LESS THAN NOTHING. HEGEL AND THE SHADOWS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

INTRODUCTION: EPPUR SI MUOVE

I THE DRINK BEFORE

1 Vacillating the Semblances
“What we cannot speak about we must show” – Idea‘s Appearing – From Fictions to Semblances – Dialectical gymnastics? No, thanks! – From the One to den – “Nothing Exists” – Gorgias, not Plato, was the arch-Stalinist!

2 »Where There Is Nothing, Read That I Love You«

A Christian Tragedy? – The Big Other – The Death of God – The Atheist Wager – “Do not compromise your desire” – Lacan Against Buddhism

3 Fichte’s Choice
From Fichte’s Ich To Hegel’s Subject – The Fichtean Wager – Finite Absolute – The Posited Presupposition – The Fichtean Bone In the Throat – The First Modern Theology

II THE THING ITSELF: HEGEL

4 Is it still possible to be a Hegelian today?
Hegel versus Nietzsche – Struggle and Reconciliation – A Story to Tell – Changing the Destiny – The Owl of Minerva – Potentiality versus Virtuality- The Hegelian Circle of Circles
Interlude 1: Marx as a Reader of Hegel, Hegel as a Reader of Marx

5 Parataxis: Figures of dialectical process
In Praise of Understanding – Phenomena, Noumena, and the Limit – The Differend – Negation of Negation – Form and Content – Negation Without a Filling
Interlude 2: Cogito in the History of Madness

6 “Not only as Substance, but also as Subject”
Concrete Universality – Hegel, Spinoza… and Hitchcock – The Hegelian Subject – Absolute Knowing – The Idea’s Constipation? – The Animal That I Am
Interlude 3: King, Rabble, War… and Sex

7 The Limits of Hegel
A List – Necessity as Self-Sublated Contingency – Varieties of Self-Relating Negation – The Formal Aspect – Aufhebung and Repetition – From Repetition to Drive

III THE THING ITSELF: LACAN

8 Lacan as a Reader of Hegel
The Cunning of Reason – The Lacanian Prosopopoeia – Lacan, Marx, Heidegger – The “Magical Force” of Reversal – Reflexion and Supposition – Beyond Intersubjectivity – Drive Against Will – The Unconscious of Self-Consciousness
Interlude 4: Borrowing From the Future, Changing the Past

9 Suture and Object
From Differentiality to the Phallic Signifier – From the Phallic Signifier to objet a – Sibelius’s Silence – The Pure Difference
Interlude 5: Correlationism And its Discontents

10 Objects, Objects Everywhere
Subtraction, Protraction, Obstruction… Destruction – Objet a between Form and Content – Voice and Gaze – The Grandmother’s Voice – Master and its Specter – The Two Sides of Fantasy – Image and Gaze – Presence – “The picture is in my eye, but me, I am in the picture” – Leave the Screen Empty!
Interlude 6: Cognitivism and the Loop of Self-Positing

11 The non-All, or, the Ontology of Sexual Difference
Sexual Difference in the Disenchanted Universe – The Real of Sexual Difference – Formulas of Sexuation: the All with an Exception – Formulas of Sexuation: the non-All – The Antinomies of Sexual Difference – Why Lacan Is Not a Nominalist – Negation of Negation: Lacan versus Hegel? – »There IS a non-Relationship«

IV THE CIGARETTE AFTER

12 The Foursome of Terror, Anxiety, Courage… and Enthusiasm
Being/World/Event – Truth, Inconsistency, and the Symptomal Point – There is no Human Animal – From Terror to Enthusiasm – Badiou and Anti-Philosophy

13 The Foursome of Struggle, Historicity, Will… and Gelassenheit
Why Lacan Is Not a Heideggerian – Hegel versus Heidegger – The Torture-House of Language – An Alternate Heidegger – From Will To Drive – The Non-Historical Core of Historicity – From Gelassenheit to Class Struggle

14 The Ontology of Quantum Physics
The Ontological Problem – Knowledge In the Real – Agential Realism – The Two Vacuums – Y’a de den

CONCLUSION: THE POLITICAL SUSPENSION OF THE ETHICAL

Perhaps this unease have to do with the collective memory of the Church where Jesus was crucified by the Romans and the persecution of the early Church. Perhaps it have to do with the fact that Jesus himself holds an ambiguous relationship with the earthly powers of his day.

