<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org</link>
	<description>From Walter Benjamin, and Beyond</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:04:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Journal by Márcio Jarek</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/journal/comment-page-1#comment-4562</link>
		<dc:creator>Márcio Jarek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:04:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org#comment-4562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bon Jour!

Je fais des recherches de doctorat sur la question &quot;vie&quot; dans l´oeuvre de Walter Benjamin et que vous souhaitez en apprendre davantage sur les activités du groupe &quot;Anthopologie Materialism&quot; et aussi sur les possibilités de stage de recherche à l´Université de Paris ( en particulier à propos de l´orientation de la recherche et les contacts).

Cordialement,

Márcio Jarek]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bon Jour!</p>
<p>Je fais des recherches de doctorat sur la question &#8220;vie&#8221; dans l´oeuvre de Walter Benjamin et que vous souhaitez en apprendre davantage sur les activités du groupe &#8220;Anthopologie Materialism&#8221; et aussi sur les possibilités de stage de recherche à l´Université de Paris ( en particulier à propos de l´orientation de la recherche et les contacts).</p>
<p>Cordialement,</p>
<p>Márcio Jarek</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Walter Benjamin et le cinéma by Walter Benjamin e o cinema &#124; Indústrias Culturais</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/1358/comment-page-1#comment-2033</link>
		<dc:creator>Walter Benjamin e o cinema &#124; Indústrias Culturais</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:32:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=1358#comment-2033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] blogue Anthropological Materialism, Marc Berdet colocou hoje o essencial de uma intervenção que ele fez ontem no Musée d’Art et [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] blogue Anthropological Materialism, Marc Berdet colocou hoje o essencial de uma intervenção que ele fez ontem no Musée d’Art et [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 01.05.2011, Call for papers by Tweets that mention Call for papers &#124; ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/887/comment-page-1#comment-355</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Call for papers &#124; ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=887#comment-355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by karengregory, SSA. SSA said: #CfP for the inaugural issue of Anthropology + Materialism: http://bit.ly/hGyxqz [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by karengregory, SSA. SSA said: #CfP for the inaugural issue of Anthropology + Materialism: <a href="http://bit.ly/hGyxqz" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/hGyxqz</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Time of Capital and the Messianicity of Time:  Marx with Benjamin by Tweets that mention Karl Marx, Walter Benjamin and the Spectre of the Messianic. Is there a Materialist Theory of Time? &#124; ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/844/comment-page-1#comment-274</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Karl Marx, Walter Benjamin and the Spectre of the Messianic. Is there a Materialist Theory of Time? &#124; ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=844#comment-274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pierre Bourdieu, Alessandra Belo and kunisi, Hypothèses billets. Hypothèses billets said: Karl Marx, Walter Benjamin and the Spectre of the Messianic. Is there a Materialist Theory of Time? http://bit.ly/azgEtV [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pierre Bourdieu, Alessandra Belo and kunisi, Hypothèses billets. Hypothèses billets said: Karl Marx, Walter Benjamin and the Spectre of the Messianic. Is there a Materialist Theory of Time? <a href="http://bit.ly/azgEtV" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/azgEtV</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Seven Short Temporary Statements on Anthropological Materialism by Sami Khatib</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/822/comment-page-1#comment-273</link>
		<dc:creator>Sami Khatib</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:59:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=822#comment-273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Marc, thank you, that pushes things forward! Some minor comments:

Ad 3. Maybe the Surrealism essay could also help here:
„Es bringt uns nämlich nicht weiter, die rätselhafte Seite am Rätselhaften pathetisch oder fanatisch zu unterstreichen; vielmehr durchdringen wir das Geheimnis nur in dem Grade, als wir es im Alltäglichen wiederfinden, kraft einer dialektischen Optik, die das Alltägliche als undurchdringlich, das Undurchdringliche als alltäglich erkennt. Die passionierteste Untersuchung telepathischer Phänomene zum Beispiel wird einem über das Lesen (das ein eminent telepathischer Vorgang ist) nicht halb soviel lehren, wie die profane Erleuchtung des Lesens über die telepathischen Phänomene.“ (GS II, 307)
So again, what it poetic sensibility, a term a find highly interesting and fruitful! Is it an awareness for the marginal, the forgotten (the rag-picker&#039;s task to account for that) and/or a Hölderlinian &quot;Heilig-Nüchterne&quot;, the sober-absolute or sober-holy which cannot be translated into mechanistic language of functional relations in politics etc.

