would justify the claim that these two versions present a [[displaced]]/transformed variation of some more fundamental fantasmatic scenario. Along the same lines, one can easily imagine how, when we are haunted by some fantasmatic scenario, externalizing it in cyberspace enables us to treat them in acquire a playful way and thus minimum of distance towards it, i.e. to subject it to adopt towards them a minimum manipulation which will generate other variations of distance the same matrix — in shortand, once we exhaust all main narrative possibilities, once we are confronted with the closed matrix of all possible permutations of the basic matrix underlying the [[explicit]] scenario we started with, we are bound to achieve what Lacan calls la traversee du fantasmegenerate also the underlying "[[fundamental fantasy]]" in its undistorted, "goingnon-throughsublimated," embarrassingly outright form, traversing the fantasyi.e.not yet displaced, obfuscated by "secondary perlaborations":

Constructing "The experience of the Fantasyunderlying fantasy coming to the surface is not merely an exhaustion of narrative possibilities; it is more like the solution to a constructivist puzzle. /…/ When every variation of the situation has been played out, as in the final season of a long-running series, the underlying fantasy comes to the surface. /…/ Robbed of the elaboration of [[sublimation]], the fantasy is too bald and unrealistic, like the [[child]] carrying the [[mother]] up to bed. The suppressed fantasy has a tremendous emotional charge, but once its [[energy]] has saturated the story pattern, it loses its tension."

The strategy Is this "losing the tension" of "traversing the fundamental fantasy" in cyberspace can even be "operationalized" in a much more precise not another way. Let us for a moment return to Brecht's three versions of Der Jasager: these three versions seems to exhaust all possible variations of say that the matrix provided by the basic situation (perhaps with the inclusion of the fourth version, in which a boy rejects his death not for rational reasonssubject traversed this fantasy? Of course, as unnecessary, but out [[Freud]] emphasized apropos of pure egotistic fear — not to mention the uncanny fifth version in which the boy fundamental fantasy "irrationallyMy father is beating me," endorses his death even when underlying the explicit scene "old customA child is being beaten" does NOT ask him to do it…). Howeverthat haunts the subject, already at the level of this fundamental fantasy is a discerning "intuitive" readingpure retroactive [[construction]], we can feel that since it was never present to the three versions are not at the same level[[consciousness]] and then repressed: although it is as if plays a proto-[[transcendental]] role, providing the first version renders ultimate coordinates of the underlying traumatic core (the "death-drive" situation of willingly endorsing onesubject's radical self-erasure)experience of reality, and the other two versions subject is never able to fully assume/subjectivize in a way react to this traumathe first person [[singular]] — precisely as such, it can be generated by the procedure of "domesticatingmechanical" it, displacing/translating it into more acceptable terms, so variation on the explicit fantasies thathaunt and [[fascinate]] the subject. To evoke Freud's other standard example, if we were endeavouring to see just one of these two latter versions, display how pathological male [[jealousy]] involves an unacknowledged [[homosexual]] [[desire]] for the proper psychoanalytic reading of them would justify male partner with whom I [[think]] my wife is cheating me: we arrive at the claim that these two versions present a displacedunderlying [[statement]] "I LOVE him" by manipulating/transformed variation permutating the explicit statement of some more fundamental fantasmatic scenariomy [[obsession]] "I HATE him (because I [[love]] my wife whom he seduced). Along the same lines, one " — We can easily imagine howsee, when we are haunted by some fantasmatic scenarionow, externalizing it in cyberspace enables us to acquire a minimum of distance towards it, i.e. to subject it to a manipulation which will generate other variations of how the same matrix — andpurely virtual, once we exhaust all main narrative possibilitiesnon-actual, once we are confronted with the closed matrix of all possible permutations universe of cyberspace can "touch the basic matrix underlying Real": the explicit scenario we started with, Real we are bound to generate also talking about is not the underlying "fundamental fantasyraw" pre-symbolic real of " [[nature]] in its undistorteditself, "non-sublimatedbut the [[spectral]] hard core of "psychic reality" itself. When Lacan equates the Real with what Freud calls "psychic reality," embarrassingly outright formthis "psychic reality" is not simply the inner psychic life of dreams, iwishes, etc.e. not yet displaced, obfuscated by as opposed to the perceived [[external reality]], but the hard core of the primordial "secondary perlaborationspassionate attachments,"which are real in the precise sense of resisting the movement of symbolization and/or [[dialectical]] mediation:

