CLiC

Jan van Eyck Circle for Lacanian Ideology Critique

Wednesday 1 December 2010

SUBJECT DAY

This one day symposium draws its inspiration from:

- current debates within psychoanalysis on 'new subjectivities'

- the persistent confusion, in Lacanian psychoanalysis, of the subject with the person and the individual.

- the unquestioned humanism pertaining to the subject, in the work of Alain Badiou in particular.

- the shift this notion has undergone with the advent of modernity

10:30 Dominiek Hoens

     Introduction

11:00 Guy Le Gaufey

    One subject for two?

At the very end of writing a book whose title is C'est à quel sujet, I reached a point I had not foreseen: “The subject who clears off this way does so in a missed encounter that is very little intersubjective in fact because, in this flash, there is still only one subject for two”. What is then “this way” which allowed me to make such a statement? What kind of “clearing off” is here at stake in regard to this so-called “subject”? I will try to shed some light on this point, where Lacan abandoned his support of intersubjectivity (beginning of seminar On Transference [1960-1961]) and turned to the subject as represented by a signifier to another signifier (first sessions of the seminar on L'identification [1961-1962] ).

12:00 Andrew Cutrofello

   Hamlet and the subject of politics

The question of the subject, and of the subject of politics, is posed at the very beginning of Hamlet : "Who's there?" -- a question that is immediately followed by the resistance of a counter-interpellation addressed to the Other: "Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!" In holding, as 'twere, a mirror up to nature, the rest of the play will do nothing more than repeat and develop this scene of interpellation and counter-interpellation, structured, of course, around the figure of Hamlet. As a melancholy subject -- indeed, as the very model of the psychoanalytic theory of melancholia -- Hamlet seems a poor choice for a theory of political subjectivity. I will argue to the contrary. My principal foil (my Laertes, as it were) will be the model of political subjectivity that Badiou develops in Theory of the Subject  around the poetic figures of Antigone and Orestes.

13:00 lunch

14:00 Nina Power

   On a finally antihumanist subject

This paper will address the question of whether ‘the subject' is doomed to remain tainted by anthropological and humanist overcodings. Drawing on work from Tiqqun, Althusser and Marx, I will argue that it is possible to stop the philosophical desire for what Tiqqun call in Introduction to Civil War a ‘positive anthropology'. Reading their call for a ‘radically negative anthropology' ("a few abstractions that are just empty enough") alongside Althusser's late writings, this paper will argue for the necessity of breaking with the images of man as political animal in the name of a stripped-out concept of the subject that recalls Marx's description of the proletariat as ‘a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it' (‘A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right ).

15:00 Bruno Besana

   The shape of a subject to come

If there is a predicament in the current understanding of what a subject is, it might be both because the subject is at once too tightly identified with the neurotic individual, and too vaguely considered as an equivalent of a set of imprecise terms, such as « person », « human », « individual », etc. Both these equivalences share the problem of identifying the subject with a specific empiric object. I will therefore try to take the opposite direction; thus – following Badiou's suggestion according to which «  le point de départ absolu est qu'une théorie du sujet ne saurait pas être une théorie de l'objet » – I will try to understand to which extent the subject be can defined not as a thing , but as a mode of interruption of the « objectivity » of a situation. Following at the same time a suggestion of Gilles Deleuze, I will try to see how the question concerning the subject is not « what it is », but « how it works ». Therefore, my final attempt will be to list some formal characteristics upon which a set of actions can be called « a subject ». More precisely I will try to see to which extent it is possible to affirm that a subject is the consistency of a chain of actions that interrupt a given objectivity; to which extent thus a subject is the production of a new body which is both present and inconsistent with its own time.

16:00 coffee

16:30 Ole Frahm

    tba

18:00 drinks followed by dinner

 

Guy Le Gaufey has been analyst in Paris since 1974. Member of the École Freudienne de Paris until its dissolution in 1980, then co-founder of the revue Littoral in 1981 and of the École lacanienne de Psychanalyse in 1985, which he ran during eight years. He wrote numerous papers and books all along these years: L'incomplétude du symbolique (Epel, 1991), L'éviction de l'origine (Epel, 1994), Le lasso spéculaire (Epel, 1997), Anatomie de la troisième personne (Epel, 1999), Le pas tout de Lacan. Consistance logique, conséquences cliniques (Epel, 2006), C'est à quel sujet ? (Epel, 2009). He also translated some books from English to French, for Epel and others publishers.