Ad 4. Fully agree here! You could even say, that it smuggles in a kind of loop of time within the homogenous and empty time of capitalism (the latter is at the same time cyclical and linear progress oriented); this inner time loop within time could be called &#039;operational time&#039; borrowing this term from Agamben/Guillaume introducing a time which does not need a vertical standpoint but can derange/de-pose capital time from within (call it a temporal virus which allows at the same time for a political time of action: temporal désoeuvrement as well as destructive political action)

Ad 5. Yes! A corrective of historical materialism without which Benjamin&#039;s inversion of traditional marxism cannot be understood

Ad 6. Or rather say: an element, irreducible to DiaMat/HistMat

Ad 7. Yes, but as dialectical thinker we might also say: a potentiality; even an actuality of the non-potentiality of history&#039;s undead/of what did not happen/of what is ideologically embedded in ideology etc.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Marc, thank you, that pushes things forward! Some minor comments:</p>
<p>Ad 3. Maybe the Surrealism essay could also help here:<br />
„Es bringt uns nämlich nicht weiter, die rätselhafte Seite am Rätselhaften pathetisch oder fanatisch zu unterstreichen; vielmehr durchdringen wir das Geheimnis nur in dem Grade, als wir es im Alltäglichen wiederfinden, kraft einer dialektischen Optik, die das Alltägliche als undurchdringlich, das Undurchdringliche als alltäglich erkennt. Die passionierteste Untersuchung telepathischer Phänomene zum Beispiel wird einem über das Lesen (das ein eminent telepathischer Vorgang ist) nicht halb soviel lehren, wie die profane Erleuchtung des Lesens über die telepathischen Phänomene.“ (GS II, 307)<br />
So again, what it poetic sensibility, a term a find highly interesting and fruitful! Is it an awareness for the marginal, the forgotten (the rag-picker&#8217;s task to account for that) and/or a Hölderlinian &#8220;Heilig-Nüchterne&#8221;, the sober-absolute or sober-holy which cannot be translated into mechanistic language of functional relations in politics etc.</p>
<p>Ad 4. Fully agree here! You could even say, that it smuggles in a kind of loop of time within the homogenous and empty time of capitalism (the latter is at the same time cyclical and linear progress oriented); this inner time loop within time could be called &#8216;operational time&#8217; borrowing this term from Agamben/Guillaume introducing a time which does not need a vertical standpoint but can derange/de-pose capital time from within (call it a temporal virus which allows at the same time for a political time of action: temporal désoeuvrement as well as destructive political action)</p>
<p>Ad 5. Yes! A corrective of historical materialism without which Benjamin&#8217;s inversion of traditional marxism cannot be understood</p>
<p>Ad 6. Or rather say: an element, irreducible to DiaMat/HistMat</p>
<p>Ad 7. Yes, but as dialectical thinker we might also say: a potentiality; even an actuality of the non-potentiality of history&#8217;s undead/of what did not happen/of what is ideologically embedded in ideology etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Seven Short Temporary Statements on Anthropological Materialism by Tweets that mention 7 Short Temporary Statements on Anthropological Materialism &#124; ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/822/comment-page-1#comment-271</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention 7 Short Temporary Statements on Anthropological Materialism &#124; ANTHROPOLOGICAL MATERIALISM -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=822#comment-271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pierre Mounier and Hypothèses billets, BSPO - UCLouvain. BSPO - UCLouvain said: [ANTHR] 7 Short Temporary Statements on Anthropological Materialism http://bit.ly/9AmktO (RT @piotrr70) [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pierre Mounier and Hypothèses billets, BSPO &#8211; UCLouvain. BSPO &#8211; UCLouvain said: [ANTHR] 7 Short Temporary Statements on Anthropological Materialism <a href="http://bit.ly/9AmktO" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9AmktO</a> (RT @piotrr70) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ten Comments of eight Thesis on Phantasmagoria by maxim</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/715/comment-page-1#comment-264</link>
		<dc:creator>maxim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=715#comment-264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the 8 theses are quite interesting, I really do not see the point of the 10 comments. Of course myths hide their regulation of conflicts, and of course their re-enactment serves this process of regulation too for those reenacting, as well as for those profitting from this reenactment as regulating and balancing act.

