Superegoic Enjoyment

[Music] Hello, Ann. Thank you for joining us on another episode of Why Theory. As always, I am your host, Ryan Angley joined. As always, by Co-host Todd McAllen Todd, how you doing, buddy? Ryan, I'm good. That's good to be here with you. It is, because you didn't have a snappy thing. I now have the Super-Ego comparative to try to come up with something. I know. I was trying to think of one, and I couldn't. No, but you did it. You affected it, which is, I think, much more effective than if you had a little bit of a snappy thing. So what are we talking about today? As you can see from the title, we're talking about Super-Ego enjoyment. Key text for this will be the third chapter, I believe, of Slavoy Giegek, the metastasis of enjoyment, which, if you haven't read recently, really holds up, I think, I think very relevant, particularly that chapter. Written in 1995, am I right about that? '95? '95, yeah, '95. I was reading that the first time I met him. No way. It's kind of interesting. Yeah. That is cool. I was just, I just happened to, yeah, I happen to be looking over my summary, I write a stupid summary about every book I read. And I was looking over it and it said, oh, I met Slavoy this time. I had breakfast together. I mean, you would remember this because this then was like a five-year gap until we got to know each other much better. But my dissertation director and good friend, Mac Walter Davis, arranged Paul Eisenstein for Paul Eisenstein and I to have breakfast with him. So it was kind of, it was very nice. Can I do a jerky boy's voice as you writing this for a second? Yes. Dear diary, today I met the philosopher. All right, that's it. I'm done. Okay, that was good. Thanks, man. That was really good. Yeah. Hello. Okay, that's all the jerky boys you're getting in this. No, that's really amazing. That's really great. It's a great text by him and it's a really big idea. I think people know this. This is one of these ideas of his that has proliferated a lot in popular culture. In the general discourse around theory, the underside, right? Like the, this, this, people often say this, like the underside of video. Right, the underside. Yes, the obscene underside of enjoyment, you know, that this kind of thing. So this gets out there. So we kind of want to try to do with this episode is to tease this idea out because it's, it's kind of an interesting trajectory. You know, we've said this before in the podcast and this is, it's not exactly our point. It's, it's not our argument. This is just simply an observation, but like Freud does not theorize the super ego in the way that G-JEC does and neither does LeCan to the extent that G-JEC does. So this is really like, it's an idea that is opened up by Freud has a very important articulation by LeCan. But as far as like, if anyone has a passing familiarity with the idea of like the obscene underside of enjoyment or like anything like this, you're, that's, that's LeVoix G-JEC. And he may write about this as though this is a tradition within psychoanalysis, but this is, this is really his opening. He sees it. Right. He's done this very, very much. Right, it's absolutely true. I mean, so LeCan, there's two points really where he talks a lot about the super ego. So the first one is in, it's a, it's an, I mean, he talks, it comes up obviously throughout his seminars. But the first one occurs in seminar one and he talks about the super ego as, and he does distinguish it from the law. And he says, it's the, it's, it's a, he calls it a ferocious figure. Right. So that's already, and he, and he says, super ego is the law in so far as it's not understood. Right. So that's a, so, so there's a kind of nonsensical quality to the super ego that, or the super ego is maybe better put the expression of the nonsensical dimension of the law. Right. So I think that's his early, that's why he calls it this ferocious figure. And I think Slavoy will later, sorry, and then I've got ahead of myself and then you're done. In seminar 20, first session, he says, there is nothing that commands us to enjoy except the super ego. And it's a kind of enigmatic statement. And then he just leaves it. So it doesn't, and then it's Slavoy, as you say, and especially in Matassie's of enjoyment chapter three called super ego by default, that really where you really get the development of this idea of super ego, and enjoyment. And I should say that it's my brother, Rick, that said, oh, you, you, I should talk about that. So he's the, he's the theoretical inspiration behind this episode. Nice one way. Thanks, but, yeah, but, but that is the trajectory. So, and I think the difference is like for it, look, Freud does say this thing, right, that super ego reaches down to the id for its energy. So that's already kind of saying that, but, but, but he basically thinks super ego is a, is a figure of morality. And he, and I want to, I want to just keep, I want you to keep saying that, but this is, I think, the more general idea, especially the one that gets taught in American classroom. So the extent that this still happens, but like for a long time, I, the standard lesson plan was to teach the Lord of the Flies, and then you would teach the, it ego and super ego. That's it. Like that was just like, I know so many. And the idea was that on the island, the super ego dominates. Well, yeah, no, no, that wasn't the idea. No, but it's opposite, right? Like without the law there, the id is free to just do like runs wild. That's what, yes, it's, that's, that's, that's always the idea. The id run, run wild, which you still see that idea when that's how people talk about, or have talked about Trump, right? Is this like, are you a leader? Right. Yes, yeah. Yeah. So, so anyway, yeah. So you're making this point. Like so about the, the tying of morality to, to the super ego, like, to super ego. Right. And Freud definitely, yeah, Freud definitely does that. He even, and Elizabeth Rudensko in her biography of Freud even says, look, Freud got the idea for super ego from reading a manual Kant's notion of the categorical imperative. And twice in, once an ego in the id and then once in maybe in neurosis and psychosis, I can't remember one essay. He said, he, he says, look, there's a connection that the super ego, the categorical imperative is a development of the super ego. Right. So, so, and then really nicely, Milaud and Dolores, sorry, I've dropped a hundred names, Milaud and Dolores says, no, super ego develops when you betray the Kantian moral law. So, I think that, and I think that's right. And really great point actually. And I, so, but nonetheless, Freud definitely thinks that and he says, he even says like super ego is hyper moral. Right. It's even ultra moral. And, and he says in future of an illusion, which is his book on religion, thank God the super ego develops so that we can become civilized. Like it, so that, and I think what you're getting at is that Slavoy is really the first to say actually super ego is what makes us uncivilized within civilization. Right. And I think that's pretty great, pretty great point. It's, yeah, it's kind of a, well, it doesn't this pick up, it's kind of, it's funny because there's a question for a different podcast, but it's, it's kind of like this, right? Where it's like, what's the, what's the place of the id in Slavoy's work? And then it's what's the place of the super ego and in Freud's work? And I think they kind of swap places. Yeah. And which is, which is an interesting development, I think, but maybe too much of a deep cut for this particular episode, because we're trying to get into this concept. But I think it is very important to see this shift from the Freudian idea of the super ego as this command from within to, to obey, the law, the law, and that the feeling that it generates is not as, the jury, jury songs, as articulated by Le Combe, but a guilt that you can't have done well in, like you can't have obeyed the law well enough. And that, that, that, Freud, he does say that and he's right about that, I think, I think that's the best part of his concept of super ego, right? You can never obey it enough because you give in a little, it always wants more from you. Freud, Freud, I mean, that gets repeated by different people, but Freud does say that. Yeah. It's, it's not in the distinction I was trying to draw is that like, I don't, I don't believe that when, when Freud writes that, that he thinks that we enjoy that. And I think that, I agree totally, that's the, that's the shift, that's the, that's the change. Because I, I almost, I think like, you know, that, that was a, we talked about this before is, is a, a, a, the reason why Le Combe and, Slavoy and, like, and us, that we can articulate something like that is because, because we fully invest in the death drive, but Freud did not, I think would be my. - Right, right. - My estimation of that. Like, whenever we cover his papers and it's always interesting, we just always take time to note, like, where does the death drive come up and like, does he hedge on it? 