Re: [-empyre-] breaking out of prison...

[Kate Southworth <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>]

Hi Ryan, Hi Danny,

I found both of your posts very relevant to the ongoing development of my
own understanding of matrix theory.   Thank you.

My understanding is that the matrixial doesn't replace the phallic, it is a
supplementary symbolic space.  Equally then, the phallic is not the only
symbolic space. It is not the only framework within which to value and
validate our realities.  Whereas the separation, cut, cleavage of infant
from mother necessary for  subjectivity is in itself traumatic, the
co-emergence of partial subjectivity in the uterine space that Bracha
proposes is not in itself traumatic.  The trauma here, develops through a
repression of the matrixial encounter.

If we value, measure, validate our experiences 'only' through a phallic
prism, then we are repressing those experiences that can be  articulated
most effectively (only?) with reference to the matrixial.  

When a matrixial space or matrixial encounter is cut through, the cut brings
with it a violence.

However,  we cannot live forever in the matrixial.  We need the phallic.  As
Bracha says, you can't do the shopping within a matrixial space.

So, I am suggesting that we get to know these spaces in relation to each
other, and try and understand the processes through which they relate to
each other. Then by bringing the matrixial into the symbolic, valuing this
'way of knowing' then perhaps within the phallic there is potential as yet
unrealised. 

Katexx

4/23/05 2:53Danny Buttdb@dannybutt.net

> Good questions Ryan!
> 
> I guess the way I think about it is to not pre-judge the relationship
> between other spaces and informationalised imperialism. That is to say, if
> Raul is asserting alterity from informational capital (I'm not sure if you
> are Raul, but stay with me here), rather than responding "there is no
> outside to informational capital" and therefore he must redefine himself
> according to this; to accept instead that assertion as being as valid as our
> own and seeing where the dialogue goes. Of course, no conversation is
> outside our own cognitive/political construction. But I think to try and
> leave that aside for a period *in* "the encounter" leaves us *afterward*
> with a more reflexive understanding of the "phallic logic" of transnational
> capital (and our implication within it). This is of great benefit both to
> our own resistant labour and the process of forging alliances toward
> political goals. 
> 
> (I don't think this is matrixial space but I think there are some potential
> overlaps in this description?)
> 
> I don't think this is advocating for inattention to e.g. colonial
> bio-politics. It's just a difference between intersubjective and
> representational politics (?). I'm still new to this so I'm not really sure
> I'm saying what I mean.
> 
> x.d
> 
> --
> http://www.dannybutt.net
> 
> 
> On 4/22/05 3:58 PM, "ryan griffis" <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> How does one resist, confront, critique this activity if not from a
>> position that holds it accountable to the ideals that it is supposed to
>> embody, yet actually defeats (hence makes a contradiction).
>> Are there examples of confrontational politics that aren't using
>> phallic logic?
>> Or would these concerns not exist within a matrixial space? i'm aware
>> that i'm expressing a binary relationship between the phallic and
>> matrixial, which maybe isn't the case.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre