Hermeneutic Delirium

Hermeneutic Delirium
Hermeneutic Delirium

The same holds for capitalism: its dynamics of perpetual self-revolutionizing relies on the endless postponing of its point of impossibility (final crisis, collapse). What is for other, earlier, modes of production a dangerous exception, is for capitalism a sort of normality: crisis is in capitalism somehow internalized, taken into account, as the point of impossibility which pushes it to continuous activity. Capitalism is always structurally in crisis — this is why it is expanding all the time: it can only reproduce itself by way of “borrowing from the future,” by way of escaping into the future. The final settling of accounts when all its debts would have been paid cannot ever arrive.

[…]

And this brings me to a possible Lacanian definition of auratic presence: it is simply the fantasm, the fantasm as – for Lacan – an imaginary scenario which stages an impossible scene, something that could only be seen from the point of impossibility. Let me explain this via a detour through Deleuze who often varies the motif of how, in becoming post-human, we should learn to practice “a perception as it was before men (or after) /…/ released from their human coordinates”: those who fully endorse the Nietzschean “return of the same” are strong enough to sustain the vision of the “iridescent chaos of a world before man.”

[Extract. Appeared in Lacanian Ink No. 34, 2009, pp. 138-151.]

Tell us what you think...