'Cause he often does, like his rearctomy. - He often does. - Yeah. - Yeah, so often. So I think. - And he never, I think what you're getting at Ryan, it's a great point is he never makes that link between, death drive and super ego. - Like, yes. - What if super ego is a kind of deviation of the death drive, which I think both of us would say, and I don't think Freud. It's interesting though, because he does, he only theorizes super ego after he theorizes the death drive in 1926. - Super ego is just for, I think we talked about this in our episode of Super ego, but just for professionals' memory. It only appears in 1923 in a book, suspiciously entitled The Ego in the Ego. - Yeah, for one part. - The most important thing that he has invented does it even get mentioned. And of course, there's this problem of translation, I think, of each of those things. So the it is in German, "Dass S", which is the it, which would have been a better translation. They're all Latinized by Straishi. The ego is "Dass Eek the Eye", and then actually think making ego into something other than the "I" was a pretty radical move, because it allows us to see the ego as conformist. And if you think of it as the "I", then that is not so clear. And then the super ego is the ubery, which is the people that know Nietzsche, the uber-mench, and it's not the super man, it's the over man, right? Uber is over. So I think that's kind of, in a way, that would be better, right? Because it's like what's looking over the eye. - Yeah. - That's, I think, a little bit clearer in German than it is in the English translation. - Yeah, no, I agree with that. This is, you know, that episode on the, I have thought about this, of the stray comment. On the, I think on Spotify or Apple, you can make like a pinned episode, be like the first episode for new listeners. And I kind of think our episode in the super ego is a pretty good first episode. For people. So if someone's somewhat new, and they haven't listened to that episode, I think it's a pretty good episode of ours to be your first. It's from some years ago now at this point, but I thought it was a nice introduction there, like kind of like our whole thing. So anyway. - Yeah. - That, to put some super ego pressure on the listener. (laughing) But I, yeah, no, I do think that it is interesting in that translation. Like, I have seen, I can't remember now, but like, oh, I gosh, I really wish I could attribute this to someone, but there is definitely this idea out there that's stretchy and changing the names of those things. Like, it pushed Freud in English toward more of the territory of a mystic. And like, if it had been literal, and it was the it, I and over I, then like people would have understood what he was saying better, and he might have been better accepted. And again, I can't remember exactly where I read that, but that's an idea that's out there at least. But I think this point you're making about the move. So where, where it is probably a bad swap. - That's a painful one. - Yeah, and super, super ego for over I is probably not a good swap either, but I do, I think you're right, that I and ego is, it's good, right? It's a nice one because it separates you, it separates you from saying, the being that says, "I," and that is needed to talk about that at all. So I think that's a, you know, you can't, it's difficult to talk about, I think linguistically, it's easier to talk about the ego than it is to talk about the I, and the fact that it's easier to talk about the ego does some sort of like, it actually performs some theoretical work. - Where? - You know, you can almost say like, "Oh yeah, the ego does that," and then you can absolve yourself from how you play into that. And I think that is helpful for understanding the concept. - Yeah. - In a clinical setting, and in a theoretical one, I think it's helpful. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - But it is the, so, but it is the, so the over-eye is interesting. And I think this is where this shift from Freud moving from the moral law of Kant to a, I think it had to be LeCon who was gonna introduce this because what he is able to bring because his theory is wrapped around orders, three orders. - Yeah. - You know, kind of like Kant said, I would say. - You might say, yeah, that's right. It's, but it's a different way of meaning order. And I think this is what's important for Slavoy, and this is what's important for the, for the, I don't know, I don't know, the mature expression of the idea, like just through this development in Second Manelic theory. - Yeah. - It's not a, it's not legal, right? It's not this shift from moral law to legal, like the actual legal, but in order that's given, that is a transgression of the legal, that nonetheless forms a different kind of order. So it's conformity to something that transgresses the law, and that feeling, that charge that you get from doing this, is enjoyment. That's enjoyment. And that's, that's, that is the glue, whereas it's, you know, the glue is different for Freud. It is more on the terrain of the moral and the guilt, the like more like the guilty conscience. Ah, like, that's, I think the first time that I was exposed to this idea, the feeling of a guilty conscience is the super ego as expressed by Freud. And I think that's probably still pretty good for this other articulation, but what you have to understand is that you enjoy that. - The right that you enjoy it, right? And that's why you can't really stop thinking about it, right? So two days ago, I told you the story of it. - Oh, yeah, he did tell you this. - I know you're gonna say this. - I was driving, I was driving to the grocery store to pick, I don't know to pick up some bananas or something. And I just, I wasn't paying attention, you know, and there was a car coming the other way down the lane and I just moved into the lot. I was there into the slot, you know, I was there first. The woman comes up in parks, you know, sort of next to me. So there were clearly plenty of parking. And she gets out and she goes, "I hope you feel good about yourself. Pull in front of a mom with an autistic child." And I still, you know, it's two days later. And I still feel like, oh my God, and for what, of course, I didn't know that she was a mom at all or that, obviously that she had an autistic child, but she needed to tell me that. So that, like that bombarding of guilt that I still am holding 'cause I need to, I'm still talking about it. - I'm not talking about it. - Right, and that hasn't left me, right? And so that, I think that that, and I think your point is right, like even that, I think Freud would just say, oh, that's the inner, that's the categorical imperative from, but I didn't violate the Kantian categorical imperative. - No. - Right, like I didn't use her as a pure means. I didn't, I just, in fact, I went first. I was there first. I was probably doing the, according to Kant, I was doing the right thing, right? So, there was no categorical imperative violation involved, but I clearly violated some kind of, I felt this super-rigoic thing because I had violated some kind of social imperative that says, mothers with autistic children need to be treated. And I just saw last night, it's a terrible movie, by the way. If I had feet, I'd kick you or if I had legs, I'd kick you. - Yes, yeah. - With Rose Burn. It's terrible, but she's really, she's always good. - Always good. - But, so it made me feel like, and she has a child who's sick and troubled, and it's really difficult. And so, I don't need to, even the movie to show me, I understand how difficult that is. So, that's a, so feeling, making a special consideration for people in that situation is, I think, a social imperative that is not into the law, right? Not into the law. And I think that's the key thing, right? Like those social imperative that you're talking about are not commands that come, super-go-it commands, this command to enjoy, doesn't come from the law. Instead, it comes from, I would say, it comes from the big other, right? It comes from, it comes from some kind of social demands, some kind of social, not political, right? Some kind of social authority. That's usually not, I mean, sometimes it can be embodied in a single person, but usually it's, it's collective feeling. And I think that's what's interesting about this recent, these two recent shootings in Minneapolis, right? And I think that the one thing that's really evident is that, okay, two things, right? They're transgressing the law, right? They're just murdering people. That's transgressing. There's a law against murdering someone, even if you're wearing uniform. And they enjoy it, right? So, yeah. And I think, that's, I mean, like the person who shot, Renee Good said ever. right after he killed her, was like fucking bitch, right? Like, yeah. Right, so, and I think after the, the, the, the, petty, is that his name? - No, no, Alex, pretty. - Pretty. - Yeah. - After his killing, a kind of cheering goes on in celebration, right? So, two guys got involved. - Two