Pervert-Schizoid-Woman

 

Foreword

Buggery & Blowjobs — and Perverse Philosophy

 

 

By Andy Pink

 

Sex is boring.

 

— Michel Foucault

 

 

I think sex is boring too. I suppose it depends on the relative excitement of the rest of life. But I do think sex is boring. Foucault is the master of discourses and tropes, institutions and apparatuses, and powers and knowledges. Sex is boring because it is the simultaneous Outside and Center of these sexy gizmos and erotic gadgets of the culture. Freud’s work on infantile sexuality suggests that the entirely erotized body of the infant makes every entity and each movement — object and aim — an act of sex. In contrast, adult sexuality is limited to a few holes and a couple of bulges in the act of dominant phallocentric copulation. Growing up is losing your sexuality. The substitutions for this loss are the Foucauldian symptoms of discourses, institutions, and powers. Fundamentally, the tropes of sexuality fascinate, and the acts of sex bore. Perversely, the symptom is the sinthome, and the return of the repressed is the recurrence of jouissance. The erotics of flirtation and recoil which surround sex but simultaneously exclude it are the Foucauldian symptoms of tropes, apparatuses, and knowledges. The perverse implantation is an allure. The sex at the empty center of this erotics is a bore. The écriture of these discourses and tropes, institutions and apparatuses, and powers and knowledges rivet Foucault in the work of his oeuvre. In contrast, the bare nucleus of sex sedates Foucault. Sex may be boring, but the Victorian (and our own) chatter about sex is erotic and seductive. Why engage in tedious sex when you can commit to obscenely writing around it?

 

Buggery

 

Deleuze notoriously said that his deviant readings of philosophers (such as Kant, Nietzsche, Foucault, Proust, Bergson, and so on) was “a sort of buggery” of these male philosophers — of butt-fucking in the most pleasurable sense of such a perverse philosophical master signifier (Deleuze 1997: 6). This butt-fucking involves bending the philosopher over and reaming him with his phallus. Surely, Deleuze, a noted Lacanophobe, would prefer the word penis, or a more vernacular signifier for the male appendage, such as objet petit a penis petit de lacan. In some formal formats, Deleuze, ever the top — of Guattari, no doubt — could only see the muscled back of his fancied bottom with his face blind to the buggerist. The faceless fuck whose gaze is turned toward the back of the bedpost or the top of the toilet invites a specific grasp of Deleuze’s queer interpretations of his bottom-philosophers. Deleuze barely knows these philosopher-fucks. This is so even if their intellectual and sexual reputations precede the rapport sexuel et intellectuel. The philosopher-fuck can be forced into anonymity because the bottom’s face is veiled from the thrust of Deleuze’s intellectual position. Deleuze’s intellectual butt-fucking will not engage the philosopher face-on in a direct and uncircuitous hustle. Deleuze’s sexual and intellectual maneuvers are not lost on the sexy spirit of the philosopher — a perhaps unwitting whore — whose ass feels the affective blow of Deleuze’s deepest thrusts.

 

The orientation of Deleuze’s entry into the sexual and intellectual butt-fucking is unseen by the sexual slave. He is tied to the bedpost, or he is blindfolded in the bathroom. The bottom can only have an obscured gaze at Deleuze’s techniques of buggery. This faceless fuck makes Deleuze’s interpretations free and inventive because the potential anonymity of the bottom’s face releases the fucker from a vigilance toward the originality and specificity of the body of the gazeless text. But the bottom may ask himself: “What mode of reading of the fucker’s jouissance will Deleuze deploy during our scene of the ass-reaming?” More so, “Who is this perverse sadistic philosopher, Gilles Deleuze?” “Why have I agreed to let him bend me over and fuck me?” “Or is this simply a rape of convenience of the svelte graduate student by his daddy advisor?” “How does the integrity of my bodily and textual being sustain Deleuze’s aggressive penetration?” The faceless bottom cannot return the gaze (gays) of a Deleuzean gaze (bi?) which misses the object of its aim. His (pineal) eyes gaze at the bedpost or the toilet or the well-oiled 1960 Corvette convertible which frame the mise-en-scène of buggery. The bottom cannot refuse the textual fuck. Like an OK Cupid or Tinder or Grindr (et al.) anonymous date, both sexual and intellectual partners know little about each other before they meet at the bar and quickly turn to the bedroom — or bathroom, as may be (would be) the case for Guattari. This anonymous fuck enables the freedom of textual fucking — top and bottom, author and reader, and perverse philosopher, too.

 

Deleuze’s butt-fucking is certainly preceded by readings of these whores. But this intellectual labor is part of the buggery itself. The lay is long. The foreplay and dénouement involve quite the fag — in the British sense of chore. A fag can often be a component of a sexy role-playing scene. I do wonder the mise-en-scène that Deleuze enjoys. Clearly in Foucault (1986), the title character is a fabulous — but bored — leather queen. Foucault and his boredom are perhaps too monstrous for even Deleuze. The sexual and intellectual engagement is a priori anonymous. This is so even if both top and bottom are familiar with each other’s bodies of work. Deleuze, the archetypal philosopher-fucker, and even Lacan, the paradigmatic phallus-fetishist, are free to fuck as they wish. The whore (say, Kant) even pays for Deleuze’s sexual and textual labor with payment for the exceptional interpretation of the whore’s own body of work. He (say, Kant) candidly submits to all techniques of butt-fucking — at the bedpost, in the bathroom, aerobatic doggystyle, bridge, cliff diver, juvenile, cliffhanger, among others. These maneuvers are contingent upon the mise-en-scène and the sexual roles. There are so many ways to fuck a philosopher — it is no wonder that Deleuze had such a hot and bothered career. But my career will be hotter. The specific philosophers and chosen theorists that I fuck in my book welcome the myriad sexual positions from which I approach their asses and mouths.

 

Another crucial integrant of Deleuze’s philosophical ass-fucking is that most of his chosen bottoms are dead. Deleuze’s gay sex is decidedly necrophilic. The bodies are cold, locked in graves, situated in cemeteries with gravestones, and rarely visited. Why does Deleuze bother to butt-fuck an old dead white man rather than a young buck full of cum? Why fuck the S2 of the extant academic philosophical order when you can become the S1 pervert’s master signifier of the embryonic canon of Perverse Philosophy? As Lacan says of the generation(s) of the pervert’s S1 master signifier: “If the analyst doesn’t speak, what might become of this swarming production of S1’s? Many things, surely” (Lacan 2007: 35). This book is my series of Perverse Philosophy master signifiers. These novel words, unexpected phrases, innovative symbols, unfamiliar vocabularies, outrageous theses, misplaced letters, and screwed alphabets are the master signifiers — now — of the future of the perverse philosopher. The Becoming of these master signifiers unfolds in Pervert-Schizoid-Woman. The analyst is as yet silent, taking notes and sketching illustrations. The analyst silently notates and sketches — reading and writing and studying. Notes and sketches — these are the transitions toward the future.

 

Both Deleuze and I qua buggerists are committed to the transformation of the tradition. The purpose of reading the classics — even if odd ones — is to produce the deconstructive so-imagined surprise of otherness. In the case of most of his books, especially on Kant (1963) and Foucault (1986), Deleuze manages to fuck the cum out of them, dead and buried as they are still. But how does this necrophilic philosopher even access the dead? Is the sorcery sex by witch doctor, pow wow, or medicine man? And will such bulwarks of the tradition authorize a necrophilic buggery of such honored academic whores? Or does the tradition of the fuck remember its past tricks? What becomes of the formerly sexy bear of an S2 of the university system of academic philosophy who has been displaced by the boyish twink and the symptom (sinthome) of the generation(s) of new master signifiers of Perverse Philosophy? Whatever the answer, Deleuze stole the graves and fucked the dead. If the spirits of these dead white men were sufficiently animate, then they surely ejaculated all over a Deleuze who used their and his own sperm as the ink for his books. The transfiguration of the tradition — deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis — is internal to the figuration of the tradition. But if the outside (is) the inside, then who summons the Outside? There is the Spirit of a dead man in this book. It is around this corpse that I write.

 

Sucks

       

The difference between anal sex and the blowjob is visible in both theory and practice. Anal sex can be anonymous in its traditional form with the cute face behind the muscled back, with squeals and wails without a public face. The blowjob is profoundly public like the foreplay in this preface. I relish my role as the masochistic bottom and passive but also active mouth-giver. The masochist enjoys a paradoxical pleasurable pain. This masochism is a contradiction in economy. Freud does not satisfactorily resolve this paradox in his account of the masochistic economy of jouissance. The masochist enjoys the deconstruction of his body and the torture of welts and bruises on the smooth skin of his torso, back, legs, butt, and even appendage. He savors the smack across the face in direct gaze (gays) of the eye(s) from the perverse twink’s juicy cock. This masochist takes pleasure in this pain with a gust of what Lacan calls the feminine jouissance of the Other. This trespasses the orderly debt and return — boner and shoot — that otherwise rule the phallocentric pleasure principle of tension and release. But the physical pain is only a secondary effect of the psychological torture — that is the part that I love — of the deferral of the correct interpretation, the postponement of the orgasm, the suspension of the proper hermeneutic, and the interrupted adjournment of the interface between the head of the penis and the pink of the lips of the beautiful boy. The purpose of the pervert’s blow is to endlessly drain a sem(en)iotics whose seme is never forever unloaded.

 

This feminine jouissance does not get off on the momentary arrival of the sexual letter which is tightly packaged for him to receive. Rather, the pervo philosopher goes off of the structuralist cliff of circumspection and circumcision — cut: a requirement — and circumlocution and circumnavigation of the dick in question. The perverse philosopher begs the letter to dump (on) him with unspeakable coldness. Then the letter circulates among the other boys only to later be dispatched post-party to other orgies and circle jerks of jerky circles of jerked off jerky intellectuals. This decidedly feminine mode of jouissance is an endless ejaculation for the schizoid and his partner, the pervo philosopher. The deferred circumspection and circumcision (again: requirement) and circumlocution and circumnavigation and even circumstance animate the masochism of the feminine jouissance and its postponed climax of sperm and saliva. Écriture around the blowjob differs and defers — différance — the tedious and bored departure and arrival, and commencement and destination, of the dénouement of the present essence in the ontological order of the doxa of sex. But if the letter is in suspension above the abyssal plunge into the void of an interminable squirt, then can sex even begin? Is there an arche to sex? Are we in the midst of the fuck and the suck, at once and now?

 

The masculine jouissance lamely gets off on the correct, the unerred, the respectable, the truthful, the accurate, the flawless, and the flaccid. In contrast, the feminine jouissance recklessly disregards the rules of proper hermeneutics. This feminine perversity and schizophrenia invite a novelty and originality of the rupture of the Real of queer sex — however fucked, wherever sucked, and whatever tucked. The old dead white man’s renarration of the old tricks qua new tricks can never screw such tight ass. The theoretical difference between masculine jouissance and feminine jouissance is that the former is organized by désir in the arrival of a beefcake letter. In contrast, the latter is sculpted by Trieb in the ecstatic circular and expansive wanders of a lean letter that never arrives at the back of the boy’s throat. If a letter structurally never arrives at its destination, then the écriture of sexuality must displace the tedium and boredom of sex. But how does the pervo philosopher symbolize around sex in his frenzied mania of aroused titillation? How does the pervert write with a boner? And whose dick’s head does he suck?

