Changes

=====Introduction==[[Žižek]]'s account of [[law]] is built upon the reiteration of the idea that ''[[law]] is [[split]]'' or that ''there is a [[parallax view|parallax]] [[gap]] between the '''[[public]] [[letter]]''' and its '''[[obscene]] [[superego]] [[supplement]]'''''.<ref>{{Z}} ''[[The Parallax View]]''. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2006. p. 10.</ref>===

 For [[Žižek]], ''* [[law]] is '''necessary''' and potentially '''liberatory'''''. : Appearing in mutiple arrangements - the [[symbolic]] [[law]] of [[language]] and [[law|norms]], the [[public]] [[law]] of [[state]]s and [[state|regimes]], the [[transgressive]] "[[obscene|nightly]]" [[law]] of [[superego]], as well as the [[religion|religious]] [[law]] of [[Judaism]] and the [[Pauline]] [[law]] of [[faith]] - [[law]] persists as a constituent element of [[human ]] [[practical ]] [[experience]].

As a nonintegrated non-integrated, [[surplus]],

[[violenceViolence]] gives ''persists'' in the [[form]] of [[law]] the form of as an ''[[injunction]]'', .

rendering [[Violence]] gives [[law]] as that which is to be obeyedthe form of an ''[[injunction]]''.

As a nonintegrated [[surplus]], [[violence]] gives [[law]] the form of an '''Law'[[injunction]]'' , rendering [[law]] as that which is constitutively senseless:to be obeyed.

'''Law''' is constitutively senseless: it is obeyed not because it is [[good]], just, or beneficial, but because it is [[law]].

As [[Zizek]] explains, "The last foundation of the [[Law]]'s [[authority ]] lies in its [[process ]] of [[enunciation]]."<ref>{{Z}} "How Did [[Marx ]] Invent the [[Symptom]]?" in ''[[Mapping Ideology]]''. Ed. [[Slavoj Zizek]]. Verso: [[London]], 1944. p. 318</ref>

This traumatic[[trauma]]tic, nonintegrated character of [[lawsenseless]] [[injunction]] is a positive condition of also the [[psychoanalytic]] [[lawnotion]].<ref>{{Z}} "How Did Marx Invent of the Symptom?" in ''[[Mapping Ideologysuperego]]''. Ed. Slavoj Zizek. Verso: London, 1944. p. 319</ref>

Superego issues unconditional commandsThe [[superego]] [[injunction|injunction to enjoy]] accompanies a [[duty]] to be happy. Important for Zizek is the way that in today's more permissive societies, telling us what the superego injunction to enjoy accompanies a duty to be happy. He writes, "The superego is thus the properly obscene [[reversal]] of the permissive 'You may!' into the prescriptive 'You must!', the point at which permitted enjoyment turns into ordained enjoyment."<ref>{{TFA}} {{FA}} p. 133</ref> We must have great sex lives, fulfilling jobs, interesting hobbies, fantastic vacations. If we donot, refusing we have somehow failed. We are [[guilty]]-inadequate. By attending to take no for an answerthe superego supplement of law, Zizek thus enables us to grasp how it is the [[case]] that what might appear at law's retreat, as law's securing of a larger realm of personal [[choice]] and privacy, refusing even comes up against a crippling [[impasse]] of unfreedom-the command to consider our specific circumstancesenjoy that effectively prevents us from enjoying, needs or desiresentwining us in [[guilt]] and uncertainty.

It is a prohibition compliance with which produces enjoyment. When we obey the [[Violence]] persists as [[superego]], when we give up our own desire and comply or follow ordersthat is, a part of usas the punishing, orpowerful, more precisely the Other within us, enjoys. Superego thus involves the excess of lawobscene, [[dead]] [[father]] killed by the violence that persists in law's injunction[[primal]] [[horde]].                          ===Lack===