guys got involved, right? - One for one. - Right, once, it's like the one guy sees someone else shooting, he's like, okay, I wanna join in. A lot like a lynching, right? Like that's, I think that's the other thing that we'll have to talk about a little later because the lynching is like the sine qua on one of the, of the, of the, of super egoic enjoyment. I think that doesn't follow the law. And I think that's, I think really, I think that distinction is so important that the super ego, the, the, the, the, the commandments of the super ego are not, they're not legal commands. And so, yeah, anyway, go ahead. - No, no, I think that's, it's very important and to, to stamp that out. And, and I think it's also very clear like the, that it's just, everything is extra legal that, that ICE is doing. And, and that is, that is, so they are, what they, though, but the law, I think this is, this is also important, is that the law needs to exist in so far as it provides this baseline for them to just, to, to not obey it. And that, and that tie, right, is, is just so, vexing and, and, and, and, and, and, disgusting and terrible for, for, for all of us, because we know what the law should be and then these people are transgressing it to, and I think where, where there's a slight disconnect, I would, I would think in, in between the way that, sometimes it gets talked about socially, is that, I think there's this idea that what, Trump and Bavino and all these, all these people, Tom Homm and all these people, like what they've done is that they've, they've licensed all these ICE agents to act as vigilantes, like, like, it individually, like, to do whatever it is that they want, individually, but what they have, unleashed, is instead a separate order that all of these ICE agents are, like, share in and are bound by, and it is, they are bound by the very same transgression and, and, and, and, and thinking about them as, like, a, like, a loose, roving, dangerous force that they wear the same uniform, but they all have, like, their own codes or something like that, and, like, that's what's dangerous about it, because they're all protected. It's just, like, yes, that is terrifying. It's just, I just think it's slightly wrong, because what they, they're all bound by this injunction to enjoy. That is, that is, it's, it's, it's not, I know that there is that video of, that got released from, Bavino telling the ICE agents out here in Los Angeles about what they, what they can do is, is just to, like, if someone lays hands on you, like, you know, like, you do what you have to do, like that, like that, like that sort of thing, like, it doesn't matter, like, like, like, forget the law, like, everyone understands. And so, like, yes, there's a, there's a point of, there's a point for that injunction, but it's really more this, like, this shared understanding that they have to trans, that all of their transgressions uphold some higher law, which is not true. It's, it's just, there's no problem in Minneapolis if these people aren't there. There's no problem in any of these cities of these, if these agents are there. There's, there's no, there's no issues. But what binds the activity, despite, like, written or even spoken orders, is this, again, this, this transgression of, again, it's not, it's, yes, it transgresses what the, what the legal, the legal law, that's a redundant phrase, but what the, it transgresses what the legal law is, but it is trying to find an ever more ways to obey the order. And you want to hear that in two different ways. It's just, again, it's the order to do, but what, what it is they've been doing, but also in doing that, that creates an order, right? And this is like the order of ICE, if you want to understand it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, couldn't you say that what holds together a community most deeply is not so much identification with the law that regulates the community's normal everyday circuit, but rather identification with a specific form of transgression of the law, the law's suspension with a specific form of enjoyment, right? Like I think that's one that you could say that exactly. You could say that. And that was from the past. You were going to phrase talking to him and those were good. And no, I did not quite that. Although I think it's fair, I mean, I've got it, maybe if I plagiarize that, I could pass it off as my own. Um, uh, it would be just wouldn't it? I don't know. Yeah, I mean, he just mostly takes jokes. So that's true. And his view is that no one, which shows that I think this is just his limitation, he thinks that no one invent that all jokes are written by the big other. So, you know, so they can all be taken. Um, I mean, there's, there's truth to that, I think, but you and I both know that some people do make up jokes. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes they're not as good, but, you know, it's hard. It's hard, it's hard work. Yeah, but this, yeah, but identifying with the suspension of the law, that was what you were. Yeah, that's the key point. Right. And I think, um, I think that that's the, I mean, that isn't that what we're seeing so much everywhere, right? Like, not just in the US, but around the world, all these, I mean, that we talked last time about protests in Iran, which were squelched, right? Or was that time, I can't remember? Um, until last time, um, and, and like those, I think again, it's not just the legal enforcement. It's like the way that the legal enforcement happens is with this super egoic enjoyment that includes a violent transgression of the law, and that's where the enjoyment lies. And I think that link between super ego and enjoyment really is so important for understanding what's going on around it. And I think that that separating the laws come in to obey. Right? Of course, the law says you have to obey the law, right? But then on the other hand, you have this command from a social authority that says do, do more, do more, do more, do more. And I think the difference is, I mean, isn't the difference that you can obey the law, right? You can, you can just obey and it's fine. Like, if I don't kill it, like there's a law that says, and how's that killed? Also, there's a law in the state statutes that says you can't murder someone, right? So if I don't murder anyone, I don't, no one's, no one's pestering me to go to, to not murder someone less, right? No one's, I don't feel bad because I haven't not murdered someone. I feel, I feel fine, right? Like it's, I don't even think about it, really. I don't think, I don't know, how often do you think about it? So there's a law against that I probably shouldn't even think about it. I mean, no, I don't, what's a weak, you don't, you don't go out in the world and I certainly don't go out into the world and my behavior is determined by like consciously what I think, like, oh, what I ought not to do, right? Or not, or legally, legally, legally, legally, because it's not what I just said. It is ordered by what I ought, what I ought not to do, like, like, don't cut in line, you know, which is not a law. There's no law that's, but, but think about the ignominy that you would endure if you just, like, every super-hark, you know, like, could you imagine, could you, I was going, I've just, I've just, yeah, could you just imagine how, how terrible it would be if you cut and took a parking space from a mother of an autistic child. Okay, thank you for that. I'm going to have to do something like that. I really appreciate you. That could be up on that. Yeah, you're welcome. So. Yeah, but I think that that's, but the and that's the difference with super ego, right? Like, you never you obey the law. You feel like, oh, you don't feel anything. You just feel like, okay, it's like life's going to do my other things. I'm not even thinking about the fact that I'm not, and I'm not disobeying it or that I'm obeying it. Whereas the commandment of the super ego never lets up. And I think that's the like, I think you can see that in these officers, but I think you can also see it. I mean, just not to I don't think we should all let ourselves out the hook on this because I think it's an everyday thing too, right? Like you're like those commands to enjoy, like that. I think it impels us to do things, especially because of we associate enjoyment with wealth and status and all these things. Like it impels us to do what to be ruthless in pursuing those things, right? Like, like I can I don't feel bad about sending my manuscript unsolicited to some, you know, to someone and say, can you help me with this? Because whatever. Like because I feel this super egoic imperative to advance my career, right? So that's that and I think that's the, I'm not saying people should never send out their things for help. I'm just saying that that's what one way that super-egoic enjoyment manifests itself, right? Like it's in this, push to constantly, better yourself, constantly take advantage of every opportunity, even if it means squashing someone else to get that off. I