The case - Sebastian Sobecki [.pdf]

Shoaf - Anniina Jokinen [, ] - Fred Griffiths - David V.

Johnson [.pdf] - David Manselle - Kaye Anfield - W.

The Collective Imagination explores the social foundations of the human imagination. In a lucid and wide-ranging discussion, Peter Murphy looks at the collective expression of the imagination in our economies, universities, cities, and political systems, providing a tour-de-force account of the power of the imagination to unite opposites and find similarities among things that we ordinarily think of as different. It is not only individuals who possess the power to imagine; societies do as well. A compelling journey through various peak moments of creation, this book examines the cities and nations, institutions and individuals who ply the paraphernalia of paradoxes and dialogues, wry dramaturgy and witty expression that set the act of creation in motion. Whilst exploring the manner in which, through the media of pattern, figure, and shape, and the miracles of metaphor, things come into being, Murphy recognises that creative periods never last: creative forms invariably tire; inventive centres inevitably fade. The Collective Imagination explores the contemporary dilemmas and historic pathos caused by this-as cities and societies, periods and generations slip behind in the race for economic and social discovery. Left bewildered and bothered, and struggling to catch up, they substitute empty bombast, faded glory, chronic dullness or stolid glumness for initiative, irony, and inventiveness. A comprehensive audit of the creativity claims of the post-modern age - that finds them badly wanting and looks to the future - The Collective Imagination will appeal to sociologists and philosophers concerned with cultural theory, cultural and media studies and aesthetics.

Browsers and spiders that can't read iframe code will see this text instead .

and the Good Parliament of 1376 - Gwilym Dodd [.pdf]

Since sexuality is the domain in which we get most close to the intimacy of another human being, totally exposing ourselves to him or her, sexual enjoyment is real for Lacan: something traumatic in its breath-taking intensity, something impossible in the sense that we cannot ever make sense of it. This is why a sexual relation, in order to function, has to be screened through some fantasy. Recall the love encounter between Sarah Miles and her illicit lover, the English officer, in David Lean’s : the depiction of the sexual act in the midst of the forest, with waterfall sounds supposed to render their subdued passion, cannot but strike us today as a ridiculous bric-a-brac of cliches. However, the role of the pathetic sound accompaniment is profoundly ambiguous: by way of emphasizing the ecstasy of the sexual act, these sounds in a way derealize the act and deliver us of the oppressive weight of its massive presence. A small mental experiment is sufficient to make this point clear: let us imagine that, in the middle of such a pathetic rendering of the sexual act, the music would all of a sudden be cut out, and all that remained would be quick, snappy gestures, their painful silence interrupted by occasional rattle and groan, compelling us to confront the inert presence of the sexual act. In short, the paradox of the scene from is that the waterfall sound itself functions as the fantasmatic screen obfuscating the Real of the sexual act.

Mattison [.rtf] - Travis Krick - Richard Bramante - Mark Lawrence - Emily C.

With his illuminating Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II challenged the modern world not to stop at the surface, but to enter the depth of the “great mystery” that the body and sex reveal: a mystery that lies at the heart of the Gospel itself.

Shaw - Lili Arkin - Michael Love - Lorelei Feldman - William Ames - Patrick Thrasher - Damian T.


Gorman [.pdf] - Adam Levin - Megan Basham

If you’ve been keeping up with us on any of our social media pages (Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter), you certainly have seen our photo posts with Humanae Vitae quotes. We started that last July, and if you’ve read every single one of them, we’ve got news for you:You’ve read the entire . . .

Last updated on February 7, 2011.

In contemporary art, we encounter often brutal attempts to âreturn to the real’, to remind the spectator (or reader) that he is perceiving a fiction, to awaken him from the sweet dream. This gesture has two main forms which, although opposed, amount to the same. In literature or cinema, there are (especially in postmodern texts) self-reflexive reminders that what we are watching is a mere fiction, like the actors on screen addressing directly us as spectators, thus ruining the illusion of the autonomous space of the narrative fiction, or the writer directly intervening into the narrative through ironic comments; in theatre, there are occasional brutal events which awaken us to the reality of the stage (like slaughtering a chicken on stage). Instead of conferring on these gestures a kind of Brechtian dignity, perceiving them as versions of extraneation, one should rather denounce them for what they are: the exact opposite of what they claim to be – escapes from the Real, desperate attempts to avoid the real of the illusion itself, the Real that emerges in the guise of an illusory spectacle.

Lacan, J., , London: Routledge 1981, p. 48.

So it was not the intrusion of the signal from external reality that awakened the unfortunate father, but the unbearably traumatic character of what he encountered in the dream – insofar as âdreaming’ means fantasizing in order to avoid confrointing the Real, the father literally awakened so that he could go on dreaming. The scenario was the following one: when his sleep was disturbed by the smoke, the father quickly constructed a dream which incorporated the disturbing element (smoke-fire) in order to prolong his sleep; however, what he confronted in the dream was a trauma (of his responsibility for the son’s death) much stronger than reality, so he awakened into reality in order to avoid the Real.

Lacan, J., , New York: W.W. Norton, 1981.

It is precisely this paradoxical status of fantasy which brings us to the ultimate point of the irreconcilable difference between psychoanalysis and feminism, that of rape (and the masochistic fantasies sustaining it). For standard feminism, at least, it is an a priori axiom that rape is a violence imposed from without: even if a woman fantasizes about being raped or brutally mistreated, this is either a male fantasy about women or a woman does it insofar as she “internalized” the patriarchal libidinal economy and endorsed her victimization – the underlying idea being that the moment we recognize this fact of daydreaming about rape, we open the door to the male-chauvinist platitudes about how, in being raped, women only get what they secretly wanted, and about how their shock and fear only express the fact that they were not honest enough to acknowledge this. So the moment one mentions that a woman may fantasize about being raped, one hears cries: ‘This is like saying that Jews fantasize about being gassed in the camps or African-Americans fantasize about being lynched!’ From this perspective, the split hysterical position of the woman (complaining about being sexually misused and exploited while simultaneously desiring it and provoking man to seduce her) is secondary, while, for Freud, this split is primary, constitutive of subjectivity.