#mladen dolar

[whenyouarenothing]

“Where religion becomes artificial, art has the privilege to redeem the kernel of religion”

Slavoj Zizek & Mladen Dolar, quoting Richard Wagner in Opera's Second Death.

The brave ones can add a third dimension to it: 

02:40-03:38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRmCEGHt-Qk  

The Gemälde is by Anselm Kiefer, the documentary to be found here

[geratura]

We cannot resist silence, for the very good reason that there is nothing to resist. This is the mechanism of the law at its minimal: it expects nothing of us, it does not command, we can always oppose commands and injunctions, but not silence. Silence here is the very form of the validity of the law beyond its meaning, the zero-point of voice, its pure embodiment. (172)

Dolar, Mladen (2006), A Voice and Nothing More, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[dipnotski]

Mladen Dolar – Söylentinin Felsefesi (2025)

Mladen Dolar’ın bu çalışması, söylentilerin yalnızca doğruluğu belirsiz haberler değil, aynı zamanda bilgi, iktidar ve toplumsal yapı arasındaki gerilimlerin bir ifadesi olduğunu ileri sürüyor. Söylentiler, resmi bilgi kanallarının dışında dolaşan ama onları sürekli rahatsız eden, güvenilir bilgi rejimlerini sorgulatan bir formdur. ‘Söylentinin Felsefesi: Sokrates’ten Sosyal Medyaya’ (‘Rumors’),…

View On WordPress

[zolo1917]

"The search for the voice in language, this is what is called thought" "if the puppet called historical materialism is to win, it should enlist the services of the voice."

[med-nama]

[edgarjuaresa]

El otro no es solamente un interlocutor al que le queremos transmitir algo, sino un contendiente y un rival

Dolar, M. (2017). Uno se divide en dos. México: Paradiso, p. 212.

[onvoice]

There is no voice without a body, but yet again this relation is full of pitfalls: it seems that the voice pertains to the wrong body, or doesn’t fit the body at all, or disjoints the body from which it emanates.

Mladen Dolar, quoted by Nik Rawlings, Castles in the Sky: Clouds, Voices & the Aural Dispersal of the Body Post Internet, p.7

[onetwofeb]

Mladen Dolar

Hegel and Freud have nothing in common, it would seem; there is everything to oppose them. On the one hand: the speculative philosopher of absolute spirit whose system encompassed every sphere of being – logic, nature, and spirit – and who is reputed to be the most obscure and difficult in the entire grand philosophical tradition; on the other hand: a man of medical formation, a therapist who in all his work took clinical practice as his guideline and only gradually extended some psychological insights into larger circles of culture, civilization, and history. On the one hand: not only a philosopher, but a philosopher par excellence, the paradigmatic example of a philosopher who managed to encapsulate in his system all the themes and achievements of the metaphysical tradition; on the other hand: a man of natural science who adamantly opposed philosophy as such and even saw attempts to turn psychoanalysis into a new philosophical current as one of his discipline’s greatest dangers. On the one hand: not only a German, but seemingly a German par excellence, a model of German spirit, or even the Prussian state philosopher, as the adage goes; on the other hand: a Jew who already in his young days experienced the pressure of anti-Semitism and eventually, despite his fame, lived his final days in exile, his books burned by a regime that was, ironically, evoking Hegel. And finally, on the one hand the philosopher who relied more than anyone else in the history of philosophy on the powers of reason, concepts, and knowledge; on the other hand someone who more than anyone else took his cue from something that inherently escapes those powers or presents their fissure – this fissure forms the very object of psychoanalysis, of entities such as the unconscious and the drives.

In this last point there is something that strangely connects Hegel and Freud. They both stand in excess, such that when one invokes their names the temperature rises, it seems that there is no way one could speak about one or the other from the point of view of neutral, objective, and impartial knowledge, to allot them a just place in the gallery of great minds, as if both, although for opposing reasons, represented something that established knowledge—what Lacan economically called the university discourse—cannot quite swallow. Both tend to produce either zealous followers or equally zealous enemies; they still retain the capacity to provoke passions, although the nature of their excesses is opposite. Hegel, the vintage university professor if there ever was one, with an excess of knowledge best epitomized by his claim to absolute knowledge—the moment a form of knowledge stakes a claim to the absolute is a neuralgic point that no university discourse can digest if it is to retain its demeanor of neutrality and objectivity. Freud, with the opposite claim to an errant truth with no guarantee and no usual verification, which denies him academic credentials. In brief, absolute knowledge and the unconscious, two boundaries of knowledge, the upper and the lower—on the one hand, the knowledge that strives to overstep its limits by its claim to the absolute; on the other hand, a hole in knowledge, a slippage of knowledge where desires, drives, symptoms, and fantasies start seeping in. If absolute knowledge and the unconscious still function as unplaceable excesses, what could be their link? [...]