mean, this is kind of, I don't like to show it all, but isn't this kind of the logic of squid game, right? Like that your, there's obviously, there's a super-egoic enjoyment on the part of the spectators, even of the series, but which is why I don't like it, but I think that in the show, like that's part of even that is trying to survive, but also there's this like, your, it licenses you to do the worst things to other people because you're, your survival that's take. Yeah, I mean, yeah, it's, well, so this is, I think this is the interesting thing, right? It's like, so this, this is the point I think that, that we're getting at at this point in the show is that, like, obviously, that, like, obviously what ICE is doing and what has been, you know, it's, that's why I, I, I, I, I still see, it's a lot of the politicians are saying this is not normal. I think we've been saying that for 11 years. Yeah, this is not normal. So, like, I think maybe we need another phrase because it's like, this is now, this is now normal here. I mean, that's, like, it's funny. The problem, yeah, we, yeah. So I listen to the French news. Yeah, almost every morning when I'm on the, on the electrical machine and, and you know, they're, they call it ICE, but because they add the article before everything, it's, it's ICE. And I really, I like that. So much better than the, because it really captures that super egoic dimension does. It's like, you know, LICE, the more you try to get them out, the more they recalcitrant they, if you've ever had kids that have LICE in their hair, it's like, it's, it's one of the great nightmares in human existence. It's, because they just never, they never cut, right. They nestle in exactly so they never come out. Nesselina. That's kind of what it is. That, this is the, yeah, so, yeah. That's the, so that is obviously, it's obviously horrible and disgusting, but the, I think what we're trying to call attention to is the, the structure of it is not, has not been invented and it's not like, it's not, it's not something of a historical accident. It's like, the, the, the super egoic structure of what ICE is, is doing is the same as going over the speed limit. Like, it, going, like, you, you show that you don't, you show you don't belong anywhere, I mean, especially out here, you show you don't belong anywhere. It's true everywhere, man. It's true everywhere. It's especially true here. It's probably especially true other places, but you show you don't belong anywhere if you only literally go the speed limit everywhere all the time. Right. It's, it's, and, and so that is this, that's a very, that's the best example of super egoic and joy. It's, it's so shared, it's so banal, it's so benign, but yes, it is this, that's the story. And the cops could eliminate it. That's what's interesting, right? Yeah. Like, all they would need to do is like strictly enforce, like, keep pulling over cars for going 66 and a 65. And eventually people would stop doing it. Yeah. Right. It's like, it's like, oh, there's nothing we can do. Everybody doesn't know. So they don't want to stop it because they understand the kind of the way that functions as social glue. Yeah. I think, right? And the, and the, and the cheap form of enjoyment that it provides to people. Yeah. Yeah. And so now when someone goes too far, then they would, you know, they get pulled over. And then there's issues with that too, because certain people who go too far over are more likely to be pulled over than certain other people, of course. Sure. And that's, you know, that certainly not a policing at that level is not colorblind. I think we know that in this country. And elsewhere, I would imagine. So, but this is the, but yeah, going whatever, 70 and a 65, 72, like everybody does that. And so that's, again, this is how super he goes attached to this, this is demand of the other that we not just go the exact speed limit. And we are conformed more to a social bond that way. So this, I think, is the question that, like, the bond, the order of ICE is in, is exactly in the transgression. I think, like, people see that rightly, not necessarily through this way of looking at it, but like, they are bonded by murdering people for the, like, just, like I said it the last time that we did this. You know what's gonna happen after they do it? We're gonna circumcise them, mosquito, and find out a way that it was justified. And if, and, you know, whatever, that's what's gonna happen. It's, like, the funniest thing though, was that I don't know if you saw this, like, it's not funny, I was just the whole thing is horrible, but like, there was some other video of Alex. - I saw that. - You saw this, okay, so he had previously had been. - He kicked a light out of a ICE vehicle. - Right, right, and so this was posted gleefully by these, like, MAGA, right wing. People, like, see, see it was justified. And then it's like, wait a minute. So it doesn't show that they're killing a couple days later was justified. It more makes it seem like it was premeditated. Like, they remembered that guy, you know? Like, it made, it actually made the, the transgression worse. And I think that's an interesting little line because I haven't seen anyone try to argue that if it was premeditated, it was okay. Now, I'm not saying that those arguments aren't out there. - Right, and I, I guess a great point, because premeditated, if you, I think, and I think it does, don't you think it, it's interesting relates to enjoyment, right? Because I think our view is, if a thing is premeditated, sorry, it's, there's, and there's enjoyment attached to it. - Yeah. - Right, like, that's why we, when someone plans out of murder, we know that they've planned it out so that they, their enjoyment is, is that stake? Whereas, if they just, I mean, there's even, that's, I think, it's almost why the law takes into account, like, is it murder premeditator or is it not? Because, and one is much worse, obviously, than the other. And I just think the premeditation is the enjoyment factor, and I think that would, that's why nobody would, I don't think anybody could defend it. I also wanna say one thing, I think that the, the thing that's, obviously, the killings are horrific. But I almost attempted to say, that the thing that horrifies people even more is the response to the killings. - Yes, yes. - Right, that they are, and it's clear, they're like, what is, like, if you see someone shot, I think the reaction of all of us, even if we shot them, whatever, whatever, like, whatever in the line of duty, is to go and help them out, or see if they, are they alive still, or what? But they know, it's like, when Walt shoots Mike, in Breaking Bad, he kills him, and then he goes to try to help him, and then Mike is just like, Walter, will you just let me die? - Let me die alone. - Right, die alone, yeah, yeah. Not with your fucking, annoyed person next to me. Yeah, that's a great scene. He's in this, by the swamp or something, right? - Right, right, right. - I think it's like, I've never seen it, of the series. But I think that that, we go to the, if even Walter White goes to the first, and you know, everybody would. Right, and I think that's what's so horrifying about those, videos is that they show no sense of that, and what they articulate is a celebration of it, and I think that's the thing that lets us know that there's super egoic enjoyment at work here, and that's what really, that's the cherry on the top of the outrage. - I just wanna make a button out of this, because the, again, you'll often see this, it's like, oh, they do this without remorse, and it's like, yes, true, totally, but they do this and celebrate. Like, so the celebration is, I think, you know, 'cause if, I don't know, films like Terminator or Dolph Lunkin's character, and Die Hard, or whatever, like, right, no, that's not him. What am I thinking of Rocky? I don't know, what Rocky for? - Rocky for, right, yeah, right. - If he dies, he dies. - Yeah, again, these emotionless, affectless machines, you know, that are just gunning people down, and that is, no, the true horror is that there is feeling, and it's joy. And I think that rightly, wrinkles and obsets people. What I wanna put to you, so like, I think everyone knows that you can't stop, you can't stop other people from speeding if you yourself just go to speed limit, right? Like, that doesn't work that way. So, like, the, what, we've talked about this in a lot of different ways throughout the history of this podcast, but like, going all the way back to the episode that, you know, people still write to us about, like, a signifier for the left, you know. - Yeah. - You know, is there, is there a left enjoyment that counteracts this, or is it really just actually what we need is, the a dispassionate law. I mean, to hold these people to account, what are you? - Yeah, I mean, I think law is important, so I'm not against that, but I do think there has to be an alternate form of enjoyment, right? Because otherwise you're not gonna engage people. But I think here's the key, and