Andrew Cutrofello is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. He is the editor of the continental philosophy section of Philosophy Compass . He is currently serving on the Executive Committee of the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy. He is the author of four books, including The Owl at Dawn: A Sequel to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and Imagining Otherwise: Metapsychology and the Analytic A Posteriori. He is currently writing a book about the philosophical representation of Hamlet as a problematic object in the Kantian sense.

Nina Power is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Roehampton University and is the author of One-Dimensional Woman (Zer0, 2009).

Bruno Besana is researcher at the Institute for Culturel Inquiry (ICI, Berlin), ex-JVE Theory researcher and co-founder of Versus Laboratory. He published on Deleuze, Badiou, Rancière, aesthetics, politics and ontology.

 

Thursday 7, Friday 8 and Saturday 9 October 2010

 

The Freudian Left Reconsidered

The emancipatory project of the Enlightenment based on reason and mutual understanding had to meet from its very beginning several critical questions and arguments. Looking backwards it is no surprise that the atrocities of the twentieth century fuelled this critical stance and lead to arguments that criticized the Enlightenment project as at its best naive, at its worst the cause of the horrors of (world) wars, totalitarianism, colonization, military and police control, and various forms of repression.

This  made certain theoreticians turn to psychoanalysis in order to get a view on the limits of reason, to form an idea of its dark underside, to try and know how rationality becomes irrational, and to find elements for an alternative to the irrational rationality embodied by the trinity of Science, Technology and Capital.

With this conference we want to focus on the role psychoanalysis played and continues to play within critical analyses of Western, post-WW I society. Authors like Wilhelm Reich, Erich  Fromm, Theodor W. Adorno, Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, (the early) Jean-Francois Lyotard, Klaus Theweleit,- Christopher Lasch and Alexander Mitscherlich are monuments within this line of thinking that tries to save the Enlightenment project precisely by taking into account the psychoanalytical critique of it. The reason why most their works has fallen into oblivion could be related to a supposed simplistic, 'pre-Lacanian' reading of Freud, an unconvincing synthesis between Freud's  'pessimism' and Marx's 'optimism', or a naïve and even dangerous utopianism or libertarianism as counterpart of their ideology critique.

However, the idea behind this conference is that these authors are still relevant today and cannot be reduced to being merely 'children of their time' or forerunners of the more sophisticated, Lacan-inspired critique of culture.

This conference is organized in collaboration with KASK - Hogeschool Gent.

 

Thursday 7 October

3.00pm

Dominiek Hoens (Jan van Eyck Academie)

Introduction


3.30pm

Juliet Flower McCannell (UC, Irvine)

The Dialectic of the Political Imaginary: The Question of the Subject in Politics From Freud to Marcuse

4.45pm

Peter-Erwin Jansen (University of Koblenz)

Traces of Liberation

6.00pm

drinks

7.00pm

dinner

 

Friday 8 October

11.00am

Frank Vande Veire (KASK, Hogeschool Gent)

Gift and Death Drive in Norman O. Brown's Life Against Death

12.00am

Jan De Vos (Ghent University)

The Culture of Narcissism Revisited: A Critique of Psychological Politics and Its Limits

1.00pm

lunch

2.00pm

Aaron Schuster (ICI, Berlin)

Against Revisionism: Lionel Trilling on the Fate of Pleasure

3.00pm

Nathaniel Boyd (Jan van Eyck Academie)

Freud, our Hegel

4.00pm

break

4.30pm

Marc De Kesel (Radboud University, Nijmegen)

Fabulous Criticism. On Michel de Certeau's reading of Freud's Moses and Monotheism

6.00pm

drinks

 

Saturday 9 October

THE QUESTION OF THE POLITICAL IMAGINARY
10TH ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM

OF THE JOURNAL (a) AND THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOANALYTIC CIRCLE

The ordinary course of the 19th century is that, when a … man of power meets a man of feeling, he kills him, exiles him, imprisons him, or humiliates him such that the other has the foolishness to die of grief over it. (Stendhal, The Red and the Black)

What is a ‘subject' where politics is concerned, if the subject of the unconscious is shaped by its social and symbolic, not political and imaginary conflicts?

