Much as I

Much as I appreciate... A link will appear.

Discourses - and I wonder about Lacan's formula somewhat more assuredly than I would allow of my own hysteric trajectories - are not The Social Bonds. Each is work, the old double act in equivocation of Marx and Freud on energy, economy. Yeah, yeah. No. I don't know what to say, except something about the social as an ever moving demarcation line.
Life and Death. Analysts talk so certainly that there is universal horizon, or audio range, perhaps a response to a scent - here's thing, they talk in all exclusion of the chemical - of Death, whilst telling us how unique their analysand is. We shan't say anything of a universal receptivity that is Life...

If the Death Drive is a handling of, or footwork, of a particular relation to a common representation. Particular of a personal, even interchangeable, superego. Jouissance is a conformity to a translatable luxury.
The Sinthome is destruction of representation, it's a materialisation. More than a covering by the lamelle (I've forgotten this word) it destroys by exceeding all else? Yet it does this as what the representation excludes?

In Zizek's case, Boris Johnson (a)logic.

I'm still meditating (not literally) on this. The question is what does it mean this body recognition that it is said to be a matter of Life or Death?
Why is it feared as reification of gender binary? Why do the politicised believe that people change society, civilisation apparently, by living in a role that is not different?
Tell me that isn't the Sinthome of theirs, that they are invested in countering change, the big threat to them, their jouissance, by pushing others to distress about, in fact, not changing except in recognition of what always was. The politicised are insisting a lot was only successfully resisted by their making the unchanging, defying all that signifier stuff. Again, no chemistry....

What we have, all told, is that private life (or negative liberty) isn't something affordable by/to most. It is where the fatal dialogue that remains of Boethius cast a shadow enough for a spotlight on the politicians' dialectical torments.
"Private life is a punishment, that's why we resign for personal reasons or family unity"

The Boethius episode is a representation at full force. You won't have to read it because I am. Spoiler: was he executed? And if he was, what was the deal with his sons?
Terrorists are people who didn't get enough art. They need alienation, public, like artists find about their world work.

I don't get what we gain by being deprivated and having to use that to work at the world where we don't have to try rescue everyone alone. To claim ego is about self stuff is a nonsense except un saying you'd need get paid for it if that's what's wanted by so-called social bonds. It's evidently a currency. So back to comparison of Marxian objectivity and Klossowski's voluptous emotion, I guess.

https://youtu.be/y4r2VSDdHvk