I think isn't this what, this is kind of, it's so fascinating because I think it's in a way, this reactionary form of super-agoaic enjoyment is coming up in the wake of a liberal super-agoaic enjoyment, which was policing language, right? Police, you know, and I think that kind of super-agoa, like people said, I want someone to let me, to let me, but what they didn't see was, wait a minute, there actually was a lot of enjoyment in that policing of, like conservative critique of that was, they're not letting us just enjoy ourselves, like tell racist jokes or whatever. - Yes. - But what they did see, was that that was a liberal form, like that was a liberal form of super-agoaic enjoyment, and what it did, like canceling someone, whatever, there's an enjoyment in that, and so I think it can't be that, it can't, like the, the, the, the emancipatory enjoyment can never be, can never be super-agoaic, why not? Because I think exactly for the thing we've been telling about the whole time that super-agoa is attached to this demand of the big other, right? And it's a way of internalizing that, and so then you're just, if you're invested in super-agoaic enjoyment, you're conforming, and you're trying to find a way to enjoy your conformity, to what, to capitalist society? And I think that's why it cannot be, it cannot be a different form of super-agoaic enjoyment that is emancipatory. So I guess the point would be, like, I love it when people throw milkshakes at Nazis, I think that's really great, but like that, that as a, you know, that doesn't make the Nazis go away. I guess. - No. - Yeah, we have to think, like the enjoyment depends on the Nazi being there to have milkshake thrown at them. And yeah, so that's a bit of an issue. So then the, so would you say that the non-reactionary, so the non-reactionary response has to bypass the super-agoaic, how would you do that? - I think so. I think you can't, you know, I just don't think you can ever give into super-agoaic and in any way, like this. I mean, obviously you can't do without it, right? Like it's part of the psyche, but I think super-agoaic is always a conservative force in this country. - Interesting. - Like it's never an emancipatory one. And so anytime you find yourself giving into that, like when I felt bad about that, I felt bad about you and bad about the woman, cutting off the woman, right? I still do feel bad that I feel bad. I'm like, look, just, it's not, the reason why you're feeling bad is because you violated some kind of social demand. And you shouldn't care about that, right? So I think that that's, I think that, so any giving ground in the direction of the super-agoa, just empowers it even more. So I think there's not a way that can become a emancipatory. And again, I think there was this whole liberal attempt in the 2010s to make, to imagine a liberal super-agoaic form of enjoyment that would be effective. And then it wasn't, right? If anything, it like fed this other form of super-agoaic enjoyment. - You know my thing, I think that started after OJ, the OJ trial and as the political correctness project as like, because I think it invested in this idea, and this just totally happened after Trump won in 2016, which was like, okay, well maybe, well, during Obama was like, well, the conservatives are just getting away, they'll never attain with their agenda, they'll never get broad support ever again, because look at where we are now. And then they won the White House and the House of Representatives and the Senate. And then I think the response was like, okay, well maybe they can win politics, but they can't win culture. And then, and as though those two things are separate, and I think like we've had to learn that they are not, you know, that they are entwined. I think it's, anyway, yeah, I think you're right. I think that was the project that like, we can make culture in such a way that like the legal, that it can control in some way, the legal and social result and to make things better. - Well, it became. - Degrees for more people. - Don't you think what's interesting is that in the 1960s in the United States, it was a legal effort, completely legal effort, like an effort to change the law. - Yeah. - And this effort wasn't, it had nothing to do with the law. There was no attempt to change the law, right? It was just an attempt, as you say, to change culture or to create a kind of super-aggressive force. - Even just with media, like there is, I don't know that, I mean, clear channel who operates a lot of the airwaves or did, I don't know where we're at with that in the US. They clearly had, they had a list of no-no words and terms, but it was like, what was the, that was because of, not 'cause it was illegal, but because it might turn off advertisers and listeners. It was all for like side reasons, not for what should be legal or what it or right, I guess would be the other way of putting it. It was all for side reasons and that created, that, I mean, a lot of this, if you're gonna do a historiography of like the popularity of this, like the alt-right thing, the manosphere, the podcasting manosphere, it started with comedians upset that they couldn't, oh, you can't say anything these days. And it started on like, you know, like OP and Anthony, like these shows that would have these comedians come on and all they would rail on is against, like liberals trying to police their language and stuff like that. And that was where this, you know, the impetus for Steve Bannon, seeing what could be possible with a cultural movement against the idea of just like, forcing everyone to be nice to everybody, using nice language. So anyway, what I wanna kind of move to on this is that, I think that what you're saying, I think it is really interesting is that like the super-goic enjoyment can, if I, I'm not exactly putting words in your mouth, but I think you'll agree with the statement then. Well, tell me if you do or not, that super-goic enjoyment can never be the basis of a left-wing and emancipatory movement, is that correct? - Totally. - Okay. - Do you think that too? - I do, yes, I do. I think it's interesting to then, as we often do, bring in our friend Anna Cornblou to say like, it's an immediate form of enjoyment. - Yeah. - So here's a controversial take by me. I kind of, as much as I like seminar seven, I wish that the ethical position of psychoanalysis was not articulated as not giving ground relative to desire, or not giving into this like not giving into the other's demand, because I kind of think the only way to avoid this super-goic demand and to get out of this cycle where like, okay, it's the right-wing repressive, like conservative violence is over here, and then the left-wing response that is visibly left-wing needs that dynamic to be in place. I, what do you think about this, is that it has to be to give ground relative to desire. - Oh, interesting. - Is the way toward like, instituting another kind of order? I mean, like Freud even kind of says this in group psychology that like, you know, one gives up the pleasure of the ego. Like, you give up a little bit to have the social, and I think this country, this experiment of radical individualism, just like, it's as much of that as it is. as it is, you know, whatever late stage capitalism that people often talk about. Like, like, I, you, you, we, we cannot, you, I don't think you can have a society that's good for every individual. I don't think that really makes sense. Like, like, there, there has to be, like, like, there has to be, like, so there has to be a social, uh, that takes, that takes from you. I think that has to be the idea. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. And I also think, isn't the other problem with the formulations of seminar seven is that this is the ethics of psychoanalysis seminar, which we have devoted a whole episode to, um, many side. And I think, yeah. And I think it has an outsized, uh, position in the reception of a lecon, at least popularly. And I think even among people that are friends of ours. Um, but I think that it's, doesn't it, isn't the, the problem that he associates enjoyment with the enjoyment of transgression. Like, that is, yeah. I mean, that's how he defines it, basically. And then that's why this is this thing we always talk about. And then, like, God's own personal example for him, not giving ground relative desire is this farting in public, right? Which is, is, is, is, is, is like, it's ridiculous. And, and it's also, uh, just, it's like what you're saying, right? Like, it violates exactly the thing that you're saying. I think it's like part of the, one of the real cores of politeness, isn't it? Is that you try your best, not to fart in public, right? It's polite. Right? It's not against the law, obviously. Yeah. And it's not even super egoic. I don't think, I think there's a difference. I wonder if you think this, I think there's ever seen both politeness and the command of the super ego. Yeah. Either, I don't think you're touched and tied to the law. But I think politeness is