 

Size Queens

 

The blowjob works the shaft of the penis. The blowjob licks and tastes. The shaft is the imaginary embodiment of the intellectual prowess of the penis. The masochistic bottom frequently twists and flips. No one — at least not me — refuses the give of the take, upside down and right-side up, of critical access to the shaft. This is so especially of Marx who dreams of a communist suckfest of free condoms. The perverse philosopher blowster intellectually savors the taste, aesthetic, and sensibility of the texture of the shaft. The blowjob relishes — smacks its lips over — not the philosophical phallic knowledge of the top who happily receives the suck. The bottom salivates over the style and grace of the glorious cock. But whose dick’s head is under scrutiny and over sexed? How does the gay pervo philosopher write around the object of its critique?

 

The blowjob is fascinated by substance. The taste of this substance at the (in)completion of the job is the reward for a fanatical cherish of the aesthetic and sensibility — material texture of the signifier — of the shaft. The young pervert and feverish schizoid do not adore the phallus as the so-called transcendental signifier of the knowledge of the conventional ontological order of the present. This doxa is precisely the object of disavowal in the mise-en-scène of the sexual encounter between frenzied faggots. Rather, the pervy twink loves the penis and its textual arch, intellectual technique, and academic vintage. But if the roguish style and classic periodicity of the object is its fascination, then how are the old iconoclasms to be transformed into the new undergrounds? How is a Perverse Philosophy to be born anew? How does the queer philosopher displace the master’s signifier of heteronormative academic philosophy and its reproductions of canonical interpretations and replications of forefathers before them?

 

The babyish pervo culturalist and queer schizoid philosopher moan and groan and fuck and suck. They blow a tradition that they must swallow (and later spit) in order to turn tricks beyond Deleuze’s bottoms. The perverse philosopher decidedly butt-fucks and sucks-ass whatever he wants — or whatever is available at the library, at the bookstore, or online. The pervert’s project is to blow the young dudes — what I sometimes refer to as — This is Ungodly Wrong — bleach blond, slack jawed, and profoundly dumb. The pervo philosopher transfigures the old blokes into young guns. Perverse Philosophy revolutionizes the extant — deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis — with perverse and schizoid interpretations of these classics of nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and German philosophy. The perverse philosopher reads the text against the veins of the shaft. My schizophrenic risk is to do so without proper reference to the le propre (proper, property, ownership, possession, mineness) of hermeneutics. My perverse risk is to do so with proper reference to my master signifiers of the future of the Pervert-Schizoid-Woman. But what is the rotational arche of the master signifier that upends and twists the master’s signifiers?

 

The Pervert’s Generation(s)

 

The young, hung, and soaked with S1’s master signifier schizoid philosopher has an intellectual — not to say sexual — contribution to the embryonic tradition of Perverse Philosophy. Is Deleuze’s obsession with reading strange but dead philosophers not a sexual and textual exclusion of the newer and twinkier — perverse and schizoid — generation? Does Deleuze’s fancy for older white men not marginalize the next generation of twinks, jocks, otters, and the generalized skittles of the future? What of the creative arts of the generators of the future S1 master signifiers of the idiosyncratic imagination of the young queer nipper and the coy faggoty wean? What about the specialized jargon — catachresis Sameness+ — of the teenage gays whose fabulous labor promises the tout autre of the future? Likely, Deleuze would respond that the interpretation of those sexy old white men is the proviso of the creation of this new revolutionary hottt set of perverse S1 master signifiers. The sexy schizoid opens his ass toward the future of sexy text. Deleuze’s philosophical ass-reaming of the old is an invitation to the pervert’s generation(s) of the novel master signifiers of a hot, young, and hung — cut — pervo philosopher. This perverse schizoid whose sexual and intellectual practices are different from the now deceased Deleuze will read a tradition of deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis. But this interpretation will be subject to the generation(s) of the master signifier. What will your master signifier be(come)? How will the masters and their words respond to the rotation and revolution of an interpretation of their critical exegesis and innovative destruktion?

 

Qua perverse philosopher of this book, my master signifier S1’s emerge from a classic tradition whose shaft I read against the stains. These classics are the canonical thinkers of the limit-thought in deconstruction (Saussure, Derrida, Heidegger), Marxism (Marx, Althusser, Balibar), and psychoanalysis (Freud, Lacan). The distinction of this schizoid philosopher’s set of master signifiers is that these words reinvent these classics with original reconceptualization and innovative reinterpretation. Surely, Marx will make his phallic-dialectical appearance as a philosopher. But as any academic knows, such a Marxist fuck can be cheap and bare (and bear, I would say). Marx will be our sexy daddy lamester hybrid chic. Of course, Freud and Lacan will sex-out our coming-out. But as any psychoanalyst knows, such a Freudian fuck and Lacanian lay can be rushed and costly (and worthy, I would say). Freud and Lacan will be our sexy trans flamester fused faggots. The deconstructionists will confuse sex to the point of absolute incomprehensibility. But as any pervert knows, such a deconstructive fuck can be repeatable and reiterable (and renowned, I would say). The deconstructionists will be our sexy jock jerkoffster mongrel homo(s). But this new form of textual sex will be neither a Deleuzean buggery nor a butt-fucking from behind. Rather, this author wills his textual violence and his Perverse Philosophy master signifier in the blowjob.

 

The distinction of the pervert’s cohort is the generation(s) of master signifiers. These master signifiers are precisely the obverse — extimately — of the master’s signifiers. The latter are a reinscription of the tradition which is devoid of the master signifier. The master signifier is the cocksucker’s shocker of an invention and bewilderment of an intervention in the incipient tradition of Perverse Philosophy. In contrast, the master’s signifier is the academic’s routine and habitual defense of the tradition without the ruckus introduction of the tout autre. The master signifier is the word around which the circles of alphabets and spirals of vocabularies swirl and swish. The word is seductively encircled but not aggressively punctured. The word is written around in the Praxis of the symbolization of the Real. This work is the condition of (im)possibility of the gap between the doer and the deed in being-in-the-world and being-with-others.

 

Cocksucking

 

     Any academic preface on theory and blowjobs requires an academic analysis of a theory of blowjobs. For the latter, I look to the cultural anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, and his sustained erection of the theoretical significance of Balinese cockfighting (1973). How does Geertz’s cultural anthropology of Balinese cockfighting illuminate my own queer pervo philosophical cockfighting? These (our) cocks do fight one and other in groups for status and prestige. They do so for what we can only imagine are fiercely contested ranks of queer oppositions: such as a small cock against a big cock, an uncircumcised penis against a circumcised cut of meat, a curved dick against a straight hard-on, and so on. These fights between the prestige of the one and the other’s cock can be a durable battle. The semiotic status of the penis in question is the source of pleasure. The slut’s enjoyment will be the object of the prude’s aggression and jealousy. This is not even to mention the sexy role-plays of cockfighting between daddy and son, master and slave, sadist and masochist, top and bottom, sub and dom, writer and reader, doctor and patient, teacher and student, you and me, and so on. The performance anxiety of esteem and cachet are comparably involved in cockfighting and cockplaying between gay men. The dickbattling and cockfighting is violent and private. But it is also pleasurable and public. How are we to account for these dickish scuffles and peckerish claims for stature and renown?

 

Geertz offers several opinions on the question of the cockfight — but not explicitly on the comparison and contrast and exchange between the small cock and the big dick, the uncircumcised penis and the meaty cut, the curved appendage and the straight erection, the shaved twink’s dick and the hairy bear’s cock, and so on. The gay Balinese cockfighter, or Bali-faggot, participates in a social practice of the dickwrestle which indicates that: “to be teased is to be accepted” (Geertz 1977: 416). But who is the “teased”? Who is the “teaser”? There is plenty of “teasing” in homo culture — of boys, boyfriends, tricks, fashions, tunes, drag performances, and heteros. But there is also “teasing” of race, class, (trans)gender, nation, disability, and other sources of campy derision of both close identification and ambivalent distance. Theorists consistently “tease” each other. They are even dicks about it. They make fools of themselves and each other in their jeers and scoffs of the other’s body of work. Zizek — both as top and bottom of such lampoon — is an adequate phallic archetype for this jibe. But I think that Zizek’s dick is rife for sneers and jeers only because it is so fucking big. The tease may accept the other — but at the cost of an estrangement. Whose hairy balls are a bit too shaggy to shag?

 

The Cockfight

 

There is also the rampant “teasing” of the penis itself. My project cock-teases the authors that it appropriates, elaborates, and critiques. I want to enkindle a drool from the dead writers — Derrida, Saussure, Heidegger, Marx, Freud, and Lacan — whom I desire to displace and twist in order to illuminate the perverse master signifiers of this book. This form of necrophilic sex is unbridled in the academy. Screwing writers of all sorts, such as Medieval faggots and Renaissance queers, is protocol. This textual cock-teasing is simply a smoke or a razz to poke borak. The object of playin’ is not the substance of the work. But this is also up for a jizz. Rather, the jive is to make a monkey — as Henry Louis Gates Jr., author of The Signifying Monkey (1992), may call “playin’ the dozens” — out of a banana. Peeled. As the queer monkey of those tales may say: “He said, you might as well stop, there ain’t no use tryin’ / because no motherfucker is gonna stop me from signifyin’” — around the cock, the balls, the ass, the pecs, the abs, the shoulders, the arms, and the legs of the handsome gay man (Gates Jr. 1989: 58).

 

There are certainly dozens of these gays to play. The anticipatory hustle is not unlike the Gestalt identification in the mirror in Lacan’s boudoir. This peckerstruggle involves the teaser and the teased. The sham battle entreats the porno spectator who happily trades his exclusion in the scene for a voyeurism of bodies. These lovely hunks are distanced in the voyeuristic fuck encounter and suck session. This cock- and-ball brawl is the most prestigious battle of status and identity, as Geertz makes clear, of the fracas between these gorgeous penises. But must the body be the site of the errors of identification and the series of symptoms — narcissism, aggression, anxiety, and so on — that betray the fragility of status and identity? If so, then how could the body be reconceived in order to return it to neither ourselves nor the Other — but to the Other of the Other ad infinitum? But if the body must be the locus of meconnaissance, then is there a source of honor and image in a semiotic system which is beyond the body altogether? Langue? Can discourse write around the body? Or must the body inevitably be scraped and clipped by the word?

 

The identification with the cock can become a Gestalt for the lucky ones. Besides eminence and prominence, as Geertz notes, the very identification with the cock of the intellectual rod-tug-of-war breeds an Ideal-I. Of all of the dicks in my bedroom, it is probably Marx and the revolutionary band of young queer dick-battlers who deserve the last drop. I will admit of my lust for Lacan who must wield his transcendental signifier of a phallus against the likes of Derrida’s phallogocentrism and Foucault’s spirals of power and pleasure. Geertz takes note of this bout which concerns identification with the penis and desire for the dick of the other. But, at the same time, he also contends that the cockfight and the cock itself are associated with “what the Bali-faggot fears, hates, and ambivalence being what it is, is fascinated by — ‘The Powers of Darkness.’”5 Whose darkness is of such power?