"The experience of the underlying fantasy coming to the surface is not merely an exhaustion of narrative possibilities; it is more like the solution to a constructivist puzzle. /…/ When every variation of the situation has been played outexpression '[[psychical]] reality' itself is not simply synonymous with '[[internal]] world, as in the final season of a long-running series' '[[psychological]] domain, the underlying fantasy comes to the surface' etc. /…/ Robbed of If taken in the elaboration of sublimationmost basic sense that it has for Freud, the fantasy this expression denotes a nucleus within that domain which is too bald heterogeneous and resistant and unrealistic, like which is alone in being truly 'real' as compared with the child carrying the mother up to bed. The suppressed fantasy has a tremendous emotional charge, but once its energy has saturated the story pattern, it loses its tensionmajority of psychical phenomena."

Is this The "losing the tensionreal" of the fundamental fantasy not another way to say that the subject traversed this fantasy? Of course, as Freud emphasized apropos of upon which cyberspace encroaches is thus the fundamental fantasy disavowed fantasmatic "My father is beating mepassionate attachment," underlying the explicit traumatic scene which not only never took [[place]] in "A child is being beatenreal life," that haunts the subject, this fundamental fantasy is a pure retroactive construction, since it but was never present to the consciousness even consciously fantasized — and then repressed: although it plays a proto-transcendental role, providing is not the ultimate coordinates digital universe of cyberspace the subject's experience of reality, the subject is never able ideal medium in which to fully assume/subjectivize in the first person singular — precisely as [[construct]] suchpure semblances which, it can be generated by the procedure of although they are [[nothing]] "mechanicalin themselves," variation on pure presuppositions, provide the explicit fantasies coordinates of our entire experience? It may appear that haunt and fascinate the subject. To evoke Freud's other standard example, endeavouring impossible Real is to be opposed to display how pathological male jealousy involves an unacknowledged homosexual desire for the male partner with whom I think my wife is cheating me: we arrive at the underlying statement "I LOVE him" by manipulating/permutating the explicit statement of my obsession "I HATE him (because I love my wife whom he seduced)." — We can see, now, how the purely virtual, non-actual, universe domain of cyberspace can "touch the Real"symbolic fictions: is the Real we are talking about is not the "raw" pre-symbolic real traumatic kernel of "nature the Same against whose threat we seek refuge in itself," but the spectral hard core multitude of "psychic reality" itself. When Lacan equates virtual symbolic universes? However, our ultimate lesson is that the Real with what Freud calls "psychic reality," this "psychic reality" is not simply simultaneously the inner psychic life exact opposite of dreams, wishes, etc., as opposed to the perceived external reality, but the such a non-virtual hard core of the primordial "passionate attachments: a purely virtual entity," an entity which are real in has no positive [[ontological]] consistency — its contours can only be discerned as the precise sense [[absent]] cause of resisting the movement distortions/displacements of symbolization and/or dialectical mediation:the symbolic space.

And it is only in this way, through [[touching]] the kernel of the Real, that cyberspace can be used to counteract what one is tempted to call the ideological practice of disidentification. That is to say, one should turn around the standard notion of ideology as providing the firm identification to its [[subjects]], constraining them to their "social roles"/…/ : what if, at a different — but no less irrevocable and structurally necessary — level, ideology is effective precisely by way of constructing a space of false disidentification, of false distance towards the expression actual coordinates of the subjects'psychical reality' itself is s social existence? Is this logic of disidentification not discernible from the most elementary case of "I am not simply synonymous with 'internal worldonly an American (husband, worker, democrat, gay…), but, beneath all these roles and masks, a human being,' 'psychological domaina [[complex]] unique [[personality]]" (where the very distance towards the symbolic feature that determines my social place guarantees the efficiency of this determination),up to the more complex case of cyberspace playing with one' etc. If taken s multiple identities? The mystification operative in the most basic sense perverse "just gaming" of cyberspace is thus double: not only are the games we are playing in it more serious than we tend to assume (is it not that , in the guise of a fiction, of "it has for Freud's just a game, this expression denotes " a nucleus within subject can articulate and stage — [[sadistic]], "perverse," etc. — features of his symbolic [[identity]] that domain which is heterogeneous and resistant and which is alone he would never be able to admit in being truly 'his "real' as compared " [[intersubjective]] contacts?), but the opposite also holds, i.e. the much celebrated playing with multiple, shifting personas (freely constructed identities) tends to obfuscate (and thus falsely liberate us from) the majority constraints of psychical phenomenasocial space in which our existence is caught."