this, it's kind of more aides that are, that are, that are, that are there, that are, but they're not super egoic because you don't feel like, oh, I got to be polite. I have to do it. You don't feel that way. It's like, okay, it's just, just like you're saying, it's like, okay, this is what it means to live in a, in a social order. And I think, I think in seminar seven, LeConda doesn't really have a sense of that at all. And I think that's why he celebrates Antigone, who I'm not sure is a figure. I, I, I, and this is a, this is a heresy. I know what I don't really feel that comfortable celebrating her. Right. And I don't, I don't like this idea that Antigone is a feminist icon because, sorry, Sophocles, like, okay, she's a female character. But Sophocles, as far as I know, remained a man his whole life. So the person that wrote it, I mean, so that, to me, that doesn't mean anything. And I feel like her, like she kind of gets off. And I think, couldn't you say that I'm following the unwritten rules of the law, unwritten law of the gods? Right. Can you almost say, like, okay, she's following the super ego against the written law. I mean, I think, I think there's all kinds of, I mean, I don't think, obviously LeConda wouldn't say that. But I think like her is an example. Like she's a, like this, like, not willing to like fit into the society at all. And I think that's, I think you're right. I think there's something. And I think it's funny because I think we, we associate super ego with this command to transgress the law. And then that's exactly how LeConda views, not as commanded, but he views desire or enjoyment, sorry, as the transgression of the law in seminar seven. So I think that's a, I think that he, in a way, that seminar is almost at the core of what we're talking about in a reverse, you know, sort of bizarro way, right? Like it's, I don't know. I'm glad you brought that up because I do think that there's a, that, I mean, as we've said many times, the seminar is a hapax, right? It doesn't fit. There's this mood, there's this time before. And then that's this moment that doesn't fit in. And then right after where he invents obj on, everything is different. So it doesn't real, so it's, it is anomalous in his uvra. And it's, and I do think it's problematic for the reasons that you've said. It's, it's only, I think, I think it only works as, I don't know, transgressive and like personally emancipatory. If virtually everyone else believes like in the, like the social, it's basically, I think it only works in a liberal order. I'll put it that way. If everybody else, right. If everybody else is, is, is committed to like decency, which is like, which is not nearly enough, you know, of course, like this, like, this, like, liberal decency, that, that, that, that was like a first term thing. If you remember, Trump, it's like, where has decency gone, like all this, like, all these interpreters, of course. So the, yeah, if everyone else is doing that and not naming it, then I think the thing that the conferencecribes can feel emancipatory. But if, I don't know, if, if, if, if instead, like ideas like that there, there is no truth, everything's AI, the Holocaust didn't happen. The earth is flat, like, everything's a conspiracy if I don't like it. Like if that is the kind of the general milieu, then I don't think, not giving ground relative desire really works as, as an emancipatory program. It's, I don't think it's an emancipatory program in any way. I don't think so. So I, I think, I think that it's, yeah, I think it, I think what it can do is it can feel good. I think, and I mean, I think that's a whole, the, the lure of the, of the super egoic enjoyment. Is it immediately? It can feel really good. Immediately, it feels good. But I think there, there is this whole idea, right, that if you're commanded to enjoy, you can never really enjoy, right? Like those, they're, they're seeking it and they never kind of, they never quite get it. But there is this, this partiality of their enjoyment when they're actually, that we see in the aftermath of the, of the shooting. So I think that's true. I want to bring up a film that does, I think. Wait, hold on. I want to, before, because I'm going to lose this if you start doing that. Okay. I want to, I think I want to submit. I, what, what is, I don't know, what's our suggestion here is, I kind of think, um, uh, suffering for the good of the public. And I don't mean suffering like, how people are suffering in Minneapolis. I mean, like, uh, another kind of, uh, well, maybe, I mean, maybe because they're defending the public. Well, I mean, obviously not the people that are killed, but, but, I mean, no one would even think that that, uh, no one would want to advise people to do that to be, yeah, sacrifice themselves. They're lives. But I think that, like, yeah, I mean, I think defending the public has a sphere. I mean, that's what they're doing. They're saying like, you're destroying the public world. People don't feel like they can even come out and go to the grocery. Yes, yes, exactly right. Right. That's what they're saying. And I think they're right about that. Yeah. And I think that that, I don't think that there's, I don't know, I don't think they're super gook enjoyment in that. Yeah, I don't think so either. But I mean, I think there's the law. I think, yeah, I mean, there's a whole interesting point, I think, to be made about the relationship between the law and the public and the super ego and the private, right? Like I think that there's a real, and I think that's what you're kind of getting at. That's what I think. Yeah. That's what I think. So in our seven, right, that it's like, the cons to invested in the private, which suggests that maybe he's also invested in the super egoic transgressive form of enjoyment. Yeah. Right? Like why? Like there's other figures that he could have chosen as figures of ethics, right? But he likes the fact that Antigone transgresses the public law, right? And I mean, Oink as a passage has made a convincing point that Crayon allows his own prejudices to distort the law. And so it loses its universality, becomes particular. Maybe. Okay. Yeah, maybe. But I still think it seems to me like, isn't the real ethical figure, someone not that challenges the law, but someone that challenges the obscene super egoic enjoyment, right? And that's why like, like Dietrich Bonhofford, you know, this guy's this pro-administer who defied the Nazis and ended up dying. Right? Like that seems like there's someone who really incredible, my friend I've mentioned him. Well, today, he has a little bracelet that says, "W.W.D.D." What would Dietrich, the sort of Christ, right? And he's good. I think he's going to, in response to this, I think he's writing a one person, like Dietrich Bonhofford, play in response to the Minnesota thing. So I think that that, but I mean, that seems to me like a, and Lechon would have known of him. Like, isn't that a better example of someone who's defying, not defying the law? I mean, he actually is in favor of the law because everyone should know this, right? Like the Holocaust was not, I think we talked about this, was not a written, there's a written law that said, okay, Jews are sent to extermination camps. I mean, him or her has this incredible, it's called the Pozen's Beach where he says, you know, this is the greatest chapter of German history that can never, that will never be written and can never be written. And I think that's, isn't that true about super-aggressive enjoyment, right? Like, it will not be written and it cannot be written. Well, it's like, that was when the issue went out to exterminate all the decisions. people in the Catholic church was like that was a written thing. Right. In an occasion of huge uprising against this. That's right. Yeah. It's really the only, I was reading someone I'm going to tell you about this and I think it's true that it's really the only, and it was more or less effective, although they still did it on the side. Yeah. Effect, but it was really the only mass protest against the Nazis. Yeah. It was when the eugenics law of euthanizing the disabled. And so that, and it's interesting, I think you're right. Like when it's a law, then you open yourself up to protest. When it's a super egoic command to enjoy, you kind of, it's very hard and much harder to protest, right? Yeah. Because there's no, it's a private thing. And I think that that's really, it's just so crucial. It's like the connection you're making between earlier, Trump has all these edicts, these executive orders that are not laws, very few laws are passed by this administration. He doesn't like law. No. I mean, let's just be honest. He doesn't like the, like everyone's like all these people in Congress are like too bad. He doesn't want to put these things as, as you know, institute them permanently in the law. Well, no, it's not too bad. It's, it's crucial to the way he oblias. Yes. He's on the side of super ego, not on the side of law. And so he doesn't want them written