137/ it is not exterior to this relation of exteriority, it is this contradictory exteriority exerting itself [s'exercant] or insisting “itself” [“s'”insistant] without mediation. [Footnote #5]
147/ Having supposed, through paralogism, that *desire* is confused with the given sex, Revolution with sexual rebellion, identities which found the eternity of mastery, dualism must then massively cut, abstractly and transcendently separate sex and desire
-
-
148/ (there will be a specific desire of the Rebel that will not be sexual), sex and rebellion (rebellion without relation to sexuality, contrary to “discourses of liberation”).
Show this thread -
149/ Sometimes the whole of desire will be the Master, sometimes there will be a desire that will escape from the Master. Sometimes every discourse will be the master's, sometimes there will be an autonomous discourse of the Rebel.
Show this thread -
150/ Sometimes discourse and desire will be assimilated, sometimes they will be distinguished: the whole of desire to the Master, but not the whole of discourse.
Show this thread -
151/ The Rebel as resistant leaves the dualist to his prophesies and his hesitations, he contents himself with fleeing straightaway from disjunctions, clefts, re-splits—but without negativity, thus excluding the signifying re-split—into the closures of mastery.
Show this thread -
152/ He refines all the dualist's transcendent and barely guaranteed disjunctions, such that his Rebel part is confused with a simple partition, but without negativity, thus without elementary or minimal term,
Show this thread -
153/ and thus inaccessible to the law of the signifier, which it undoes or against which it resists: having in some way defeated signifying mastery on its terrain...from a completely different terrain. [END CHAPTER 1]
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.