What is a ‘voice' in politics today? Does a vote still matter (etymologically a ‘wish,' ‘a vow', ‘a promise' or ‘a prayer'—a form of speech, therefore  -- the vox populi). Or is whatever ‘talking heads' on television news shows or on right wing talk radio decide what wins the day?  

If we re-read the ‘radical leftist' Marcuse today we find it hard to ignore how much his forceful critiques of ‘society' and ‘the state' still resonate – with political and economic conservatives. Indeed, Curtis' BBC documentary notes that conservative politicians like Ronald Reagan rose to power by using the very slogans of the Marcuse-inspired student rebellions of the 1960s (“Get the government off our backs!”) — rebellions that Reagan roundly condemned while stealing their rhetoric, thus having it both ways at once. When politics was seen as the art of exercising power , it was society's task to moderate that exercise. By not focusing on the specific social relations society forbids or what acts a state actively exercises control over, mid 20th century leftist thinkers may have unwittingly opened the door to the individual-oriented conservative politics evident today. The central question for this conference thus becomes “What is the promise the Imaginary holds for politics today?” Is there a dialectic to the Imaginary that might reveal a new or invaluable resource for democracy in such a dialectic? Can the Imaginary be understood differently by both psychoanalysis and political theory in the light of say Lacan's late work with the Imaginary, e.g., Le Sinthome ?

We would like papers that address Freud's and Lacan's attempts to get a purchase on Imaginary politics: what does it mean for the form and fate of the Subject? For Lacan at least there is a subject that is transindividual.

But we also encourage systematic investigation of the approaches taken by antagonists of Freud and psychoanalysis who were equally concerned with these questions, like Marcuse, who have much to say that illuminates today's trends.

If ‘society' has any meaning at all, if the social link constitutes constraints on individual enjoyment taken at the expense of the other and its desire, then Marcuse's own sustained attack on ‘society' bears re-examination. Especially in the light of Lacan's theories of social discourse, of the unconscious at work in it, and of Freud's broader works on civilization and its discontents.

SPEAKERS

One Dimensional Man and the Depth of his Therapy
Maya Mukamel
Tel Hai Academic College, Tel Aviv

The Death Drive of Revolution/Counter-Revolution: Rereading of Jeffrey Mehlman's Revolution and Repetition
Fuhito Endo
Professor, English, Seikei University, Tokyo

There is Nothing More Toxic than a Human Child. Pixar's Monsters Inc. as Social Fantasy
Lilian Munk Rösing
Lektor, Litteraturvidenskab og Moderne Kultur, Copenhagen University

Group Psychology and the Polyconstruction of the Ego
Lyat Friedman
Assistant Professor, Gender Studies and Philosophy, Bar-Ilan University,Tel Aviv

Television and ‘The Public Sphere': Of Absolutism
Daniel MacCannell
Researcher Institute for Irish and Scottish Studies, U niversity of Aberdeen

 

Monday 15 June 2009

OBJECT DAY

10:45-11:00 Dominiek Hoens (Jan van Eyck Academie)

         Introduction

 

11:00-12:00 Marc De Kesel (Radboud University Nijmegen)

        The Subject Does not Dance Without an Object: On the Genesis of Lacan's

        object a in Seminar VI

 

12-00-13:00 Thomas Brockelman (Le Moyne University, Syracuse NY)

        The Other Side of the Canvas: Lacan flips Foucault over Velazquez

 

13:00-14:00 lunch

 

14:00-15:00 Christian Kerslake (Middlesex University, London)

        The objet a in the Cahiers pour l'analyse: Miller, Milner and Leclaire

 

15:00-15:30 coffee

 

