> Thanks Ken,
> I know a genuine and weighty response when I see one.
How do you know?
> >"Who you think you are and who you are are not identical."
> >- K.G. MacKendrick, November 4, on a snowy Toronto morning
> Nevertheless ... To make this claim in good faith, you would have to know
you're not who you think you are, wouldn't you? But then,
to know anything would require you to know that the knower
is in a position to know. This you can't know if you don't
know him.
Jouissance loves me this I know, for the Other tells me so.
> Ergo, you can't know you don't know who you think you are.
Ergo, modern (rationalistic) subjectivity as radically paranoid. Which is the *exact* reason that theories of trangression for the sake of transgression don't work - the pervert, the transgressor, acts as though they *know* the law that they are transgressing. Hence, postmodernism / late capitalism is psychotic. It *knows* (in other words, it denies the existence of the imaginary foundation of reality).
"It is whether you are paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid enough." - Strange Days
> Er, why don't I just get back to my marking, eh?
Finished. Ta da.
ken