down, right? In the sense of like inscribed permanently in the, of course, because the life, the life of the, the wealthy, and I want you to tell about, I want you to get to the film example. But like, I, the life of, I think we're all seeing this in, in, in, in technical or unfortunately, the, the life of the, of the wealthy person is just by, it is fascistic. You had to, you have everyone does things for you. Nobody questions your thing. Like, like, like that, like that Trump has taken that, so has taken that private life. And he has tried to install that in, in, for all of us in, in the public that like we're all basically like working for him. That's, that's a wonderful, all this, all this looting of tax money. It's just like we're all working for, for his large, Jess. That's the, yeah. And, and that's the life, that's why I like Rokana and other people who talk about like the Epstein class, like I, I kind of like, that's good. You know, like, like, like, like tying this entire, like, class of existence. Like, that is, it is, it is a, a priori, a fascistic. It is, it is, it is dictatorial, authoritarian. And when you put, the thing is, is like, that can exist and nobody can really know about it. But then when it becomes, you know, tied to, well, now there's no, I think, I think you're right. No, typically, no people don't know about it. But I think this, one of the threats of the Epstein thing is that it brings out to the open. But I mean, the other, I mean, they, it's now becoming more and more out in the open. The obscenity is, it's becoming open now. Yeah. Right? Like, that's, that's, that's one thing that we're seeing happening. That's maybe the most disturbing thing, right? And that's part of this destruction of the public that we've talked about before. Yeah. So the film, the film that I was going to mention was, it's called No Other Choices by this guy, Park Chan-Wook. He did, he did, he did, he did, oh boy, but he also did this great movie decision to leave. Incredible, I think. Yes. Filmmaker, Korean Filmmaker. And which, surprisingly, this film got a release and I saw it in a very mainstream, multi-flex, which was nice. And it wasn't, the theater wasn't empty. It was actually, it was actually not, what, it wasn't? Did you think there was an edible angle in Old Boy? I just want to know. Yeah, for sure. I'm kidding. I was joking. Sorry. Sorry. I said it too earnestly. Sorry. Sorry. I fell for it. Okay. That's my fault. Yeah. That's okay. Yeah. But anyway, yet another one of the directors about whom Spike Lee should not have not remake his movie. Oh, that's a great point. It's a privilege club. A Kurokawa Salva had function in Wuk. Let's tell Spike Lee, do not, there's two now you've found that you shouldn't remake. And maybe he'll find another that he shouldn't remake as well. I love Spike Lee, but if you see highest the lowest, my advice is just don't. It's sad. It's sad. And for someone who is of such incredible, I mean, I guess we see it in everybody, right? Like family plot isn't great for Hitchcock's last, I mean, I'm sure it's, maybe it's an inevitable. Just waiting for Insight Man to open happens. I would be, I think that would probably be good, right? Yeah, that would be good. Yeah. Insighter man. Sorry. Kind of a Michael Mayer Spike Lee joint. I like that idea. That was pretty good. Yeah. No, I think they're incompatible. They're absolutely incompatible. That's an episode. I think they're both, sorry, this is a brief aside, but I think they're both incredible filmmakers of excess. But I think they use the excess to make an opposite point like for man, it's about our, that it's what's excessive about us is our ability to make an ethical commitment. And for Spike Lee, what's excessive about us is this obscene enjoyment that causes all our political troubles. So to the idea that they could, to be I don't think they're, even though they both are filmmakers of incredible, they utilize excess better than anybody. I think they're two, I mean, they're two my favorites, but just for the totally opposite reasons. So I just think I couldn't imagine the two of them come. There's why Spike Lee hated Michael man's Ali. I think he had to hate it because Ali gets celebrated in all these ways. And I think Spike Lee would have found a way, like he does it with X, right? And there were ways in which even though it's very laudatory, he undercuts him at certain points and shows this, the way he's destroyed by not even his own, but this obscene enjoyment of other people around him. And that's not, in man's Ali, that's just not it at all, right? So it's, it's, I just think it's, it's, it's, it's so, they're so incompatible that I, I could, but I would love to imagine it. Like insider man, I think it's a great Russell Crowe reprising his role. Yes. Very good. So so in, in no other choice, it's, I think what's, what's really good and we haven't really talked about this yet is the relationship that it shows between super ego and capitalism. So the main character loses his job at a paper company is very significant, I think, because everything's turning to AI and online, it doesn't, you don't need paper. And he's an executive there and he, he realizes that he has no chance to find another job. His wife is annoyed with him, he can't find anything. So he notices that there's one executive that does his job that's still working and he decides, he gets, he plots, he's like, I'm going to kill him. And then I'll be the one, I'll be the only person that can get this job except the problem is there are also two other paper guys that have been recently laid off. So he has to kill both of them first and the killings are, he's not competent. Killer, so he doesn't do them well. Which is of course a compliment, it's not your compliment killer. That's a bad sign. So then, and then he kind of kills all, goes through this operation. But what's interesting is it's really clear, it's a great film. And the super ego compels him for the sake of accumulation and social status, whatever, to kill, right? To kill these competitors. And I think we don't do that obviously on an everyday basis, but I think there is a way in which we, the super ego pushes us in this direction of kind of cutting off our potential competitors for our, whatever our status is. Like the way we're constantly going on other people's podcast responses and writing negative comments and things like that. I'm just totally kidding. I've never done it. But it was just super egoic fantasy that came into my head. That's really funny. But I think that that's the, that film does such a great job of showing that. And it's, and the point is, and I think this is, you were talking, you rewatched Slavoy's a great example of super egoic enjoyment last night and maybe we should conclude with that. But I think what, what, the limitation of the example you're going to talk about is that the command to enjoy is given by the authority figure. Yeah. So that's interesting. Yeah, go ahead. No, no, no, that's in a few good, man. And we'll get to in a second. Yeah, we'll get to in a second. Yeah. In this film, in no other choice, the command is, the more, the authority figure is completely, totally amorphous, right? So it is just this social big other. And I think my claim would be that's where that super egoic command to enjoy comes from. It's not from any figure of authority. It's instead from this figure of the big other. Yeah. So Slavoy and Matassas is of enjoyment in that chapter that we mentioned all the way at the beginning of this, like he talks at length about the code red in a few good men, which is this, it's this injunction if there is a soldier who's not fitting in with the rest of the group, but also like, I don't know, they're not clean in their room. They're, they're, they're, they're, they drop a firearm, they're all these things. They're not in line with everyone else. And the film shows you this in the beginning with this long sequence of servicemen, marching and moving their rifles in unison. It just looks like a dance, really. It looks like synchronized swings. - Very quick, synchronized swing. - Yeah, yeah. - And if showing, literally the idea that, this is how the military has to work. It has to work everybody doing their little thing, exactly, right? And if one person is out of line, that could cause people lives. That's those are the stakes, right? You might, in our regular life, someone at work who's just not as good as other people, probably in our line of work, I don't know that it doesn't kill people. If someone's not very good at their teaching job, I don't think so. - It's so isolated, right? That's the problem. That doesn't kind of affect you, 'cause you're just in your own classroom. And the only thing that can happen is more people want to take your class, what you're happy about. (laughing) Like in confidence among your colleagues, you're sort of happy about, right? - That's really funny. That's really great. Yeah, no, it's, it, you told me about having Jennifer Friedland or this colleague, right? - I do not