15:30-16:30 Lorenzo Chiesa (University of Kent)

        Subject, Object, Zero: A Critical Commentary on Jacques-Alain Miller's "La

        suture"

 

16:30-17:30 Jelica Sumic (University of Ljubljana)

        On Badiou's Objectless Subject

 

18:00-19:00 drinks

 

19:00          dinner

 

         Johann Heinrich Füssli, The nightmare (1782 [detail])

 

Marc De Kesel is a senior researcher at Radboud University in Nijmegen and teaches Philosophy at Artveldehogeschool in Gent. He published numerous essays on Bataille, Nancy, Lacan, Blanchot, Derrida, on psychoanalysis, politics and aesthetics. Recently his close reading of Lacan's Seminar VII, Eros and Ethics, was published by SUNY Press.

 

Thomas Brockelman is Professor of Philosophy at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York, USA. He is the author, most recently, of Žižek and Heidegger: the Question Concerning Techno-Capitalism (Continuum: 2009) but also of The Frame and Mirror: on Collage and the Postmodern (Northwestern: 2001) and of numerous articles in aesthetics, psychoanalytic theory and political theory. Dr. Brockelman was a researcher at the Jan van Eyck Academie in 2007.

 

abstract: Departing from an event in Jacques Lacan's 1966 Seminar, "The Other Side of the Canvas" develops our understanding of the "object of psychoanalysis" through Lacan's Auseinandersetzung with Michel Foucault on the topic of Velazquez's painting, Las Meninas. The interpretation, which Lacan develops in the context of Foucault's use of the picture within his just published Les Mots et les choses, occurs in part in Foucault's presence and what is, to all appearances, a friendly "dialogue" between the two thinkers. In fact, though, my paper shows that Lacan offers a radical alternative to Foucault's understanding of Velazquez. With that alternative, seen in the context of Seminar XIII as a whole, Lacan lays the groundwork – in an opportunity he doesn't explicitly take up – to dispute Foucault's 1966 theses regarding modernity and its contemporary crisis. In this way, Lacan's conception of the properly psychoanalytic object can be shown to host a Lacanian alternative to postmodernism.

 

Christian Kerslake is currently a research fellow on an AHRC-funded project to digitise the Cahiers pour l'analyse at the Centre for Research on Modern European Philosophy at Middlesex University, London. He is also the author of Deleuze and the Unconscious (Continuum, 2007), and co-editor of a volume of essays on philosophy and psychoanalysis, The Origins and Ends of the Mind (Leuven , 2007).

 

abstract: 'The objet petit a in the Cahiers pour l'analyse: Miller, Milner and Leclaire'. The journal Cahiers pour l'analyse was a laboratory for the elaboration of Lacanian theory from 1966-69, published by a group calling themselves 'The Circle of Epistemology'. The founding theoretical statement in the first volume of the journal was Jacques-Alain Miller's 'Suture', which was subjected to intense analysis and reflection in the ensuing volumes by a number of prominent theorists, including Serge Leclaire, Jean-Claude Milner, Francois Regnault and Alain Badiou. In this presentation I would like to discuss the different meanings of the concept of the 'objet petit a' generated in the course of the Cahiers project by Miller, Milner and Leclaire. I will take as my main text the discussions between these three thinkers during Leclaire's seminar, as published in the third volume of the Cahiers.

 

Lorenzo Chiesa is Lecturer in Critical Theory at the School of European Culture and Languages, University of Kent at Canterbury (United Kingdom), Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia), and Visiting Professor at the Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane, University of Naples (Italy). He is the author of Subjectivity and Otherness: A Philosophical Reading of Lacan (MIT Press 2007), Antonin Artaud. Verso un corpo senza organi (Ombre Corte 2001), and has published widely on Lacanian theory and contemporary French and Italian philosophy. Chiesa sits in the editorial board of the Journal of European Psychoanalysis, and is a member of CLiC, Circle for Lacanian Ideology Critique (based at the Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht, The Netherlands) and of AFIC, Association Franco-Italienne pour la recherche sur la Philosophie Française Contemporaine (based at the École Normale Supérieure, Paris). Currently, he is completing a co-translation into English of Giorgio Agamben's Il Regno e La Gloria: Homo Sacer, II, 2 for Stanford University Press.