But do we need so much MA-student jargon of the &#039;90s to say that?

The use of &quot;phantasmagoria&quot; today against Angloamerican crisis-ridden middle and lower classes as a weapon of domination is kind of out. Its celebration as thanatos and image-consumerism becomes less and less relevant.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While the 8 theses are quite interesting, I really do not see the point of the 10 comments. Of course myths hide their regulation of conflicts, and of course their re-enactment serves this process of regulation too for those reenacting, as well as for those profitting from this reenactment as regulating and balancing act.</p>
<p>But do we need so much MA-student jargon of the &#8217;90s to say that?</p>
<p>The use of &#8220;phantasmagoria&#8221; today against Angloamerican crisis-ridden middle and lower classes as a weapon of domination is kind of out. Its celebration as thanatos and image-consumerism becomes less and less relevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ten Comments of eight Thesis on Phantasmagoria by Malu Afary</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/715/comment-page-1#comment-213</link>
		<dc:creator>Malu Afary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=715#comment-213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi, I found this post really interesting.
Especially concerning the notion of the perpetual and formalistic structure of structuring the ontology of the self. Self it self is modernity’s myth. Myth and modernity may seam at a first glance as contradictory, on the basis that the first  refers to the eternal and the solid in some sort thus the second to the new born and the fluid of the same sort. Modernity’s discourse engaging time and space to a perpetuus and formed/formative a priori engages at the same time qualities to objects. An object can stand as an entity only through the subjects unity. This unity is at the same time the only presupposition of the objects revelation as it is the inner limit that constantly has to be shaped from its outside transcendental “proofs”. Even if this outside exists only as an inner method or exactly because it is that inner method.  The synthesis of the object always subjected to the subjects judge-mental abilities draws out an energetic unification that takes place constantly, perpetually and is possible only because of the perpetuus self consciousness of the unity of the subject. The unification energetically produced constantly, produces the very terms on which the multiple of the experience unifies itself under this terms and at the same time reflects those terms of unity on the multiple. The end of the myth of modernity is not the harmonious accordance implicit on a moment or on the moment of eternity, it is indeed the eternal manifestation of the energetic unification of the multiple seen or being able to be seen as already one under the a priori subjective synthesis of the object.  
This construction of the unity of the subject/object, constructed as necessary, if combined with an inner aim/goal of the historical perpetuus leads to a necessary assimilation of the conflict. This assimilation is based on the simultaneous and the perpetuus. The simultaneous goal of history is assimilated in every each level of the historical continuum as it assimilates perpetually the production of the conflict into the one that expresses simultaneously the perpetuus continuum of the unification.
Limits that discriminate are constantly assimilated or unified. Qualities and entities produced from that very discrimination are the multiple always already unified, manifesting its transcendental accordance to “the world” or to say to the order of things.
A limit that separates, firstly separates of the notion of the continuum and its simultaneous unification. Is this kind of limit something that can be thought of, shown at, spoken out? Would it be better to keep in silence about the things you can’t say? Is of any importance the construction of the space that this separation would, could shape? The very notion of the separation is used/produced as a way to see/speak potentialities?  
M. A]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I found this post really interesting.<br />
Especially concerning the notion of the perpetual and formalistic structure of structuring the ontology of the self. Self it self is modernity’s myth. Myth and modernity may seam at a first glance as contradictory, on the basis that the first  refers to the eternal and the solid in some sort thus the second to the new born and the fluid of the same sort. Modernity’s discourse engaging time and space to a perpetuus and formed/formative a priori engages at the same time qualities to objects. An object can stand as an entity only through the subjects unity. This unity is at the same time the only presupposition of the objects revelation as it is the inner limit that constantly has to be shaped from its outside transcendental “proofs”. Even if this outside exists only as an inner method or exactly because it is that inner method.  The synthesis of the object always subjected to the subjects judge-mental abilities draws out an energetic unification that takes place constantly, perpetually and is possible only because of the perpetuus self consciousness of the unity of the subject. The unification energetically produced constantly, produces the very terms on which the multiple of the experience unifies itself under this terms and at the same time reflects those terms of unity on the multiple. The end of the myth of modernity is not the harmonious accordance implicit on a moment or on the moment of eternity, it is indeed the eternal manifestation of the energetic unification of the multiple seen or being able to be seen as already one under the a priori subjective synthesis of the object.<br />
This construction of the unity of the subject/object, constructed as necessary, if combined with an inner aim/goal of the historical perpetuus leads to a necessary assimilation of the conflict. This assimilation is based on the simultaneous and the perpetuus. The simultaneous goal of history is assimilated in every each level of the historical continuum as it assimilates perpetually the production of the conflict into the one that expresses simultaneously the perpetuus continuum of the unification.<br />
Limits that discriminate are constantly assimilated or unified. Qualities and entities produced from that very discrimination are the multiple always already unified, manifesting its transcendental accordance to “the world” or to say to the order of things.<br />
A limit that separates, firstly separates of the notion of the continuum and its simultaneous unification. Is this kind of limit something that can be thought of, shown at, spoken out? Would it be better to keep in silence about the things you can’t say? Is of any importance the construction of the space that this separation would, could shape? The very notion of the separation is used/produced as a way to see/speak potentialities?<br />
M. A</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ten Comments of eight Thesis on Phantasmagoria by Christos Lynteris</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/715/comment-page-1#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Christos Lynteris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=715#comment-153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regarding the issue of myth, the idea derives from a long-standing criticism of
Levi-Straussian structuralism developed by a variety of scholars. More than a definition, it is a problematisation of myth which on the one hand explores the richness of what Dell Hymes called ethnopoetics (see his book: In Vain I Tried to Tell You), while adopting an Wittgenstenian praxeological theory of myth, as a texture of aesthetic/ethical principles constantly performed and negotiated in ritual not as an exceptional event, but as an integral element of everyday practice (for Amazonian examples of this approach see the works of Joanna Overing and Elvira Belaunde).