 

The academy “fears” and “hates” the pervo philosopher. This boy is the 6’, 145, strawberry blond, 7.5 thick — who tyrannizes the academy with his Perverse Philosophy. The boy with the boner upends and unzips — around — the university discourse and the knowledge of the master with the valor of his young, dumb, and full of cum cock. This sexual top-to-bottom 69 involves the honor and image of the longest and thickest books (Zizek), or the most tightly packaged publications (Zizek, Verso), or the sadistic dominance of the lecture circuit (Zizek), or the pretense to a self-hating queer madness (Zizek). But why is such “fear” and “hatred” among the cock-theorists an invitation to an ambivalence toward “The Powers of Darkness?” (Geertz 1977: 420). Whose darkness is this? Can it be written? – and around?

 

The perverse faggot’s peckerish ambivalence toward his own penis is an effect of the phallic enforcement of the self-sameness and self-identity of the phallus qua general equivalent. The penis is an imperfect Gestalt: not big enough, too small, slightly curved, shamefully erect, a grower not a shower, Jewishly cut, white trash uncut, clean, herpes'd, tattoo’d, ring’d (and so on). These “powers of darkness” invite homosexual panic into the mise-en-scène of the abject of Kristeva’s Powers of Horror (Kristeva 1986: 1-31). Fear of the abject suggests a paradoxical internalized rejection of the proviso of self, order, system, and knowledge. The deathly negation of Eros within cock-intellectual circles is as rampant as blowjobs in the bathrooms at the MLA — not so much. But this paradox of dick-abjection implies a hard-hand-job-and-fast-erection distinction between an open mouth with red lips and its transgression by a ready cock and a seeped precum. This is the making of the sexed abject. What is abjected from the penis in order to make a gay sex life possible? Is this abject the expulsion — of whom? — around which sex and its irrelevant object is displaced by sexuality and its generation(s) of accidental faddish fashions and contingent master signifiers?

 

Perverse Philosophy

 

The intellectual cockfight is not simply between academics. Rather, it materializes and embodies the entire academic discourse of the university in the body, torso, abs, legs, and ass. Geertz continues with the observation that “the migration of the [Bali-faggot] status hierarchy [is represented in] the body of the cockfight” (Geertz 1977: 436). The wiener-war is not simply between intellectuals. Rather, the cockfight and the battle between academic-dick and professor-dick is institutional and disciplinarial within/out colleges and universities. Dick-war wages between these institutions and their relationships to the world, such as to book publications, article reviews, public symposia, journal submissions, tea-room sex, and beyond. The cock-clash is between philosophy and Perverse Philosophy, or between anthropology and Perverse Philosophy, or between comparative literature and Perverse Philosophy, or between art history and Perverse Philosophy, or between sociology and Perverse Philosophy. At its most virulent and lovely, the ruckus is between the faggot pervert and the queer schizoid and their intellectual and revolutionary partnership. The latter semen-struggles between disciplines are an effect of the mirrored narcissism of men and their studies — or between the sample of muscle clones and the pages of queer theory in San Francisco.

 

My book settles these cocky concerns with an interdisciplinary approach: Perverse Philosophy. It is at once dickishly wet and academically dry. A scholar in its antecedent academic movement, Colin Sparks, says that Cultural Studies is a

veritable rag-bag of ideas, methods, and concerns from literary criticism, sociology, history, media studies, etc., [which] are lumped together under the convenient label of Cultural Studies (Sparks, in Storey 2009: 14). The virginal Sparks fails to underscore the sexual subtext of much hottt interaction between the sexy gab of Banana Republic and J.Crew outfitted scholars. But his summation of the methodology and project of Cultural Studies is vanilla but penetrative. This book makes a contribution to Perverse Philosophy as a homo circle jerk with my gay brothers and dyke sisters, and so on. It is a pochette of a cornucopia of wild side theory that is inspired by the aforementioned philosophy, anthropology, comparative literature, art history, sociology, and other studies. These disciplines are stuck together in the spoodge of deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis. But what are the new master signifiers which supplant the master’s signifier’s of the différance of Derrida, the dialectical materialism of Marx, and the unconscious of Freud? Does the nouvelle génération of perverse philosophers tote a notepad and sketchbook — writing and reading and studying — toward the telos of adultery.

 

The difference between academic philosophy and Perverse Philosophy is that the latter technique of scholarship brazenly invents master signifiers — new concepts, bizarre neologisms, and wacky vocabularies which rip from — and then riff off — of the classic tradition. Lacan introduces the concept of the master signifier in the Seminar on the other side of psychoanalysis (1969-70). The master signifier is a node in a series of discourses: the discourse of the master, the discourse of the university, the discourse of the hysteric, and the discourse of the analyst. A proper intuition of the generations(s) of master signifiers in this perverse and schizoid endeavor requires an exegesis of the four discourses toward my invention of a fifth discourse: the perverse masterly analyst who is the condition of the generation(s) of master signifiers. This perverse masterly analyst is the proviso of the dickier and dykier generation(s) of experimental conceptual personae.

 

The Discourse of the Master

 

According to Lacan, the master’s discourse is the fundamental discourse around which the other discourses revolve. The master discourse is the intersectional bond between subjectivities and socialities. The penultimate position in this structure is occupied by the master signifier or S1. The master signifier is the Becoming of the idiosyncratic and peculiar expression of the hysterical — perverse, weird, crazed, queer, schizoid, imprisoned, and so on — subject to the extant system (s) and to the battery of all of the other signifiers in the Other or S2. A surplus — which is an unbalanced loss and gain — is produced in the objet a of jouissance. But totalization cannot suppress the trace and différance of an excess to mastery. This slip and slide of the fables of the undergrounds and the truths of the prisons subverts the codified knowledge of the master. The split subject of disengaged desires and repressed truths is occluded in the discursive rapport of the master discourse.

 

The master is the archetypal academic philosopher whose normative defense of the tradition is at the center of the relationship between subject and Other. Academic philosophy is a masterful repetition of the tradition. This orthodox academic philosophy contrasts with a queer Perverse Philosophy that happily admits that it is unlettered of its own letters in its text. The academic philosophical master dominates qua enunciator of the extant knowledge of the system. The academic appropriates the epistemes — dyke arts, queer styles, gay sciences, schizoid techniques, weirdo aesthetics, young sensibilities, and so on — as its own. The pervo philosopher slave inherits the text because he produces his own master signifier — not the master’s signifier — as the wacky and wingy essence of désir (or Trieb) of the Perverse Philosopher as a question. Heteronormative academic philosophy defends, secures, and publicizes its metaphysics in the university. Perversion offends, displaces, and disseminates its queerness in the undergrounds.

 

But it is crucial to note that the master’s philosophical metaphysics of presence of the dominant structures of knowledge — in this work: patriarchal phallocentrism, capitalist scarcity, and linguistic absence — govern and prepare the pervo slave for the wry and dry rebellion against the academic philosophical master. The Perverse Philosopher incorporates the literacy and erudition of the hetero philosophical master. This internalization — reading and writing and studying — is the proviso for the sly rebellion and clever revolt against the system. The consideration — reading and writing and studying — of the tradition is the condition of the Perverse Philosophical invention of the novel alphabets and letters and unforeseen master signifier (from S1 to S2 to S3 and so on). What is your master signifier? This is exactly the obverse of the proper proposal of this question.

 

The master of knowledge — in this book: psychoanalytic canon and patriarchy, capitalist economics and scarcity, the sign rather than signifier of langue — may be the agent of the S1 master signifier. But this ancestral academic philosophical master’s signifier is displaced by the revolution and rotation of perverse and schizoid discourses in the generation(s) of master signifiers — weird vocabularies, wacko neologisms, and madcap conceptual personae — in time and space. The masterful philosopher’s S1 master signifier of the present is (will be of the future) the queer pervert’s S1 master signifier of the tout autre. The transformation of academic to renegade, traditionalist to comrade, hetero to queer, university to undergrounds, ordinary to pervert, normal to schizoid, and man to Pervert-Schizoid-Woman is the wager of the generation(s) of master signifiers in the annuls of social and historical innovation.

 

The heterosexual master appropriates the excess (unbalanced loss and gain of jouissance) of the hysteric’s labor. But this process of tussle with the straight master of the heteronormative tradition is the proviso for the invention of the tout autre of the hysteric’s nonpareil and unique master signifier of Perverse Philosophy. The division between master/slave is tenuous. The gap between mastery and slavery shifts over the expanses of space and time. The master is the agent who puts the slave to work. The result is a surplus, objet a, that the hetero academic philosopher struggles to appropriate but which the perverse philosopher bequeaths as his own original contribution to and transformation of the tradition. Straight mastery and queered insurrection are flip-sides of the same constitutive movement of hard rule and roguish rebellion. Qua slave, Perverse Philosophy inherits the academy. Qua slave, Pervert-Schizoid-Woman inherits the future.

 

The Discourse of the University

 

The university discourse is an anticlockwise quarter turn of the discourse of the heteronormative master. Pivotally, the philosophical master and acculturated pervert are separated only by a différance of delay in space and time. The master’s signifier and the master signifier are identical except for a crucial social and historical delay in the generation(s) of the generation of the mastery of academic philosophy and the faggotry of Perverse Philosophy. The authoritative position in the university discourse is occupied by the extant savoir of the system. The structures of (s) in this book are patriarchy, capitalism, and language. The bureaucracy of the patriarch, economist, and linguist is animated by the enterprise to enforce — transmit and relay — a fabled metaphysics. This dynamic involves the repression — constraint and control — of the hysterics, polys, madmen, queers, weirdos, outsiders, demiromantics, lamesters, and so on. These are the men, women, and the rest of us to whom bureaucratic paperwork and university requirements are relayed and assigned. The academic hetero traditional knowledge is situated in the apparatus of the university departments and the mise-en-scène of the government and the corporation. These institutions cannot be divided or opposed under global capitalism. Foucauldian discourses and tropes, institutions and apparatuses, and powers and knowledges constitute this system. The dispositif is the locus of the subjugation of the wily perverts and deranged schizoids and their cultural and philosophical dalliances.

 

But it is key to note that the corporation and the government and their relays in the academy of the heteronormative master of philosophy are internal to the hystericization — motivation and activation — of the desire of the queer hysteric and the inspired innovation of her master signifier (S1, S2, S3, and so on). $-ism (pronounced: /SCHIZ-em/) cannot be understood as a merely regressive system. Rather, the traditional discourse of philosophy — government and corporation (et al.) — condition the emergence of the reinvention of the future pervo philosopher. The bureaucracy of academic philosophy is internal to the revolution of Perverse Philosophy. This insurrection of the perverse philosopher of the undergrounds is internal to the academic philosophy of the bureaucracy. The relationship between academic bureaucratic philosophy and perverse undergrounds philosophy is extimate — torus-like inside-outsideness and outside- insideness like-torus — such that the academic heritage and the revolutionary undergrounds are constitutive of the other. There is no discrete division and opposition between the function of the bureaucracy of academic philosophy and its masters and the work of the insurrection of Perverse Philosophy and its undergrounds. Where does academic philosophy end and Perverse Philosophy begin? Whose interests are served by a definitive answer to this query? What of the overgrounds?