As a result, there is a variety of positions within the Church with regards the relationship between the Church and state. This in turn is complicated by the historical circumstance which the Church finds itself in. For example, all Western states takes for granted that it will not interfere in the business of the Church. Nonetheless, this position is not taken by all post-colonial states as in the case of China.

Since the Communist takeover of China in 1949, the Communist state have always taken the position religion falls under its jurisdiction. With regards to churches, they are regulated by the state through the Three-Self Patriotic Church. Churches that falls outside the ambit of the state is not tolerated and are constantly harassed and its followers arrested. Yet these churches (Protestants and Catholics) are flourishing despite the constant surveillance and repression by the state.

Why is this so? This is the question which Liao Yiwu, a dissident activist who is not a Christian himself, attempts to answer in his book “God is Red.” The book contains narratives of ordinary Christians from the official and dissident churches on why they hold on to the faith.

Almost all the stories being told here touch on the tumultuous period of the early years of the Communist Party imposing its rule over the land which saw the door being showed to foreign missionaries in the nation as well as the persuasion and coercion of Chinese Christians to either abandon their faith or accept the Party’s primacy over their heavenly master.

Through the narratives in the book, we find different responses to the demands of the Party. Inevitably, some abandoned their faith but others struggled to preserve it either by agreeing to accept the Party’s right to direct the church or struggling to keep the state out of the church. Perhaps, the most moving part of all the narrators here is their personal struggle to stay true to what it means to be a Christian in the historical context which they find themselves in.

Although all the narrators here claimed they have no interest in politics, yet a political subtext runs deeps in each narrative. In their own way, each narrator struggles with the question of how do we reconcile the demands of Caesar with that of Christ? Should one draw a line in the sand and says with Luther “Hier stehe ich” (Here I stand) or should one obey authority as Christ commanded: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is to God’s” (Mark 12:17).

Almost all the narrators here lived through the Mao era and its tumultuous history. Each story is heartbreaking and yet surprisingly give hope that faith can survive the harshest of environment.

It would be interesting to see the kind of political theology that comes out of China in the near future. How will Christians respond to the demands of the state while remaining true to Christ?

More importantly, I believe the significance of this book for Christians who live in Asia, we need to look not to our traditional Northern brethren but Latin American, African and Asian brethren for answer. Perhaps a good place to start is South Korea where the authoritarian conditions there sparked the creation of Minjung theology which was inspired by the Liberation Theology of South America or even South Africa as the church responded to apartheid.

Article 119 of the Federal Constitution gives a right to vote in election to every Malaysian citizen who is 21 years old or above. The Article defines a voter as either being (i) a resident of a constituency or (ii) an absent voter. A resident of a constituency simply means someone who lives in a constituency in which he/she has registered with the Election Commission (EC) to vote in.  Whereas the latter mean an individual have registered as an absent voter with the EC to vote in a certain constituency, i.e. given the right to vote via post as he/she will not physically vote in the constituency concerned on polling day.

However the Federal Constitution did not define who is an absent voter. This absence of definition was extended to the Elections Act 1958 but it did empower the EC to regulate all matters regarding voter registration and related matters. This includes prescribing facilities to be provided for voting by post and the persons entitled to vote by post. In short, the EC decides who can be given the right to vote by post as absent voters.

According to the EC, an absent voter is someone who is (i) a member of any regular armed force of Malaysia or a Commonwealth or foreign country, (ii) a Malaysian public servant stationed overseas, (iii) a full-time student in higher education, (iv) (subject to certain conditions) a spouse of any of the above. This definition excludes a vast majority of overseas Malaysians from the right to vote by post.