even start with that, even a little bit, she's amazing. That's not even, not even a joke. - Sorry, that would be more sweet to see life. - So that's very funny, but yeah, no, yeah, in confidence in the work, well, there are two ways, the person who's incompetent, they may have less to do, so then that's actually, that's worse for you unless you like this. - Right, it makes you more work for you, whatever. - But anyway, those are sort of the stakes. And so then there's this, there's this soldier, Willy Santiago, who is trying to get transferred 'cause he doesn't like being at Guantanamo Bay. And then he ends up dead. And there's all this talk of like of a code red. And a code red is when the other members of the platoon, I guess, decide to just, you know, rough up the guy, so he falls in line. And that, this is a, it's a, it's, this comes up often in the movie at an important point in the courtroom. This isn't like a written down thing. It is a social shock. - So that does a great scene about that, right? Where they're testifying and, - It's Noah Wiley, who's testifying. - Noah Wiley's testifying, right? And Cruz says, or I think it's Kevin Bacon, the prosecutor says, or the, yeah, the prosecutor, I guess. Where is this in the, in the, in the, the official Marine handbook? And he can't say. - Yeah, and then Cruz takes the handbook and says, where's the mess hall in the, - I know, but don't you think that's a bad, I understand it's effective in the court. - Well, no, it's theoretically bad. - No, I wanted to bring that up. I mean, like it's, it's a retort, like it works because of rhetoric, you know, like it's a retortical trick. But the, because it almost, it almost detracts, I think, from Cruz's point. - Yes. - Which is, and this is the kind of the big thing, and this is what Cruz is trying to say about, like this is a, is a socially understood thing that everyone who's in Marine knows that they don't, just, it's not just that he can do, but it must be done, okay? - Yes. - And so there's this interesting thing in the movie where it's towing the line between, like you cannot defend the people who did this, 'cause he ends, 'cause Santiago ends up dying, and they didn't think that the two people who did it didn't think that they, - They were trying to kill him. - They weren't trying to kill him, that it wasn't, that it was an accident. And there is like medical possibility. Christopher Guest and one of his only serious roles, I think as the doctor who may have misvaluated really Santiago, it's, anyway, so there are all kinds of, all kinds of things in the film and the adjudication of it, but the point is that it's the line that the defense is trying to tow between not doing the, they were just following orders, like they're trying not to say that, but it's not, that it actually doesn't matter if there was an order or not. There was this understanding that this must be done. And so that's kind of where in this film, I think it runs a little counter to the idea of super ego-adcontroiment, because in the end, it turns out the Jack Nicholson character is the one who ordered the code red, and he has to be obeyed, but what the defense is proving, it's trying to prove, like I think, is that this is a practice, this is not just, this is not, it's almost irrelevant if it's an order, but if it's a matter of, I know. It has to be followed, but it's irrelevant at all. It's just like it must be done. If someone is acting in this way, this must be done. And so this is where the, you know, Slavoy's point and your point is kind of diverged, because I think the super ego-adcontroiment, it comes more from the big other, and not from a singular person. And so, and this injunction, this edict coming from the, from the Nicholson character, from the commander of the General, I forget what his rank is. - Lieutenant Colonel Nathan Jessup, I think. - There we go, nice and done by you. - That he gives the order, and so then it's like he is the one who is at fault, because this is not a thing that is legal. It's not really within the Marine Handbook, but it is also, it is how things are supposed to be done. And so, like the, yeah, I can see why Slavoy went to the, that film also would have been proximate to when he was writing the book. So I think he just, he saw it and it occurred to him to write - So '94. - Yes, that's correct. Yeah. And, but the, it's because it is personalized, and it comes from a singular figure, it, I think it runs a little bit counter to, - Yeah, agree. - The idea of super ego-adcontroiment, and I think it runs a little bit counter to what we were talking about, which again, is it like, it's not, it's not a, it's not Bavino or Trump or Homan who are, like it doesn't matter that they, even if they are telling these ICE agents to do exactly what they did, the horror of it is that that is the social understanding amongst them of what must be done. - Right, right. In order to belong to ICE, you both, either, you both, you either have to or both, have to do this. - Yes. - You have to look the other way when it's done. - Yes. - And be okay with it, right? Like it's, I think it's exactly the way that lynching functioned to create community, white community in the south, right? Like you, you didn't have to necessarily join in, although you're a little suspicious, but you had to accept it and look the other way. - Yeah. - Right? And you had to be told, you had to be, you could have personal interior reservations, but you could never express them except-- - Which is why fighting for a public amidst all of that runs counter to super-go-conjurement, I think is exactly what is our point here. - I know. We come back every time to a public, but it's important. I mean, it's under threat. - I know, it's so important. I agree, I agree. I think there's nothing more radical in our day than defending the public against the invasion of the privus. - Yeah. - I'm trying to connect a dead vision of the body centers, but invasion of privacy, like the invasion, it's funny, we talk about invasion of privacy all the time, but it's the public is being invaded by privacy, it's not that we're having an invasion of our privacy. That's not the danger. I think that's the, and I think super-go-conjurement is that. That's what's happened, that's what was seeing happen. And I think that's why we should celebrate the people that are actually going, what is protesting? It's saying like I'm going to defend this public space. And I think that that's incredibly, that's a lot of a thing against this, and the law against the force of super-go-conjurement. - I almost think you should say that again, the public is being invaded by privacy. - Yeah, no, I think that's right. It's this invasion of privacy, invasion of the public by the private. And that's what we're seeing. And I think that's what people are. Around the world, I think we talked about Iran, but in other places are trying to stand up against. And so, who knows with what? Success. So. - Nice. - All right, so Ryan, the lesson I think is, again, a film you haven't seen, but last time I encouraged you to see it, and you did see it, so, yes, there we go. - I look at the line, so the, my, and this is my quick take, which are really nice in about, it was just an accident is one of among the, oh, can you mind me the last name of the filmmaker? I'm spacing. - Penahe, jifar. - Penahe, okay, penahe does a really wonderful job in that film of showing in little ways, how does the regime in Iran, how is it like stabilized and it's through the, like individual, small corruptions. - Oh. these three scenes in the movie where the characters who are negotiating a moral dilemma about whether this guy is or is not a person who turned them over for torture. Torture? Yeah, just torture of them. And if he is that person, if they should kill him, on this long day's journey and tonight that they embark upon, there's three moments where they have to pay for things to continue the secrecy of what they're doing. At each point, they're basically politely robbed each time. They're asked to pay more to these parking attendants. To pay a bribe. Yeah, these bribes. To pay more for buying dates. To pay at the hospital. And so I think it's pretty clear this point by Penaji that it's like, yes, it's obviously the regime and the regime is terrible and horrible. But there's also this insidiousness of it is how it warms its way into every day practices amongst people who are under foot of it. It's a really, really nice point by him. It's a fascinating idea that your participation corruption is the way that you support the oppressive regime. Yeah. It's just a great point, right? It's a great point because you think, what does my corruption have to do with anything? But no, that's how it keeps going. Right? So I think it's just incredible. Again, I'm one of my favorite films I've ever seen. No other choices in that high, but I think it is the lesson for today. Watch no other choice. And enjoy it. That's right. And enjoy it. Nice. Okay. Over it out, right? Over and out, huh? [Music] [Music]