 

The Discourse of the Hysteric

 

The hysteric’s discourse is produced by a clockwise quarter-turn of the discourse of the academic philosopher who is — in social and historical delay — the hysteric of the philosophy of the undergrounds. The hysteric — madman, queer, weirdo, aromantic, outsider, pervert, lamester, agender, and so on — are articulated and inscribed in this discourse. The split subject of $-ism (pronounced: /SCHIZ-em/) is the symptom. The symptom is a representative of the inspiration of the master’s signifier of the bureaucracy or the delayed perverse master signifier — S1, S2, S3, master’s master’s master, and so on — of the subject of the tout autre. This Other is the perverse and schizoid undergrounds to the tradition of philosophical bureaucracy and heteronormative academia. The scholar of Perverse Philosophy invents her master signifier as an embryonic holler and yelp from the depths of the unconscious. The undergrounds invents the master signifier. The yachts defend the master’s signifier. Together, these discourses advance academic philosophical epistemes and fucker fables — and: what is the difference? — in a relationship of strict rule but perverse resistance to the resistance (et al.).

 

The apex of analysis-work is the hysteric’s invention of the master signifier of the nouvelle génération. The truth of Perverse Philosophy is this will to power of the spirited creation of conceptual personae of the as-yet speakable and the as-not writeable. But why is the master signifier of the revolutionary pervo philosopher not merely a symptom of the latently repressed which is cast in the manifest representation of the broken holler and sassy wail? The cut — again: requirement — between the anxious hysteric’s symptom and the pervo philosopher’s master signifier is situated on the axis of the classic tradition and its criss-references and cross-citations — reading and writing and studying — of the master’s signifiers. This research is the proviso of the clarity and coherence of the as-yet and as-not master signifier of the tout autre. The anxious hysteric’s symptom is mad sick because its signification is schizoidly in tortured abeyance. The pretty pervo philosopher’s sinthome is lad dick because its signification is perversely in its enjoyable place. The cut — I am — between the hysteric’s symptom and the pervo’s sinthome is structured by the Freudian theory of sublimation. The patient pervert sublimates his libido toward the ends of the cultivated objects of civilization. These sublimated master signifiers are deemed the new foundations of the undergrounds because they manifest the latent cockamamie with the veneer of the reasonable. The trick of the pervert’s sublimation is the conversion of Unreason into plain and simple truth. Avec jouissance?

— oui, oui!

 

The Discourse of the Analyst

 

The discourse of the analyst is generated by a quarter-turn of the hysteric’s discourse. Freud originates psychoanalysis with an interpretative twist on the incoherent manifest content of the veiled wishes of his hysterics, patients, sickos, freakos, geekos, and tweaksters. Freud listened to the perverse philosophers at a time in which the pretentious masters of neuroscience and psychiatry dismissed their complaints and confusions. The husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons in the lives of these hysterics dismissed them and their Praxis in the undergrounds. The central agent of the analytic discourse is occupied by objet a. The analyst is the object-cause of the analysand's desire and embryonic master signifier (S1 then later S2, and so on). This discourse of analysis is the isomorphic obverse of the discourse of the masterful academic philosopher. Psychoanalysis — and analytic discourse — are a subversive mediation between the master of academic heteronormative academia and the dyke of perverse fairy undergrounds. What is the relationship between the master and the analyst? Who is the psychoanalyst? There is the Spirit of a dead man in this book.

 

The ass pirate battle between the academic philosophy of the university and the Perverse Philosophy of the undergrounds is situated at the axis of two discursive functions: first, the master of academic philosophical episteme of traditional interpretive hermeneutics and mimetic textual analysis of university doxa; and second, the Perverse Philosophical undergrounds of counter-readings and contra-band of the overgrounds. The queer and his perverse master signifier are situated between the discourse of the master and the discourse of the analyst. The pivotal interval in the generation of the generation(s) is the axis of the master and the analyst. But the relationship is not as simple as a divided identification between the traditional philosophical phallocentric sex of the academic master and the perverse cocksucking of the undergrounds analyst. The dead man in this book can neither fuck nor suck.

 

Subject and Signifier

 

The master signifier is a complex concept because there is a distinction between the master signifier and the master’s signifier.10 The master signifier — like any signifier — is that which represents a subject to another signifier. This sound-bite derives from Lacan’s application of Saussurian structuralist linguistics to Freudian psychoanalysis. The signifier is a materiality — neither ideal nor abstract nor speculative — which represents the subject to another bodily and physical signifier. The signifier mediates between corporealities. The signifier mediates between flesh. The decentered subject of the future is a medium between carnalities. Lacan’s point is two-fold. First, the subject does not represent itself. The subject is a soma of physical labor that represents the subject in the place qua substitution of the subject who disappears in aphanasis under the effects of the circles of alphabets and spirals of texts. Second, the subject is realized in the body and physics of the signifier. The subject is another signifier which represents the subject to the cacophony of words in the extant series of letters, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, pages, chapters, and books. The thesis is that the subject is at a distance — delay and deviation — from itself. The self is neither representer nor represented but the liminal effect and intermediary relay between doer and deed. The subject is neither subject nor object. The subject is Becoming the space and time — différance — between words. The subject is the Outside (Inside) of the cascade of alphabets and circulation of vocabularies in the system. The gap between subject and signifier is a difference and deferral between speaker and spoken, between enunciator and enunciated, and between writer and written. The subject is the cut — de rigeur — of the Real gap between these ostensible oppositions. The overlap between subject and signifier is the space and time of the symptom and the sinthome. The queer pervert’s master signifier manifests in the interval of silence between the symptom and its interminably delayed analysis. But does the dead man in this book vanish before it is written or after it is published, and before it is read or after it is studied? Is there an end(s) of the master signifier? Is there the Spirit dead man in this book — yet?

 

The faggoty master queer signifier as opposed to the hetero master’s academic signifier crystallizes the being-in-the-world and being-with-others of the sinthome of the subject in and as a question. The undergrounds master signifier (S1) is a parade of conceptual personae and wacky vocabulary that is not yet the academic master’s signifier (S2). The queer — ? — master signifier paints and sculpts the distinct aesthetic and peculiar sensibility of the perverse subject in and as a question. The orthodox hetero master’s signifier elicits the schizoid rebellion of the perverse hysteric and her unconscious novelty and otherness. Lacan says that at the very instant at which S1 intervenes in the already constituted field of the other signifiers, insofar as they are already articulated with one another as such, that, by intervening in another system, this $, which I have called the subject as divided, emerges (Lacan 2007: 15). There must be a philosophy of the bureaucracy and the university of the master’s signifier of the government and the corporation of the old school new school cool school you school fool school generation that from the perspective of the beautiful boy of the undergrounds arrives in presence as a sleepy and insipid absence.

 

But it is crucial to note that the gap between S1 and S2 — and S2 and S1 — is perspectival and generational. The purportedly self-same and self-identical object is parallactically both the master’s signifier of the metaphysics of hetero academic philosophy and the master signifier of schizoid Perverse Philosophy. The pervo philosopher symbolizes — around — this (a)sexuality of the pervert’s unwound framework. The subject of both academic philosophy and Perverse Philosophy Becomes-Other in the master signifier qua master’s signifier qua master signifier qua master’s signifier qua master signifier qua, and so on. But what are the distinctive criteria which identify the gap between the master’s signifier — to reverse

— of the old school new school cool school you school fool school generation — and master signifier — to reverse — of the beautiful boy of the undergrounds? What is the parallactic gap but overlap — to reverse — between hetero butt-fucking and cocksucking and queer (a)sexuality and its Sameness+? The succession of the generation(s) of academic philosophy and its missionary sexuality, on the one hand, and Perverse Philosophy and its (a)sexuality, on the other hand, is a continuity of displacement of master signifiers. This (r)evolution trades and swaps the governmental and corporate master’s vocabulary and the Pervert-Schizoid- Woman’s master words. Both of these circles of letters and swirls of alphabets alternate in their representation of the queer and the academic, and the schizoid and the traditionalist, to another word. What is this word? Whose word is this? Why must this work be of a subject rather than around a subject?

 

Generation(s)

 

The four social bonds that Lacan outlines are the discourse of the master, the discourse of the university, the discourse of the hysteric, and the discourse of the analyst (Ibid). Lacan explains the necessary conditions for the generation(s) of the master signifier. The displacement of master signifiers between the generation(s) of the hackneyed philosophy of the government and the corporation and the experimental Perverse Philosophy of the queers and the dears, and between the generation(s) of the silver-haired philosopher-kings and the bronze-haired philosopher-queens, is the prerequisite for the discontinuities of history. Lacan explains these transitions and revolutions in the structure of the four social links. There are four positions in the discourses: agent, other, product, and truth. The agent is positioned in the upper left; the agent speaks the discourse. The other is situated in the upper right; the other is the generalized addressee of the écriture of the agent. The product is located in the lower left; the product is the excess that is manifested by the social bond. The truth is placed in the lower left; the truth is the embryonic symbolization of the discourse.

 

The four positions — agent, other, product, and truth — are occupied in the rotation by the variables in the discourses: S1, S2, $, and objet a. The S1 is the master signifier (and master’s signifier); it is both — in delay and deviation — the embryonic and antiquated word. The S2 is le savoir or knowledge; it is the set of epistemes of the Other. The $ is the decentered subject; the subject is simultaneously both the speaker of the statement (je) and the subject (object) of the statement (moi). The a is the object-cause of desire; it is the excess and surplus of jouissance which cannot be smoothly reincorporated and successfully reintegrated into the homeostatic balance of the pleasure principle and the phallocentric system of male orgasm and ejaculation. The rotation of the variables (S1, S2, $, a) around the positions (agent, other, product, and truth) define the four discourses of master, university, hysteric, and analyst. There are sixty- four — and more — potential discourses within a system of four positions and four variables. But Lacan invites others to supplement his own master positions, variables, and discourses.

 

In brief, the discourse of the master articulates from the position of the master signifier (S1, S2) in relationship to antiquated extant knowledge (S2, S1) in the production of the object-cause of desire of a surplus in jouissance and the repression of the split in the subject of the hysteric. The discourse of the university enunciates from the position of vintage knowledge (S2, S1) in rapport with (a)sexual jouissance (a) in the invention of the perverse philosophical subject ($) and the repression of the creative master signifier (S1, S3, and so on). The discourse of the hysteric pronounces from the pervo philosopher split subject ($) in bond with the master’s signifier (S1, S3, and so on) in the production of extant knowledge (S2, S1) and the repression of enjoyment. The analyst’s discourse articulates from the position of jouissance (a) in engagement with the pervo philosophical hysteric in the production of the master signifier (S1, S3, and so on) and the repression of the decrepit knowledge (S2, S4, and so on) of the bureaucracy of the heteronormative government and the patriarchal corporation.

 

Practically, the dominance of the discourse of the master produces a sly jouissance of resistance among the repressed peepers and creepers. This rebellion is a prerequisite for the generation(s) of the new master signifier of the subject in question. The rule of the university discourse entails the predominance of conventional wisdom of the academic philosopher and occasions a hysterical subject who is alienated from her master signifier. This is the situation that both conditions and obstructs the generation(s) of the master signifier of the creative assembly of any new metaphysics of presence, absence, or extimacy. As Lacan puts it: “what leads to knowledge is — allow me to justify this in the more or less long term — the hysteric’s discourse” (Ibid: 23). The hysteric’s discourse engages the master signifier and produces a canonical body of knowledge in the repression of jouissance. This effluvium of creativity otherwise invents a university discourse unto itself. The “more or less” refers to the imbalanced surplus of the spatial and temporal interval of creative innovation of the word. When will your master signifier Become? The generation(s) of the master signifier is an analysis terminable and interminable. There is a dead man in this book. But is his last gasp an exhalation which never stops (not) being written?