 

abstract: In his seminal 1966 essay “La suture: elements de la logique du signifiant”, Jacques-Alain Miller compares Frege's notion of the zero with Lacan's notion of the subject of the unconscious: the zero relates to the series of numbers in the same way as the subject relates to the signifying chain. For Frege, the zero is the support of the series of numbers precisely insofar as the zero as the lack of the object can be counted as one qua number. Similarly, for Miller, the subject of the unconscious should be understood as an excluded excess that sustains the signifying chain: the exclusion of the subject – which is thus barred – from the Other amounts to the repeated representation of such an exclusion in the object a – as the object of the Other's desire – by means of the unary trait. In this paper I will show how, criticising Frege and going beyond the level of a mere analogy, Miller identifies the subject with the zero, and claims that the progression of natural whole numbers is itself made possible only by the repressed function of the subject. Formal logic misrecognises – or sutures – the formalism of the logic of the unconscious insofar as it does not – and cannot – take fully into account the fact that logic is always-already the signifier's logic, a logic generated by language as a symbolic intersubjective structure. While this critique of formal logic is compatible with some of the most profound implications of Lacan's logic of the signifier, the fact remains that, in his 1965-66 Seminar The Object of Psychoanalysis, Lacan seems to identify the object a – and not the barred subject – with Frege's zero.

 

Jelica Sumic is a senior researcher at the Institute of Philosophy of the Slovenian Academy of the Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana. She taught at the Collège Internationale de Philosophie in Paris, and was a guest lecturer in Boston, Frankfurt and Paris. She is an author of Mutations of Ethics published in Ljubljana. She edited L'Universel, Singulier, Sujet for éditions Kime. She has written widely on political philosophy, ethics and psychoanalysis, and is currently writing a book on Philosophy and Psychoanalysis.

 

Friday 13 March 2009

Workshop with Aaron Schuster on Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus

"On nous objecte qu'en soustrayant le désir au manque et à la loi, nous ne pouvons plus qu'invoquer un état de nature, un désir qui serait réalité naturelle et spontanée. Nous disons tout au contraire: il n'y a pas de désir qu'agencé ou machiné." (Gilles Deleuze, Dialogues)

An occasion to ask whether D&G are right in their critique of psychoanalysis, or whether the late Lacan is simply an elaboration of the theses put forward in their book.

Keywords: machines, desire, pleasure, (lack of) lack.

We are grateful for Aaron Schuster's brilliant commentary on Anti-Oedipus and for providing us with the text of his intervention here.

 

Wednesday 10 and Thursday 11 October 2007

Conference

Slave to Freedom. On Lars von Trier's Manderlay

Manderlay (2005) is the second film of Lars von Trier's Trilogy 'USA – Land of Opportunities.' Its story brings back one of the darkest sides of western history: while creating a free society, a large part of the 'New World' declared slavery to be one of its constitutive elements. Manderlay is von Trier's way to deal with that traumatic side of modern freedom's legacy. The conference intends to explore two basic questions raised by his movie. 1. Not unlike socio-political catastrophes like the Gulag and Auschwitz, this trauma raises the question how to incorporate and ‘accept the unacceptable' into our memory, into the making of modernity's tradition. 2. What to think if freedom as such is based on a lie urging us to act as if we are slaves. What if this very lie is the basic condition of the way we, moderns, deal with freedom's truth?

Programme

flyer: click here

Wednesday 10 0ctober

 

15.30-16.00 registration & coffee

 

16.00-17.00 Emma Bell (University of East Anglia, UK)

Alien-Nation: On Not Misreading Lars von Trier's (Anti-)American Pictures

17.00-18.00 Marc De Kesel (Radboud University Nijmegen, NL)

Journey Between Mirrors: Lars von Trier's Manderlay as an Essay on Modern Freedom

 

21.00 Film Screening

Introduction by Peter Verstraten (University of Leiden, NL)
Location: Lumière, Bogaardenstraat 40B, Maastricht.