As for it being actually a mechanism of conservation or eternal-return, it
is a highly contested theory, but I am inclined to agree with Deleuze and
Guattari&#039;s interpretation found in the controversial &#039;Savages, Barbarians and Civilised&#039; chapter of the Anti-Oedipus. In this I might actually sound like an apologist for Structural-Functionalism of the Radcliffe-Brown variety,
suggesting that the aim of ritual re-enactment is to preserve some
equilibrium (which would actually presume that a myth-ritual cluster has an
aim). Instead, I suggest that the net effect of it (as an exaptation rather
than an adaptation in Gould&#039;s sense of the term) is a constant
reterritorialisation of desiring-production to the ground of the social
reproduction of the principle of kinship as a source of regulated
conflict.

So if phantasmagoria takes the form of myth, one must precisely focus on the
work of that form and not on what it&#039;s content might be. This is, as Zizek
argued in the Sublime Object of Ideology, the actual novelty of Freud and
Marx: that rather than seeking the secret content behind the form (libido, labour
power), they problematised the form as such (the dream, commodities). The
form of phantasmagoria is mythic for it functions in a way that renders affinity,
i.e. the actual relation with the Other in Lacanian terms unthinkable. There can be only kinship relations, relations of harmony, relations of social reproduction, relations of enjoyment, in other words relations of an ego type. No space for affinity or symbolic predation, chez Viveiros de Castro, or for a creative conviviality chez Overing here.