 

An example of the creative transformation of the radical into the conventional is the engagement between Freud and the hysterics which produced the twenty-four volumes (1886-1940) of the science of psychoanalysis — an S1 (S2) of hetero philosophy and now an S2 (S1) of Perverse Philosophy. Lacan intimates this knowledge that is pronounced on the side of the analyst in relationship to the discourse of the hysteric: “That one, the second on the blackboard, is the hysteric’s discourse” (Ibid: 25). He continues: “It’s not obvious straight-away but I will explain it to you” (Ibid). Lacan qua analyst will explain — translate from tongue to tongue and publish in article and article — the knowledge that he and Freud gathered in their quiet engagements with the discourses — wails and screams — of the hysterics. The discourse is “not obvious straight-away” because the generation(s) of master signifiers between analyst and hysteric is a work of transliteration between two different tongues — conscious manifest and unconscious latent — within the same language. Lacan describes the technique of this productive relationship and prolific bond between analyst and hysteric: “Freud extracted his master signifiers from the hysteric’s desire” (Ibid: 129). The words of the analysand are retranscribed and retranslated into the master signifier of psychoanalysis: “the unconscious.” But is the booty stolen from the bush? To the credit of the pricked and priced ear: “The analyst says to whoever is about to begin — “Away you go, say whatever, it will be marvelous” (Ibid: 52). It is (will be now but then displaced later) marvelous. The analyst’s ear is pricked and his voice is hopeful. But there is a dead man in this book. When does he stop taking notes and sketching illustrations — reading and writing and studying — and reenter analysis himself’? Or is the analyst qualified to extract the hysteric’s small encyclopedia of mediations because of his facility with tongue-to-tongue translation of manifest and latent, secondary process and primary process, conscious and unconscious, and so on? Until qualified, he takes notes and sketches illustrations.

 

The Discourse of the Pervert

 

The generation(s) of the master signifier — for one of mine: Sameness+ — is the key to the psychical development and social maturation — expansion and extension — of the object. But how is such generative innovation possible in Lacan’s master schema? How must the four discourses be manipulated and arranged — reconfigured and redesigned — in order to generate the master signifier of the generations of subjects as and in question? The Discourse of the Pervert innovates a social bond — anal sex or oral sex or no sex or other sex — of the convergence of two discursive functions: the flippantly dismissive rapport of the discourse of the master and the quiet ear of the discourse of the analyst. The analyst cannot perform his silent magic without the rabble-rousing of the master’s discourse. As Lacan says in the Seminar on the other side of psychoanalysis (1969-70): “this master’s discourse has only one counterpoint, the analytic discourse, which is still so inappropriate” (Ibid: 87). The denotative significance of “counterpoint” is a reference to music. A “counterpoint” is a melody that is situated in conjunction with another melody according to rules and conventions. The relationship between the master’s discourse and the analyst’s discourse is a harmony that must be gingerly scored in accordance with the fixed rules of their engagement. The art of the melodies of master and analyst is the science of (r)evolution of the unimagined brand and the unexpected campaign. Lacan continues: “the psychoanalytic discourse is quite precisely located at the opposite pole from the master’s discourse”(Ibid). The word “opposite” connotes a face-to-face engagement between two different but simultaneously similar objects. The master and the analyst travail in unison with the (un)conscious purpose to hystericize a desire to resist the resistance and to invite the master signifier to sing its tune. But why is the analytic discourse “still so inappropriate,” as Lacan says, to its task? Why must there be a dead man in this book? And on what page does (did) he die?

 

The master’s accidental labor is to provoke a jouissance of resistance to resistance as it is conventionally conceived by the doxa of liberal do-gooder politics and its latte protests and biscotti slogans. The master’s crucial work is to hystericize the désir — and possibly Trieb — of the sickos, weirdos, schizoids, perverts, queers, polys, communists, drop-outs, drop-ins, drop-pants, blowsters, fucksters, young bucksters, and the rest of us. The analyst’s pivotal work is to open a silent space for the enunciation and elaboration of the perverse philosopher’s master signifier. The Discourse of the Pervert is this destined confluence between master of academic vintage and analyst of silent magic. This individual and institutional pair generates the generation(s) of the jouissance of arche-trace in the cosmos. The master snidely hystericizes the pervert. The analyst silently solicits the nouvelle génération. As Lacan puts it, “the analytic practice is, properly speaking, initiated by this master’s discourse” (Ibid: 152). After scorn, who will listen to the rage and wit?

 

This displaced arche of inspiration fashions the subject and Other — man and world — of the being-in-the-world and being-with-others — Spirit of the System — of the next generation (Swhatever, dude). But the pricked ear of the analyst must be complimented by the master’s scornful defense of the new and the different, and the old and the same, and the generalized ontological order of Being as such. The ostensibly conservative master’s discourse whose agent is the master’s signifier, and the apparently oppressive university discourse whose agent is the canon of the metaphysics of the government and the corporation, are keenly constitutive of — extimate to — the radical hysteric’s discourse.  The agent of the hysteric’s song is the decentered subject, and the agent of the analyst’s discourse is jouissance. The perverse masterly analyst haunts this paradoxical bond between master and analyst in the mise-en-scene of the bureaucratic machine.

 

The perverse philosopher’s smart resistance to resistance can only be psychically inspired, bodily motivated, and socially engaged — hystericized — in the metaphysics of presence of the government and the corporation. An absence of a heteronormative father and patriarchal mother — university discourse — barricades the convergence of jouissance and resistance to resistance. The near destruktion of the authority of the academic philosophical master threatens the invention of the inspired laugher and ecstatic cries of the young nipper and coy wean. The effect of this mishandled transmission of tradition is the death of history. The asymptotic and asymptomatic approach of enjoyable resistance, and the generation of the word in the displacement of the S2 by the S1, is the invention of history. The generation(s) of the master signifier note the master and his authoritarian kiss-off and brush-off. As Lacan puts it, “the master subsequently appears only as the instrument, the magnificent Cuckold of history” (Ibid: 171). Who got fucked? And who did they fuck next? There is a historical series of these men, women, and the rest of us.

 

This master — who is no less the scorned husband of an adulteress — is betrayed by the perverse philosopher whose Sameness+ and (a)sexuality become the Cuckold of the next breach in the discontinuities of history. But, for a time, the pervert researches — reading and writing and studying — the tradition. Later, she fucks it and sucks it. The study of the tradition — reading and writing and studying — is the key to the revolutionary generation(s) of feminine words, schizoid concepts, communist ideologies, faggoty arts, perverse philosophies, queer sciences, lesbian technologies, lamester fictions, (a)sexual eroticisms, bisexual manic depressions, poly fashions, and the tout autre of the Pervert-Schizoid-Woman. But the master who hystericizes desire is not merely committed to the cynical reproduction of the system (s) and its orders of the linguistic sign, capitalist scarcity, and patriarchy. The Cuckold’s wife left him for the revolutionaries. But first the Cuckold insisted that the system work — but for whom? Lacan writes: “A real master, as in general we used to see until a recent era, and this is seen less and less, doesn’t desire to know anything at all — he desires that things work” (Ibid: 24). This is the desire of the pervert’s philosophy. The pervert’s wish is that the misrecognized fuck-ups of langue, the fabled scarcity of capitalism, and the covert misogyny of patriarchy will work — altogether differently. The Spirit of the System will work. But the question must forever be posed to the masterly queer not-yet and too-soon Cuckold of history: for whom? The master signifier will (be)come the master’s signifier. At what point will these words burn to ash and fade to black? There is a dead man in this book. I write around him.

 

The Analyst and the Dead Man

 

The positive and negative transference between analysand and doctor — $<>a — is situated within the analyst’s work to quietly and silently tempt the word from the hysteric’s unconscious. Will the pervo philosopher — reading and writing and studying — speak? Freud describes the position of the psychoanalyst: The question is to put oneself in a position where there is someone whom you have taken charge of with respect to his anxiety, who wishes to come and hold the same position that you occupy, or that you do not occupy, or that you barely occupy, who wishes to come to know how you occupy it, and how you do not occupy it, and why you occupy it, and why you do not occupy it (Ibid: 163). The analyst’s role is foremost a “question” of “position.” The “counterpoint” of melodic rules of “opposed” face-to-face engagement is a mise-en-scène of the bond between the doctor and the analysand. There is an unspecified “anxiety” of the patient whose resolution is the analytic inspiration of questions from the analysand. I ask: do I want to “occupy” your position? Do you “occupy” your position? Do you not “occupy” your position? Do you barely “occupy” your position? How do you “occupy” your position? How do you not “occupy” your position? Why do you “occupy” your position? Why do you not “occupy” your position? But the pivotal question is suspended from Lacan’s riff. What is this word, “occupy”?

 

The word occupy implies habitation (to live), assumption (to take up), engagement (to relate), and capture (to seize). The “question” of analysis is the scrutiny of living in the world, taking up commitments in the galaxy, engaging with selves and others in the stars, and capturing les mots et les choses in the solar system. These deeds require the “position” of the doer. The analysand’s $<>? is certainly a question of occupation: Do I wish to “occupy” your position? Do you “occupy” your position? Do you not “occupy” your position? Do you barely “occupy” your position? How do you “occupy” your position? How do you not “occupy” your position? Why do you “occupy” your position? Why do you not “occupy” your position? The question is a basal issue of the relationship between the “positions” of the subject and the signifier. The crux of this “question” is the occupation of identity. The pricked ear of the analyst tempts this master signifier of the identity and jouissance of the sinthome of the master signifier of the pervo philosopher. Lacan writes: The analyst who listens is able to record many things. With what your average person today can state, if he pays no attention to anything, one can compile the equivalent of a small encyclopedia (Ibid: 172). The profound grind of the analyst is the pricked ear. The “small encyclopedia” is the book of the nascent author of the text in the genre of Perverse Philosophy. The undergrounds is the space of the assembly and manufacture of this “small encyclopedia” or its equivalent. The analyst accrues the knowledge that the hysteric imparts in his discourse. The analyst listens and records and translates — takes notes and sketches illustrations — and the hysteric writes and types and edits — paints canvases and throws pottery. Is this a fair schema or a fraudulent gambit? Who is occupied by whom? Or is listening and recording, and writing and painting, each arts and sciences of note-taking and sketch-making?

 

The perverse philosopher resists the le propre of correct hermeneutics and accurate interpretation. The schizoid theorist distances himself from the master’s signifier and its proper exegesis. The project of the perverse philosopher is the conversion of the master’s signifier (master signifier) into the master signifier (master’s signifier). The strategic hystericization of desire by the master and his domination, on the one hand, and the solicitation of the master signifier by the analyst and his pricked ear, on the other hand, converge at the juncture of the Cuckold’s ex, as the analyst says to the queer chronic masturbator: Off you go, say everything that comes into your head, however divided it might be, no matter how clearly it demonstrates that either you are not thinking or else you are nothing at all, it may work, what you produce will always be admissible (Ibid: 107). The analyst instructs the patient to ascend from the couch and leave the consulting room — “off you go” — in order to symbolize neither the proper nor the improper, neither the licit nor the illicit, neither the correct nor the incorrect, neither the sexy nor the unsexy, neither the accurate nor the inaccurate, and so on — but the entirety of everything however stupid or obscene or split or absent. This S1 will always be “admissible” as acceptable and valid and, as the word denotes, legal in a court of law. The analyst encourages the perverse philosopher to sublimate the illegal and unintelligible scrap of the nascent master signifier to the level of das Ding.

