--------------A2C83E85CD11E5808A6D038D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chris McMahon wrote:
> Of course castration exists. It exists literally.
>
> Has anybody seen "Fight Club"? 2 machines:
> 1. castration machine
> 2. superman machine
>
> And #2 even uses #1. That's all. Is #2 using #1? Or is #1 using #2?
>
> :) Chris
>
Hi Chris, Yes I've seen "Fight Club" - I thouht it was fascinating. I was
reading the plateau on the war-machine at the time and couldn't help but to
read it in terms of the state and the war-machine. In which case I'd
probably read it as castration/superman-machine vs warrior/nomad-machine. I
mean that in terms of reading 'superman' as a metonomy of a capitalist hero
- but I'm considering that perhaps you mean in the sence of a Neitchze
'overman' which I've heard translated as superman. Being a pop-culture
baby, I can't help but read superman as part of the capitalist-oedipal
castration-machine.
In terms of the movie, I thought if we read your 2. as the war-machine, that
this force deterritorialized the state codes beginning with codes of home/
work/ subject and culminating in an attack on the technical-machines (credit
card info) that bind the subject to the state.
It seemed to me that this was not about two characters or even a 'split'
subject, but a force that can find expression only as an externalization to
the coded subject. ??? What do you think? Does this make sense to you?
Chris
--------------A2C83E85CD11E5808A6D038D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<P>Chris McMahon wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Of course castration exists. It exists literally.
<P>Has anybody seen "Fight Club"? 2 machines:
<BR>1. castration machine
<BR>2. superman machine
<P>And #2 even uses #1. That's all. Is #2 using #1? Or is #1 using #2?
<P>:) Chris
<BR><A HREF="http://www.hotmail.com";></A> </BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Chris, Yes I've seen "Fight Club" - I thouht it was fascinating.
I was reading the plateau on the war-machine at the time and couldn't help
but to read it in terms of the state and the war-machine. In which
case I'd probably read it as castration/superman-machine vs warrior/nomad-machine.
I mean that in terms of reading 'superman' as a metonomy of a capitalist
hero - but I'm considering that perhaps you mean in the sence of a Neitchze
'overman' which I've heard translated as superman. Being a pop-culture
baby, I can't help but read superman as part of the capitalist-oedipal
castration-machine.
<P>In terms of the movie, I thought if we read your 2. as the war-machine,
that this force deterritorialized the state codes beginning with codes
of home/ work/ subject and culminating in an attack on the technical-machines
(credit card info) that bind the subject to the state.
<BR>It seemed to me that this was not about two characters or even a 'split'
subject, but a force that can find expression only as an externalization
to the coded subject. ??? What do you think? Does
this make sense to you?
<P>Chris
<BR> </HTML>
--------------A2C83E85CD11E5808A6D038D--