It is in this that phantasmagoria is in fact hysterical in proper psychoanalytic terms: it is engulfed and enclosed in a perpetual re-investment of ego relations, of the desire of the self in and of itself. I would go as far (in fear of being lynched by fellow anthropologists) to say that all mythic societies, all kinship focused societies are in fact societies structured around a deferred or realised hysterical ontology.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the issue of myth, the idea derives from a long-standing criticism of<br />
Levi-Straussian structuralism developed by a variety of scholars. More than a definition, it is a problematisation of myth which on the one hand explores the richness of what Dell Hymes called ethnopoetics (see his book: In Vain I Tried to Tell You), while adopting an Wittgenstenian praxeological theory of myth, as a texture of aesthetic/ethical principles constantly performed and negotiated in ritual not as an exceptional event, but as an integral element of everyday practice (for Amazonian examples of this approach see the works of Joanna Overing and Elvira Belaunde).</p>
<p>As for it being actually a mechanism of conservation or eternal-return, it<br />
is a highly contested theory, but I am inclined to agree with Deleuze and<br />
Guattari&#8217;s interpretation found in the controversial &#8216;Savages, Barbarians and Civilised&#8217; chapter of the Anti-Oedipus. In this I might actually sound like an apologist for Structural-Functionalism of the Radcliffe-Brown variety,<br />
suggesting that the aim of ritual re-enactment is to preserve some<br />
equilibrium (which would actually presume that a myth-ritual cluster has an<br />
aim). Instead, I suggest that the net effect of it (as an exaptation rather<br />
than an adaptation in Gould&#8217;s sense of the term) is a constant<br />
reterritorialisation of desiring-production to the ground of the social<br />
reproduction of the principle of kinship as a source of regulated<br />
conflict.</p>
<p>So if phantasmagoria takes the form of myth, one must precisely focus on the<br />
work of that form and not on what it&#8217;s content might be. This is, as Zizek<br />
argued in the Sublime Object of Ideology, the actual novelty of Freud and<br />
Marx: that rather than seeking the secret content behind the form (libido, labour<br />
power), they problematised the form as such (the dream, commodities). The<br />
form of phantasmagoria is mythic for it functions in a way that renders affinity,<br />
i.e. the actual relation with the Other in Lacanian terms unthinkable. There can be only kinship relations, relations of harmony, relations of social reproduction, relations of enjoyment, in other words relations of an ego type. No space for affinity or symbolic predation, chez Viveiros de Castro, or for a creative conviviality chez Overing here.</p>
<p>It is in this that phantasmagoria is in fact hysterical in proper psychoanalytic terms: it is engulfed and enclosed in a perpetual re-investment of ego relations, of the desire of the self in and of itself. I would go as far (in fear of being lynched by fellow anthropologists) to say that all mythic societies, all kinship focused societies are in fact societies structured around a deferred or realised hysterical ontology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ten Comments of eight Thesis on Phantasmagoria by Marc Berdet</title>
		<link>http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/715/comment-page-1#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Berdet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropologicalmaterialism.hypotheses.org/?p=715#comment-152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you a lot Christos for your great and very stimulating 10 comments of my 8 thesis ! 

Your 3d comment is very interesting, enlarging the analysis to the &quot;devenir&quot; of humanity. 

I really like the 4d : the hysteric condition is very well seen, and I absolute agree (I was thinking of something like that). 

The 5d is an excellent reformulation that brings us close to Adorno&#039;s (and Marcuse) analysis. And I think that with the &quot;dead drive&quot; and the &quot;dream of the dead&quot;, you are exactly in the middle of the phantasmagoria, which is an attempt to make talk the dead but, in the same time, to anesthesize their souvenir (I hope you will understand my bad formulation...). 

A last but important question : from where did you have your definition of the myth in the 10th comment ? It is quite intriguing...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you a lot Christos for your great and very stimulating 10 comments of my 8 thesis ! </p>
<p>Your 3d comment is very interesting, enlarging the analysis to the &#8220;devenir&#8221; of humanity. </p>
<p>I really like the 4d : the hysteric condition is very well seen, and I absolute agree (I was thinking of something like that). </p>
<p>The 5d is an excellent reformulation that brings us close to Adorno&#8217;s (and Marcuse) analysis. And I think that with the &#8220;dead drive&#8221; and the &#8220;dream of the dead&#8221;, you are exactly in the middle of the phantasmagoria, which is an attempt to make talk the dead but, in the same time, to anesthesize their souvenir (I hope you will understand my bad formulation&#8230;). </p>
<p>A last but important question : from where did you have your definition of the myth in the 10th comment ? It is quite intriguing&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