 

A jouissance is pivotal to the generations(s) of the master signifiers. But this pleasure is also the source of the renewal of the revolution or the rotation of the four discourses. The analyst and the master parallactically overlap at the proper moment. The mirage of the analyst appears as a surplus jouissance which cannot be incorporated or reintegrated into the extant system. This surplus is the sinthome of the queen’s mistress signifier: Let’s see what is at work here in the analyst’s discourse. It is he, the analyst, who is the master. In what form? This is what I shall have to reserve for our subsequent meetings. Why in the form of objet a? The “at work” in the discourse of the analyst is the perverse intersectionality between the discourse of the master — who inspires the jouissance of the resistance of resistance — and the discourse of the analyst — who sparks the invention of the mistress’s (master’s) signifier. The reason that the “form” that the master takes is that of the analyst qua surplus of pleasure is that “at work” in the social link of the analyst is the revolutionary insurrection of the word and the jouissance of the generation(s) — product of the master — of the S1 of the nouvelle génération — product of the analyst. The trick is to illuminate the master’s jouissance and its potential pilfer by the slavish philosopher of perversion.

 

The union of jouissance and the pop-up and pop-out of the master signifier is the revolution of the generation(s) of dry academic philosophers and hothouse pervo philosophers, young gay undergroundsters and old and dreary traditionalists, bored prosaic normals and horny diseased queers, and the everything that the analyst encourages us — “who, we?,” as Derrida asks — to symbolize of the Real in Praxis (Derrida 1972: X). The problem — but also solution — is that the discourse of the analyst produces its own S2 in the place of truth. As Lacan puts the question: “What does the position of S2 in the place of truth offer us now?” (Lacan 2007: 36). Analysis ultimately reinstalls the regime of the bureaucracy of academic philosophy. But this reinscription of the revolutionary order into the ontological order of Being is also the condition of the revolutionary hystericization of the nouvelle nouvelle génération of mister signifiers. The (r)evolutions of the generation(s) is the union of the master-made jouissance and the imagination of the analyst-inspired tout autre. The Other — as yet — of the trans signifier in the rotation of the four discourses inevitably reproduces the form but not content of the regime that the queer, schizoid, misfit, pervert, weirdo, geekster, freakster, and tweakster flips and twists. As a reminder of the discontinuities of an endless series of histories, Lacan notes that “in seeking to escape from the university discourse one implacably reenters it” (Ibid: 64). How does the perverse philosopher evade escape — resistance to resistance — in order to avoid readmittance to the government, the corporation, and the academic philosophy of the university?

 

The discourse of the analyst regenerates knowledge from the flippant words and crazed phrases of the hysteric. The analyst’s pricked and pricey ear records the small encyclopedia or book of this queer novelty and nouvelle oddity of the sinthome and word whose subject is represented to another signifier. The book is a product of a

knowledge of which he who is prepared, in advance, to be the product of the psychoanalysand’s cogitations, that is, the psychoanalyst, makes himself the underwriter, the hostage — insofar as in this process, he is in the end destined to become a loss, to be eliminated from the process. The psychoanalyst’s prick of an ear underwrites the pervo philosopher’s nascent ideas and embryonic concepts in the Becoming-Mistress of the master signifier. The analyst “underwrites” the text. The analyst is the “hostage” of the process of reinvention. The word “underwriter” implies an insurance policy both of a financial system but also of a psychical and social structure. In a word: the analyst is responsible. But he is responsible not for the admissibility — legality and illegality, licity and illicity, accuracy and inaccuracy — of the mistress signifier of the Cuckold of history. Rather, he is responsible for his own “loss” and “elimination” from the process of historical progression and regression. There are two dead men in this book. At which point do they become the same corpse? Is it before or after the book is written? Or is it before or after the book is read? What if the letter never stops (not) being written?

 

The Perverse Philosopher and His Blowjob

 

A sexed-up approach to the phallus presents two tasks for the free spirit of Perverse Philosophy. First, the lover of the mise-en-scène of the phallus must wrestle — reading and writing and studying — with the depth of the metonymization of metaphor in the classic tradition. This labor isolates the writers — in this book: Derrida, Heidegger, Marx, Freud, and Lacan — in order to return the original to the copy, and reiterate the arche in the trace. This work criss-cites the tradition to itself. Second, the lover of the mise- en-abyme of the phallus must tussle — reading and writing and studying — with the breadth of metaphorization of metonymy of the classic tradition. This work cross-references disparate writers with each other in order to pursue the confluences and disjunctions among the theorists under scrutiny. This bareback approach to a muscled Herculean depth and breadth involves an intellectual deep-throating in scholarship. It is an ardent task and crucial responsibility. Think: condom but also simultaneously bug chasing.

 

Perverse Philosophy is both masturbatory and orgiastic. The spirited perverse philosopher masturbates Marx on his own in close reading and also mutually-masturbates (possibly anal but definitely oral) in a Roman (French and German) bacchanalia of a Dionysian love-in with theory-gaiety and difference-laughter accompanied by the requisite narcissism and expected exhibitionism. This cum contest is a Sparkian “veritable grab-bag” (emphasis on grab-bag) of packages of condoms which are laced with theories and ideas. But the depth of criss-citation and breadth of cross-reference of the scholarship is crucial to the perverse philosopher’s will to manifest the master signifier. The depth of criss-citation mines the tradition. The breadth of cross-reference expands the tradition. The mediation of breadth and depth — thick and long, and long and thick; cut is a requirement — situates the pervert in a position to slyly displace the tradition of academic philosophy and its mastery with the optimistic silence of the dead man and his moribund ear.

 

The truth of the queer orgy is that no one on his own has a blast. The orgy of Perverse Philosophy as a group is a delightfully risqué amusement with a happy ending massage if your body — of work — is published. No one hot body has an awesome evening alone in his own isolated theory and his own independent jargon. Interdisciplinary theory sex-fucking and fag-sucking is still au courant in the academy. The plethora of hottie theorists write erotic fiction to me that I contemplate — reading and writing and studying — in the work to criss-cite to themselves and cross-reference to each other. This distinction between depth and breadth is imaginary. But the division is also a procedural necessity for Perverse Philosophy. Pastiche must yield to systematicity, and systematicity must consent to invention. This is the proper order for a criss-citation to the self, a cross-reference to the other, and a criss-cross reinvention of the words of the classic tradition.

 

At night, I transcribe in cum with some edits and slight omits — lip-licks and hot-swallows — in order to return to my orgy with a porno rag and a cum rag. This drunk Perverse Philosophy gangbang in which Marx shudders the final squirt is productive because it bears (and bares) an intertextuality in which the text is made transparently sacred in order to be properly profaned. This sexual and textual orgy of depth and breadth and their extimacy may be about celebrity and repute and width and length — thickness is also a requirement — of the boys and their pervo philosophical studies. But the Perverse Philosophy boner-battle is also about the creation of new worlds for future orgies which have yet to be spoken or written — or ejaculated. Perverse Philosophy (is) still edges it out. Analysis may sometimes be terminable, but criss-citation, cross-reference, and the criss-cross introduction of the master signifier is interminable. This is the reason that there is a dead man in this book.

 

Interdisciplinary perverse stickiness is the condition of not only all of sex but also of an intellectual passion that seeks to usher together ideas and thoughts, values and ethics, academics and intellectuals, books and articles, authors and writers, dicks and cocks, prisoners and homeless, liberals and conservatives, communists and socialists, radicals and traditionalists, and fairies and dykes from a variety of homes — colleges, public universities, lecture circuits, community colleges, homeless shelters, industrial prisons, bathhouses, and so on. I had prison sex once. Then I woke up. Perverse stickiness also makes use of the myriad discrete departments that all have perspectives on the future of revolutionary sex: bathrooms, locker rooms, gymnasiums, Boy Scouts trips, parked cars, bushes, out in the street, bathrooms, park benches, behind trees, and so on. As Geertz writes, the cockfight deliberately is made to be — a simulation of the social matrix, the involved system of cross-cutting, overlapping, highly corporate groups — villages, kingroups, irrigation societies, temple congregations, ‘castes’ — in which its devotees live (Geertz 1977: 436). The purpose of the Perverse Philosophy blow ‘n’ go — reading and writing and studying — is similar to Geertz’s cockfight. Perverse Philosophy “simulates” the academic matrix, departmental hierarchies, and institutional ranks of sex and theory in a revolution of risky experimentation. But it also involves the wider community of freaks and geeks in the Roman spring cotillion.

 

The purpose of the methodological stickiness — criss-citation, cross-reference, and criss-cross invention — of Perverse Philosophy is to gay-away the unnecessary competition for the cute guy at the gay bar and instead to dance together with all of the go-go boys at Club Jacques. The Perverse Philosophy cum-conflict involves both anal sex — fucking each other over — and oral sex — stealing each other’s material. It is profoundly social because it involves the houses and homes, abodes and dormitories, bathhouses and bathrooms, of those whose fierce fire is still stimulated and stoked by the interdisciplinary project. The “caste” system, as Geertz mentions, is an especially prickly ball sack to drain because each academic department and every established discipline seeks to acquire penis-enlargement across the peckering order of academia. The undergrounds is an Other-Space for the masterful hystericization of désir and the analytic silent flirtation with the pervert’s disorganized cogitations. The Other-Space is the context in which the young queen and the monster dyke take notes and sketch illustrations — reading and writing and studying — in preparation for the voice of the generation(s) of master signifiers. The incitement of the spark of an effluvium of the criss and the cross of the exotic requires not only writing and reading and studying but also the properly situated positions of the master and the analyst. Otherwise, penis- enlargement will only bloom and bust the same penis.

 

Perverse Philosophy promises (at times) an obscene and unrestrained feminine jouissance. This modality of pleasure is beyond the regulations and calculations of the pleasure principle and its phallocentric version of sex in the tension and release of the male orgasm and ejaculation. But will this appropriation of the Other-Spirit be profoundly seized by white twinkie boys and their genital prowess? The libido of Perverse Philosophy may be weirdly schizoid. But the cathexis of my work is politics and ethics. My investment earnestly embraces feminist concerns. The smart bitches in Marxism, psychoanalysis, and deconstruction have been fuck’d and suck’d and retread many times before. An entire industry of secondary fucks and rehash sucks has been erected as a phallic monument to the original Stonewallers and their praiseworthy revolution against the extant system of langue, the dominant system of gender and sexuality, and the obscene system of capital and exchange. But Perverse Philosophy is distinctive in its openness toward an Other-Space in which the manipulations of the master and the analyst invite note-taking and sketch-making in order to inspire the nouvelle génération of master signifiers in their wicked lives and their celebrated deaths. There is a dead man in this book.