 

Thursday 11 October

11.00-12.00 Jan Simons (University of Amsterdam, NL)

The Redeemer's Dilemma: A Game Theoretical Approach to Lars von Trier's Films

 

12.00-13.00 Chris Gemerchak (Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht, NL)

Spectres of the Civil Undead: On the Veil of Authority and the Disavowal of Freedom

 

13.00 lunch

 

14.00-15.00 Katrien Vuylsteke Vanfleteren (Hogeschool Gent, BE)

Manderlay : A Film Version of Brecht's Epic Theatre?

 

15.00-16.00 Rok Bencin (University of Ljubljana, SL)

‘Where all notions get split into two...' Von Trier's Manderlay and Brecht's Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

 

16.00-16.30 break

 

16.30-17.30 Thomas Brockelman (JvE Academie / LeMoyne College, Syracuse NY, US)

Spinoza's Dream: Manderlay, Dogville and Capitalism

 

17.30 drinks

Admission free, but please do register by e-mail: madeleine.bisscheroux@janvaneyck.nl

Conference location: Jan van Eyck Academie, Academieplein 1, Maastricht, The Netherlands

 

Thursday 4 October 2007

Lecture

 

Quentin Meillassoux (ENS, Paris)

Facticity and Factuality: For a Contemporary Realism

abstract:

I shall deal with a philosophical position which has nowadays many figures, and which I call “correlationism”. According to correlationism, it is nonsense to pretend that we can know what the reality is “in itself”, because we can't distinguish between properties which are supposed to belong to the object, and properties which belong to the subjective access to the object. This is why it seems impossible to conceive an absolute X, that is an X which would be essentially independent of a subject. You can only think correlations between subjects and what they conceive or perceive, or feel, etc. I shall try to demonstrate that there is a way to escape rigourously correlationism, and that this way relies on the notions of facticity, contingency, and factuality.

11 am - 1 pm

auditorium

 

Wednesday 19 & Thursday 20 September 2007

Conference

 

'The Triumph of Religion'

Lacanian perspectives on (a)theology

At a press conference in Rome , in 1974, when asked for his opinion of the relationship between psychoanalysis and religion, Lacan promptly replied: “In the end, it is either the one, or the other.” His reply to the following question – “Which, then, will win the battle?” – is less prompt. He finally ventures that “Religion will never wane.” Religion, he adds, will “triumph.” After a moment of doubt, he feels compelled to say the opposite about psychoanalysis: psychoanalysis will certainly not triumph, at best it will survive for a while. Is this passage symptomatic of the numerous references to religious and theological issues in Lacan's oeuvre? On the one hand, Lacan severely criticises religion and defends the greatness of modern atheism; on the other hand, his references to theological issues and schemes are so crucial a part of his theory that one is inclined to consider it an ‘a-theology', and, as such, still an instance of theology. What is Lacan's view of religion? And what do his reflections on religion tell about his theory and contemporary critical theory in general? Taking these two questions as guide, the conference explores how Lacanian theory deals with the current revival (or persistence) of religion and with religious fundamentalism. Lacan's difficulty in replying to the current ‘triumph of religion' might shed light on the incapacity of current critical thought in general to deal with that question.

Programme

flyer: click here

Wednesday 19 September

 

09.30 – 10.00 Registration & coffee

 

10.00 – 10.30 Dominiek Hoens (Jan van Eyck Academie Maastricht, NL)

Introduction: Lacan's Atheism

 

10.30 – 11.45 Marc De Kesel (Radboud University Nijmegen, NL)

“Oh my God”: Monotheistic Criticism and the Anthropological Basis of Religion

 

11.45 – 13.00 Kenneth Reinhard (University of California LA, USA)

There is Something of One (God): Lacan and Political Theology

 

14.00 – 15.15 Adrian Johnston (University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA)

Conflicted Matter: Jacques Lacan and the Challenge of Secularizing Materialism

        

15.15 – 16.30 Mahdi Tourage (Colgate University NY, USA)

The Efficacy of Lacan's Theory of Signification as a New Approach to the Hermeneutics of Sufi Texts

 

16.45 – 18.00 Samo Tomšic (Institute for Philosophy Ljubljana, SL)

Lacan's Antireligious Act: The Lessons of Dissolution and the Invention of the Real

 

18.00 drinks

 

Thursday 20 September

 

 

10.30 – 11.45 Lara Sels and Nadia Sels (University of Ghent, BE)

Lacan and Gregory of Nyssa: A Communal Myth?