The "real" upon which cyberspace encroaches is thus the disavowed fantasmatic "passionate attachment1. See Janet H.Murray," [[Hamlet]] on the traumatic scene which not only never took place in "real lifeHolodeck," but was never even consciously fantasized — and is not the digital universe of cyberspace the ideal medium in which to construct such pure semblances which, although they are nothing "in themselves," pure presuppositions, provide the coordinates of our entire experience? It may appear that the impossible Real is to be opposed to the virtual domain of symbolic fictionsThe MIT Press: is the Real not the traumatic kernel of the Same against whose threat we seek refuge in the multitude of virtual symbolic universes? HoweverCambridge (Ma) 1997, our ultimate lesson is that the Real is simultaneously the exact opposite of such a non-virtual hard core: a purely virtual entity, an entity which has no positive ontological consistency — its contours can only be discerned as the absent cause of the distortions/displacements of the symbolic spacep. 278.

And it is only in this way, through touching the kernel of the Real, that cyberspace can be used to counteract what one is tempted to call the ideological practice of disidentification. That is to say, one should turn around the standard notion of ideology as providing the firm identification to its subjects, constraining them to their "social roles": what if, at a different — but no less irrevocable and structurally necessary — level, ideology is effective precisely by way of constructing a space of false disidentification, of false distance towards the actual coordinates of the subjects's social existence? Is this logic of disidentification not discernible from the most elementary case of "I am not only an American (husband, worker, democrat, gay…), but, beneath all these roles and masks, a human being, a complex unique personality" (where the very distance towards the symbolic feature that determines my social place guarantees the efficiency of this determination), up to the more complex case of cyberspace playing with one's multiple identities? The mystification operative in the perverse "just gaming" of cyberspace is thus double: not only are the games we are playing in it more serious than we tend to assume (is it not that, in the guise of a fiction, of "it's just a game," a subject can articulate and stage — sadistic, "perverse," etc. — features of his symbolic identity that he would never be able to admit in his "real" intersubjective contacts?), but the opposite also holds, i.e. the much celebrated playing with multiple, shifting personas (freely constructed identities) tends to obfuscate (and thus falsely liberate us from) the constraints of social space in which our existence is caught. 1. See Janet H.Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck, The MIT Press: Cambridge (Ma) 1997, p. 278. 2. As to the [[concept ]] of perversion, see Gilles [[Deleuze]], Coldness and [[Cruelty]], New York: Zone Books 1991.

6. See Virtual History, edited by Niall Ferguson, [[London]]: MacMillan 1997.

7. See [[Bertolt Brecht]], "The Measure Taken," in The [[Jewish ]] Wife and Other Short Plays, New York: Grove Press 1965. For a detailed reading of The Measure Taken, see Chapter 5 of Slavoj [[Zizek]], Enjoy Your [[Symptom]]!, New York: Routledge 1993.

9. See [[Sigmund Freud]], "A child is being beaten," in Sexuality and the [[Psychology ]] of Love, New York: Touchstone 1997, p. 97-122. 10. See Sigmund Freud, "Psychoanalytical Notes Upon an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia," in Three Case Histories, New York: Touchstone 1996, p. 139-141.

1110. As to this termSee Sigmund Freud, see Judith Butler"[[Psychoanalytical]] [[Notes]] Upon an Autobiographical Account of a Case of [[Paranoia]], The Psychic Life of Power" in Three [[Case Histories]], StanfordNew York: Stanford University Press 1997Touchstone 1996, p. 139-141.

1211. J.Laplanche / J.B.PontalisAs to this term, see [[Judith]] [[Butler]], The Language Psychic Life of PsychoanalysisPower, LondonStanford: Karnac Books 1988, p. 315Stanford [[University]] Press 1997.

1312. I rely here on Peter Pfaller, "Der Ernst der Arbeit ist vom Spiel gelerntJ.Laplanche / J.B.Pontalis," in Work & CultureThe [[Language]] of [[Psychoanalysis]], KlagenfurtLondon: Ritter Verlag 1998Karnac Books 1988, p. 29-36315.

Available: http13. I rely here on Peter Pfaller, "Der Ernst der Arbeit ist vom Spiel gelernt," in Work & [[Culture]], Klagenfurt://www.wapolRitter Verlag 1998, p.org/news/e29-texts/zizek01.htm36.

[[Category:ZizekArticles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek]]