 

Dirty Talk

 

Another dimension of cockfighting that I borrow from Geertz’s ethnography of Bali-faggotry is the Freudian so-named considerations of representability in the dream-work process of the translation of the clandestine wish into the exhibited symptom. This dream-work of alphabetical (but also aural and visual) transliteration of the unconscious-work is the process by which the forbidden latent dyke desire is transliterated — tongue from and in tongue — into the detailed and symptomatic dysfunction of everyday life. Sexual impotence is not a somatic illness for Western medical specialists. A saggy dick on a shaggy night is a symptom of a wish. But, as any queer fetishist (will) know, the repressed and its return are the same. The master and the analyst in the Discourse of the Pervert not only excite the master word. They also illuminate the perverse philosopher’s intuition: any master signifier word is the same as any other master signifier word. But, if this is the case, then what is Perverse Philosophy to do with the epic disaster of dicky jargon of academic philosophy and its reiterative theorists whose words are simply faxed copies of voicemails of deleted text messages which are cc’d by horse and buggy to the editors of their lithographs? What is your master signifier? What is to be the new sexy word of the anal-shit-stormer? The Freudian considerations of representability and the analysis-work of translation are pivotal to transmission of the word from activist to prisoner and the reverse.

 

There is a difference between dickish jargon and the pervert’s master signifier. The salient but tenuous distinction is between repetition and invention. The replay of jizzy jargon (of which this book is also guilty) is not only useless to the academic superstar-Zizek dicks who are in the fight. Reiteration rather than reinvention is also an impediment against the other villages, kingroups, irrigation societies, temple congregations, homeless shelters, prisons, public housing units, community college classrooms, and so on. The kingroups and the bathhouses encounter each other in the Other-Space of the mise-en-scène of Perverse Philosophy and its fresh innovations and unique alternations in the references and citations of cross and criss and criss-cross of reading and writing and studying. Take notes, draw sketches — and the new master signifier inherits the transformed university.

 

I realize that one faggot’s blowjob is another queer’s BJ, but the cockfight over hip gibberish leaves everybody a bit castrated. In my book, I diligently work with Freudian considerations of representation — to make the writers and the ideas of the undergrounds accessible to a variety of scholars and students from alternate disciplines with distinct sexual practices. Pervert-Schizoid-Woman engages theorists who invent their own systems of signification in order to publicize their concepts. My book also invents its ownsystems of signification in order to publicize its concepts in the depth of criss-citation and the breadth of cross-reference in the criss-cross at the juncture of the master and the analyst. A dickhead under foreskin — cut = requirement — slowly reveals itself to its crowd. The twists and slings of flirtation in this book slowly unveil words and rewords in the translations between tongues. This translation is attuned to Freud’s considerations of representation and the secondary process of revision of the reversal of dream-work into its obversive dream-interpretation. But I do hope to awaken the reader from his wet dream in order to enjoy the symbolization around the Real of (et al.) itself. If you don’t cum, at least intellectually, then I can’t promise a tip.

 

The question of representation and translation is crucial to a successful articulation of the schizophrenia of the system (s) and the essence of $-ism. Geertz puts this concern with representation in these words: the cockfight renders ordinary, everyday experience comprehensible by presenting it in terms of acts and objects which have had their practical consequences removed and been reduced (or, if you prefer, raised) to the level of sheer appearances, where their meaning can be more powerfully articulated and more exactly perceived (Ibid: 443). This is a statement about the paradox of the ontological and epistemological public restroom recital of the dick-battle. Geertz’s explanation of performative references to “acts and objects” makes the nuances of the everyday practices of gestures and entities — perverse signifiers — of queerness clarified for the reader of the text. These sexy exertions and magnetic things efface “practical consequences.” The effects are then otherwise visible in notes and sketches and porn. “Sheer appearances” of air-brushed cocks and ass implants are neither reversals of a Marxist camera obscura (1845) nor an articulation of sex without consequence. Rather, the peter-tussle demonstrates a “powerful” and “exact” enunciation of the truth of the system of $-ism. What is this truth? My initial suggestion for this project is that the revelatory — Alethia — appearances of the symbolic order in the Real refer to: the deconstructive absence of the word; the fabled scarcity of capitalism; and the castration in psychoanalysis. I illuminate these screened acts and objects in the appearances of Perverse Philosophy in this book. The veneer reveals that the manifest conceals the latent. The jockstrap unlaces the sublime. Jockstrap.

 

The importance of Geertz’s words to the preface is the reference to “acts and objects.” Perverse Philosophy is not only wryly committed to the blowjob and the dildo. These tricks and trades are figurations in form and content of the sticky (a)sexual methodology of the book. The object of critique in the book is the grammatological reference to the supplement to the le propre of the arche. Psychoanalysis names this subtractive excess as castration and lack. Marxism identifies this remainder as scarcity and private property. Toward the end of the book, these concepts will merge. I will articulate this joint in reference to my embryonic perverse signifiers of $-ism and the Pervert-Schizoid-Woman (among others) of the future. In any orgy, these suck-fests and dildo-machines solicit sex “acts and objects” which are the bits and bobs of bored sex rather than the surrounds and environs of frenzied erotics. These sex-acts and object-choices are visible in their sheer appearances against the — what the dick? — noumena of Kant. My text mislays sexual culture at most times. But I always return to the worldly global blowjob and the orgiastic conflagration of sex, in theory. These scary utopias will flourish after the perverse Verleugnung of a hierarchical sexual difference into an (a)sexual eroticism, the reversal of the castrative Something is Missing into a communist Nothing is Missing, and the return of the tout autre into the l’autre into the — This will be so even if the injustices of such a world in a galaxy-to-come are erected on a conceptual fellatio gone awry. The perverse signifiers may work, as Lacan says, but no matter — successful or dysfunctional — they will be marvelous and admissible. But before or after the book has been eaten?

 

Kinky Sex

 

I limit my oral skills (écriture orale) to deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis. My textual emphasis on close reading of the bodily aesthetics and ravished sensibility of these gorgeous pervo philosophers will not upstage an earnest commitment to the conceptual substance — spermish protein — of their work. The style of the limit-works and the play of the erotic-signifiers compose the forbidden substance and sexual soul of my work. The shaft apart from its head is no cock worthy of my lips. The work that I do in this book is obscenely theoretical. It is cerebral sex and mental masturbation. But I engage in such kinky sex only because the text of these authors is monstrously hung with erotic displacement and sexual condensation. This conscious work of latent processes is the subject and object of Perverse Philosophy. The criss-citations of depth and cross-references of breadth in the criss-cross — crossroads — of the juncture of master and analyst is the Other-Space of this project. The emergence of the (un)conscious is the proviso of the innovation of the pervert’s master signifier and his pilfer of the schizoid’s Real.

 

Écriture et Lirer

 

This book is undeniably sexed with an unprotected circulation of the sexy signifier. This libidinal textuality applies to the unorthodox form but also to the rigorous content. The death of the author is an invitation not only to fuck the old and the dead, as Deleuze defined his project of buggery. In addition, this book invites new fucks, stretched holes, sucked virgins, and uncomfortable giggles at the sheer appearance of the acts and objects of sex and its avatars. Sex may be boring, but it is also hilarious. This is the case even if I insist on a fetishization of dry German philosophical mortality and obscurant French theoretical decenterment. It’s a minor miracle that I don’t have the French strain of syphilis. This sexual exchange of Perverse Philosophy arouses the sprayed queer ejaculation of the pervo philosopher and her coy weany faggots, smart bitches, hot transters, ginger fairies, liked dykes, precious prudes, and anyone who wishes to contemplate — reading and writing and studying — the limit-thought and its beyond of the wet tongue and the wetter lips. This text is less about the masculine jouissance which gets off on correct knowledge. I could care less if the contents of the letter — a splash of the signifier that is not protected by the condom — are proper and respectable. Truth be told, I suck at the blow and my interpretations of my ex of my ex (and so on) are hasty and uncomfortable licks of compromised erudition, at best, and quick and dirty tastes with the phallus paid no heed, at worst. The faggoty perverse philosopher glances backward (Nachträglichkeit and après-coup) in order to suspend the present in anticipation of the future.@

The criss — remember Chris? — and cross — remember Ross? — generate these conditions for the silence of the reader whose notes and sketches await the sequel to this work of excess.

 

Séance with Lacan

 

Especially avec Lacan, I wish to blow my seed all over his text without the return of his evaluation of my performance. I insist on the disavowal of his haunted enjoyment of my sexual assault on his text.

Lacan is the suspended but not murdered primal father who haunts my text. Lacan is neither dead nor alive. Somehow — the primal father of the horde is finally murdered by the brothers who are yet to be hystericized by an invisible master. Lacan’s ghostly absence in this book is the effect of neither an appearance nor a disappearance. Lacan is a nonappearance. This book (such is the subject) is structurally antecedently situated to the murder of the primal father who is barricaded in his beach house. The book (such is the subject) is in a state of loss without sexual access to either the sisters or the mothers. This gold and treasure is the sole property of the primal father. The book (such is the subject) is also psychically posteriorly organized to the murder of the father. The book (such is the subject) is guilty and remorseful.

The book (such is the subject) is a social pact with my brothers which limits jouissance in favor of identity, desire, and systematicity rather than the Other jouissance. This is the point of entry of the coy wean.

 

Freud’s strange myth of the origin of Western civilization is developed in his Totem and Taboo from 1913. The conventional Freudian interpretation of the fable of the murder of the primal father recognizes and affirms the brothers’ bloody coup against the violent father however symptomatic its effects. Freud says that the brothers banish the father in order to forge what he refers to as “law, morality, and religion” or civilization (Freud 1990: 122). The cost of the West is the development of the guilty conscience. But is it possible to imagine that the brothers — constitutionally bisexual — enjoy their own saturnalia? Is it foreseeable that these brothers might be tempted to flirt with their fellow brothers? Is it imaginable that the brothers enjoy each other’s bodies — boys among boys? Could the brothers be playing outside of the primal beach house, trunks off? The brothers may be neither hystericized by the master nor counseled by the analyst to desire the sex of the other and innovate the signifier of the revolution. But could the proximity of these boys in the salty seas to the primal father’s beach house foster a homosexuality that undermines any desire to revolt against the primal father and his prohibition against access to the prehistory of sex? Why rush the primal father’s beach house when the outdoors invites gay sex and its pleasurable tricks? There is a dead man in this book.

 

Lacan is the primal father of my own text. I defiantly do not need this primal Lacan. I have discovered an obscene — neither prohibited nor permitted — (a)sexuality which satisfies my gay urges without any revolutionary doer or deed. Otherwise, straight libido summons the guilt and remorse of murder and the ghostly return of the dead father as a necromantic reminder of the law against heterosexuality. The primal father prohibits heterosexuality. Outside of the dick with his chicks, I can enjoy my boys, in the sands, dunes, outhouses, on the beach, on the boats, in the cars, on the cots, in the closets, behind the doors, and on the rooftops. Outside, I enjoy my perverse philosophers in the absence of guilt and remorse. Qua pervert, I disavow Oedipalization and hystericization. I invent my queerness on the Outside of the straight imperative to desire in the proper mode of an unlawful heterosexuality. Strangely, the function of the primal father is to prohibit a prosaic heterosexuality and to promote an endless session of gay fuck and homo suck. Lacan qua the primal father of my text is in essence the Outside of this pervert’s écriture. The primal Lacan may haunt as a ghost from the future. But this is so only if my hottie faggots and my queery queens decide that the orgiastic gay sex in the salty semen seas must be supplemented by a violent revolution. But is the generation(s) of master perverse mistress signifiers possible if prehistoric homosexuality is not exchanged for civilization? Is the proviso of Perverse Philosophy the submission to the heteronormative government and patriarchal corporation? Must the university be straight and married in order to be Cuckold’d by ex’s and sex’s?