 

11.45 – 13.00 Charles Shepherdson (Tsinghua University, CN)

On the Sacrifice of Isaac: Fear and Anxiety from Kant to Lacan

 

14.00 – 15.15 Tiers Bakker (University of Amsterdam, NE)

The Unconscious God in the Work of Lacan

 

15.15 – 16.30 Zachary Rosenau (Independent Researcher, Philadelphia, USA)

Lacan and Barth: Theology to the Letter with Continual Reference to American Comedians

 

16.45 – 18.00 Marcus Pound (Durham University, UK)

The Assumption of Desire, Lacan, Kierkegaard and the Eucharist

 

18.00 drinks

Respondents: Erik Borgman, Thomas Brockelman, Chris Gemerchak, Dominiek Hoens, André Nusselder, Georgios Papadopoulos, Johan Schokker, Aaron Schuster, Frank Vande Veire

Admission charge: 1 day: 15 € / 10 € (students); 2 days: 25 € / 15 € (students)

Conference location: Radboud University, Huize Heyendaal, Geert Grootplein 9, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Please do register with: madeleine.bisscheroux@janvaneyck.nl

 

Thursday 7 June 2007

Guest lecture

in collaboration with The Pensive Image

Gérard Wajcman

Intime extorqué, intime exposé (wrenched intimate, exposed intimate)

Il est justifié de dire que Freud a révolutionné le sens intime. C'est pourquoi, dans un livre sur les fenêtres, j'ai cherché à définir les conditions de possibilité de ce noyau subjectif qu'on nomme l'intime ...

(text will be available in English)

Lieven Jonckheere

Extimacy, or, the atopia of intimacy according to Lacanian psychoanalysis

Throughout Lacan's teachings we can successively identify three paradigms of intimacy ...

 

Saturday 12 May 2007

Conference

 

The Phantom of Liberty. Psychoanalysis as a Philosophy of Freedom ?

 

10.00:

Aaron Schuster (PARTS, Brussels, BE)

Welcome and Introduction: Psychoanalysis and Freedom. A Brief History

10.30:

Ed Pluth (California State University, Chico, US)

Lacanian Anti-Humanism and Freedom

respondent: Chris Gemerchak

11.45:

Russell Grigg (Deakin University, Melbourne, AU)

Liberty: The Shadow of the Ego Fallen on the Subject

respondent: Dominiek Hoens

13.00:

Lunch

14.00:

Lorenzo Chiesa (University of Kent, UK)

'Wounds of Testimony' and 'Martyrs of the Unconscious': Pasolini and Lacan Contra the Discourse of Freedom

respondent: Frank Vande Veire

15.15:

Marc De Kesel (Radboud University Nijmegen, NL)

Between Liberty and Liberticide: Psychoanalysis's Economic View on Freedom

respondent: Ozren Pupovac

16.30:

Break

16.45:

Concluding remarks and general discussion

18.00:

Drinks

this conference is organized by Aaron Schuster

abstracts: click here

 

Psychoanalysis, urban theory and the city of late-capitalism

Friday 18 – Sunday 20 November 2005, Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht

A three-day international workshop organised by BAVO & Lorenzo Chiesa with Michael Zinganel, Alberto Toscano, Roemer van Toorn, Yannis Stavrakakis, Edward W. Soja, Aaron Schuster, Renata Salecl, André Nusselder, Dany Nobus, Juliet Flower MacCannell, Marc De Kesel, Oliver Feltham and Friedrich von Borries

Politics and Jouissance

A series of workshops on politics and jouissance organised by Lorenzo Chiesa and Oliver Feltham

See Archives