Recently, a group of overseas Malaysian challenged the EC’s definition who can be given the right of postal vote in court but sadly the court upheld the EC’s definition. I find this surprising because Malaysian Missions abroad are obligated to help overseas Malaysians by issuing official documents such as registering marriages, emergency certificate for those who lost their passports, etc. simply because they are citizens of Malaysia.

Why then is it so difficult for the EC to simply classify all overseas Malaysians as absent voters? More so in the light that a postal voting system is already in place. All that is required now is to extend the postal voting franchise to those who are currently excluded.

Is it not the duty of the EC to facilitate the right to vote for every Malaysian citizen as provided by the Federal Constitution? By imposing certain conditions on who is eligible as postal voters, have the EC not erred in interpreting the institution’s raison d’etre?

The EC’s interpretation of absent voters is outdated. It was developed at a time when Malaysians residing abroad was rare with the exception of the categories it developed. However the current reality of globalization have witnessed many Malaysians who are residing overseas. Nonetheless, they still remain citizens of the country.

Therefore they must be given the same consideration as those overseas Malaysians that fall under its category of absent voters. The EC should reinterpreted who is an absent voter that takes into account of the reality of globalization and its task of facilitating the right to vote to all eligible Malaysians as provided by the Federal Constitution. The time have come for the EC to fulfill the task of helping every Malaysians to exercise their right as voters rather than excluding some because of an archaic interpretation.

We can observe this projection in today’s news where DSAI’s acquittal in Sodomy II have have set the social media ablaze. Interestingly, the majority of the content framed DSAI as the indispensable leader of PR. As my friend Alwyn Lau would say, we “enjoyed” Anwar as “The One” who will bring us to the promised land of democracy.

I would argue that our “enjoyment” of DSAI is not a new phenomenon brought about by political awakening in the nation. Indeed, this enjoyment of political personality have always been with us where “The One” – be it Mahathir, Najib, Lim Kit Siang, Nik Aziz, etc – figures prominently in our political discourse.

In our collective enjoyment for “The One,” have we abdicated from our personal responsibility to ensure that democracy will thrive in our land? Focusing on soundbites and photo op, have we have let our political system go on auto-pilot believing that “The One” will set things right?

What if beyond the soundbites or photo op there is no one there? What do we do then? I believe that what we need right now is to create a critical distance vis`-a-vis´ “The One.” We must move beyond soundbites to a collective rational discussion in the public sphere that can guide our collective action towards bringing about a just and democratic society.What I’m suggesting here is that “The One” does not exist rather there is only all of us.

I’ll just end the piece by wishing everyone a Happy New Year.

However, on closer scrutiny, the bill does not fulfill the government’s pledge of allowing ordinary Malaysians to voice their dissent publicly through peaceful assembly. Among the provisions in the bill which are cause for concern are:

1. 30 days’ advance notice for assemblies except for those done in designated areas as defined by the home minister;
2. after notification, the assemblies can proceed unless there are objections by the police;
3. no street protests are allowed;
4. a police officer is allowed  ‘to take such measures he/she deems necessary’ to ensure compliance;
5. the police  are allowed to fine rganizers up to RM10,000 if no advance notice of a planned assembly is given to the police;
6. the police are allowed to fine those arrested up to RM20,000;

In short, if ordinary Malaysians want to organize a peaceful assembly, they must still get permission from the authorities with the caveat that the latter can refuse such a request. And if the former still persist on assembling peacefully in a public space, the police have the right to take whatever steps deemed necessary to stop such an “illegal” public assembly.

The irony here is that the proposed law which aimed at allowing peaceful assembly – a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution – ends up restricting further whatever public space that is left for public dissent and assembly. This does not bode well for promoting democracy in our nation.

Malaysians need to look carefully at the provisions in this bill and ask ourselves do we really need such a law that seeks to regulate the very right enshrined in the Constitution. More importantly, we must demand the government to retract this bill in its current form and revising it based on the feedback from the public.

Paper presentation at SAMA

Paper for INTI’s TESL 2003