 

The ends of such a revolution can only be to gain momentary access to the sisters and mothers of the straight life. But many of us will be satisfied with cocks and the cum which ejaculates from the margins of the primal father’s obscene dominion. Lacan is absent from my text which is simultaneously about him. The primal Jacques’s presence is securely banished from my seaside festival of (a)sexuality. The dead Lacan may be more powerful than the living one. But such semes and semen cease to apply in my text. The straight (?) Lacan is neither dead nor alive. Rather, he is Outside of any recourse to criticism of my textual and sexual techniques. The only judge of my work is the jouissance of sexual rapport with my brothers: feminine, masculine, faggy, queer, trans, poly, weirdo, freako, or sicko. These days I worry less about Lacan and the STD which murdered him. Instead, I save some of my own seme in the event that he runs out of his own contents of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_amyloliquefaciens and/or http://www.nakedsword.com — when he willing having beening Becoming Being — gone. There is the Spirit of a dead man in this book.

 

Lacan’s salacious discourse is the Outside of my own discourse. Lacan’s words are the internal disruption of my own verbiage. Lacan insists as the Real of my book which resists symbolization — speaking and writing — absolutely. I cannot write about Lacan because his massive tool consistently disrupts my text in his present absent suspension. I do fantasize about necrophilic sex with Lacan. I am to be the consummate Deleuzean top with a strain of herpes I contracted from Jacques-Alain Miller during an after-party at the École Freudienne de Paris. I am to be the immature master whose eldritch epistemology and misread misappropriations reproduce Lacan’s dead master’s signifier for me as my own series of perverse philosophical mistress signifiers. I enjoy theoretical pyrotechnical effluvium with surplus jouissance. I pilfer this residue from his laborious jerk of an engorged and prestigious shaft. I simultaneously reappropriate his cum as my own. Qua hysteric, he fucks his master signifier which my blowjob will fiercely ejaculate for us both. This is my own idiosyncratic — S1 — discharge. These words are still haunted by a primal father who is neither dead nor alive, neither the source of guilt nor the origin of remorse. The master is suspended. The analyst is confounded. The brothers and sisters are sparked but hesitant. The perverse master signifiers will manifest in their marvel. This is the point of entry of the young faggot.

 

Reading and Writing, Together, 69

 

This book is sucked by you, the reader, whose désir or Trieb is to analytically listen to a set of licks and tastes of a veritable orgy of classic theorists. These writers force the reader to suck — and you better fucking swallow — load after load. I may suck, and you may blow, but I speak and you listen. This is so even if in the end our 69 evaporates the gaps and holes between our bodies. The jouissance of the ear is your erotic venture. My insatiable orality in écriture orale is my sexual labor. Qua reader, I only ask that you disregard my eccentric version of queer-reading and forgive Deleuze for his strange variant of butt-fucking. I want the reader to focus on the style and substance of the shaft of my penis. Let’s write it: cut, 7.5”, straight, thick, unshaved (but not hairy) and in toto totally glorious. Whatever you may make of my penis — you’d be pleased if you came by tonight — it is undeniably my penis in all of its metaphorical figurations and literal representations.

 

At the juncture of the master and the analyst in the Discourse of the Pervert, the reader not only pricks his ear and prices the book. I do not merely rant and rave my perverse signifiers. Rather, the 69 of this project involves the supplementation of my notes and sketches with the reader’s own notes and sketches. The master occupies his proper place. The analyst readies his ear. The reader’s désir or Trieb is hystericized. The Other-Space of readerly écriture is marked in the text. The master may be definitively Outside of this book. But the master is also squarely Inside of this book at the same time. The undergrounds must be excavated — but not exiled, yet — by the nethergrounds. The reader’s hysteria must be inspired. But who will affirmatively sketch notes on the reader’s sketches and notate sketches on the reader’s notes? Who is the psychoanalyst of this (these) texts?

 

The perverse master signifiers of this writer (and the reader) issue from the Discourse of the Pervert at the juncture of masterful jouissance of resistance to resistance and analytical silence of the pricked and pricey ear. These mistress signifiers encircle around a penis — but it is certainly not mine. Freud suggests a libidinal identificatory relationship between the little boy and his penis. It is still in effect, as Geertz makes clear, for adults. A consequent castration anxiety is its symptom. The little boy suffers anxiety of the imminent loss of his penis as private property at the sight of the female genitalia. His ocular-phallocentrism compels him to relinquish enjoyment of warm masturbation and infantile pleasure with the mother for cold identification and normative desire with the father. The little boy is forced to accede to the demands of the ego-ideal and the relationships of private property: my life, my body, my car, my job, my girlfriend, my house, my lawnmower, my family jewels, and so on. The little boy internalizes the anxious will to protect these capitalist goods. The dead author may be displaced by the vaunted reader. But, contra Barthes, such readership does not mean that someone’s pisser is not still at issue. But whose penis is at the ready for the cut? Whose master signifier is at the edges of displacement?

 

Qua writer, I give the blowjob to the reader. I spill my ink as I jerk off my schlong. Qua reader, you enjoy the blowjob, eventually shooting your seed all over my text with notes and sketches. The glorious 69 of Perverse Philosophy and the insistent licks and deferred sucks of the blower and the blown melt the division between the author and the reader, and between the sucker and the sucked. Who sucks whom? Who hystericizes whose desire? Who analyzes whose notes and sketches? Whom is whom? The pervo philosopher fashions an aneconomy of unbalanced speculation and twisted abstraction which is outside of le propre: proper, property, ownership, possession, and mineness. The pervo philosopher abjures the capitalist concepts of private property — my cock versus your cock — which are otherwise nefariously structured into the circles of discourse and spirals of vocabulary in the signifying chain. Whose penis is whose? If the penis is not considered capitalist private property, then it is a free object (subject) of the public property of communism. The penis of the reader and the writer can be jerked off and sucked off at will by anybody.This critique appeals to prostitution and rape — and toward the most violent scenes of the work of the Marquis de Sade (1791). This critique of capitalist le propre is also the horizon of the transformation toward the Spirit of the System. Must your body be yours? Where does the je suis end and the vous êtes begin? Masterful hystericization and analytical silence conjoin at the crossroads of the generation(s) of master signifiers. But whose master signifiers are whose? Whose accumulation of capitalist exchange-value is expanded and contracted in the divisions between the generation(s) of philosophies and their perversities?

 

I frame the sexual and textual engagement as a folie à deux because I insist on the relationship between authors and readers, between texts and illustrations, and between notes and sketches. The role of the mediation — general equivalence — in this duality is the object of concern of academic philosophy and its governments and corporations. My consideration is the constitutive relationship of masterful hystericization and analytical solicitude between the reader who takes notes and sketches drawings and the author who retakes notes and resketches drawings — and the obverse. I care less about the perverse master signifiers in this book as writer and more about the jouissance of the resistance of resistance of the reader.

The theoretical texts in deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis are simply vehicles but also crucial catalysts for the simulation of a rapport between the masterful analyst of the university and the nascent faggot — or between top and bottom, between sub and dom, between masculine and feminine, between active and passive, between dad and son, and so on. The purpose of this book is to forge a cathexis between author and reader in order to produce an intellectual effluvium of revolutionary excitement and creative engagement. There is a dead man in this book.

 

Perverse Philosophy Blowjob

 

My erotic hermeneutics in this preface is a retrospective (Nachträglichkeit and après-coup) glance backward toward the pleasures of yesterday and a futural gaze toward the Becoming-Other of the project of Perverse Philosophy. But the theoretical paradigm is the gay generation (S1-2) between out school buggery and in school blowjobs. This (a)sexual energy at the arche of the book is the invention of the generation(s) of the generation(s) of the future. The so-called transcendental condition of possibility of the blowjob (and beyond: S1-2) of the coy wean’s perverse master signifier is not only the master’s inspiration of the frenzied revolutionary boner in the faggot. The proviso of the undergrounds is the creation of the incipient theoretical paradigm by the reader whose own jouissance is the alphabet of this text. As times change, so does the gap between the academic philosophy of the bureaucracy and the Perverse Philosophy and its theories and vocabularies. But it is my hope that at this juncture of the master and the analyst the political commitments will be sustained even if tweaked by the freakers.

 

As an old man, I surrender my text to the S0 with a trace of the master’s pilfered jouissance and a silence of the analyst’s prickly ear. The Post-Perverse Philosophy (and so on) enjoys itself until the arrival of the messianically deferred tout autre and its own l’autre. The sexual intercourses between the generation(s) of the generation(s) themselves is the revolution, in theory. The communion of the protein of our seed — for us and for the dead — will ejaculate the signification of my book that is stained by your goo. The sex of this text is structured like the 69. Lacan describes this movement as the torus-like bend in which the Inside and the Outside are intercoursed. Unfortunately, the master and the reader will be stuck with their stupid desire. But, for the anti-fantasy of this book, we will have perverse faith. The academic and weiner will disavow desire in a testament to a divine Trieb in delay and deviation. Even by a self- proclaimed expert, this blowjob sucks. The blow sucks and it sucks. If my text does its job, then the book will blow. But it blows an exuberance to embrace a novel future with new embryonic superstar notes and celebrity sketches. This dance rotation is the Pedagogy of the Pervert. But will the university and its governments and corporations seize the otherness and reincorporate it into the system of brands? How do the young faggots suspend themselves at the juncture of the master and the analyst in perpetuity?

 

This book articulates the limit of thought in the thrusts and gyrations of deconstruction, Marxism, and psychoanalysis. I want to forge affinities with freaky kinsmen and wacky kinschicks — Perverts- Schizoids-Women — who want to slobber on sperm and its figurations. The rapport between writer and reader, hysteric and analyst, queer and gay, and lamester and hipster — together — is to advance the critical project against a society that does not work. I reinitiate this deconstructive, Marxist, and psychoanalytic project with the development of my perverse master signifiers of which Pervert-Schizoid-Woman and $-ism (pronounced: /SCHIZ-em/) are the primary articulations. The invention of the master signifier at the limit(less) of thought is spawned by the pervo philosopher’s resistance to the resistance to a learned tradition — reading and writing and studying — of the bureaucracy of the government and the corporation. This university discourse is embodied in the academic philosophical phallic prowess of the master. (I can think of a few of them, Zizek comes to mind.) But is the Cuckold even present in the future of history? The Cuckold — like the mother’s absent phallus — is an object which should have been there but is not in an aphanasis. Who will exert the courage to make it work and then break (it) down?

 

The faggot talks back to the silent but attentive trick’s simulation of analytic listening. In chit- chat, the homosexual pervert defines his generation in the invention of the master signifier: Pervert- Schizoid-Woman and $-ism. This pinkish intimate invention between the homo-pervert and his analyst- trick is the passion of the intellectual 69 blow-fest. We reinvent the words of the writers whose work we fuck together in the bathhouse and the seminar room. As trickster, the reader is not the masturbator of the master’s discourse. Rather, the reader is the quiet and perceptive trick who listens to the signifiers of his writer’s perverse hisses and gay catcalls. Few of these words make sense, but they are embraced by the pricky ear — reading and writing and studying — of the tricky analyst. I am simply the happy faggot and pervo philosopher with a series of symptomatic master signifiers around which I write. The reader note-takes and sketch-makes around these symptoms. But will the notes and sketches return to sender or receiver — or elsewhere?