Being is being, and nothing is nothing, only in their contradistinction from each other; but in their truth, in their unity, they have vanished as these determinations and are now something else. Being and nothing are the same; but just because they are the same they are no longer being and nothing, but now have a different significance. In becoming they were coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be; in determinate being, a differently determined unity, they are again differently determined moments. This unity now remains their base from which they do not again emerge in the abstract significance of being and nothing.
—  G W F Hegel, The Science of Logic, (Prometheus/Humanity, trans. A.V Miller 1969), p.35 Phenomelicious
The interior should be made transparent as a social function and its self-containedness should be revealed as an illusion – not vis-a-vis a hypostasized collective consciousness, but vis-a-vis the real social process itself. The ‘individual’ is a dialectical instrument of transition that must not be mythicized away, but can only be superseded.
—  Adorno, in a letter to Benjamin dated 2 August 1935.

The dialectical process is driven to the next concept or form—Becoming—not by a triadic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, but by the one-sidedness of Nothing—which leads Nothing to sublate itself—and by the implications of the process so far. Since Being and Nothing have each been exhaustively analyzed as separate concepts, and since they are the only concepts in play, there is only one way for the dialectical process to move forward: whatever concept comes next will have to take account of both Being and Nothing at the same time. Moreover, the process revealed that an undefined content taken to be presence (i.e., Being) implies Nothing (or absence), and that an undefined content taken to be absence (i.e., Nothing) implies presence (i.e., Being). The next concept, then, takes Being and Nothing together and draws out those implications—namely, that Being implies Nothing, and that Nothing implies Being. It is therefore Becoming, defined as two separate processes: one in which Being becomes Nothing, and one in which Nothing becomes Being. - Hegel’s Dialectics

The attempted sublation of desire is, however, not the negation of desire

Traditional morality, for Lacan, is the morality of power, the morality of the master. It is a morality which constrains and seeks to maintain order, safeguarding against the locus of ‘the unthinkable’ where ‘the signifiers are unleashed’, uncoupled from signification, where meaning is not a possibility. This morality of power has at root always the same agenda; to maintain the services of goods, to keep the social working and, thus, to sublate desire. 

As far as desires are concerned, come back later. Make them wait. (Lacan, 1992: ) 

The attempted sublation of desire is, however, not the negation of desire. Where there is the subject, there is desire. The very attempt to fortify ourselves against the unthinkable, the very desire to defer desire, cannot but attest to desire. The subject, for Lacan, is the subject of desire. It is only in relation to the signifier that the subject can come to be at all but, in so emerging, the subject is necessarily split. This inescapable ‘break, splitting or ambivalence is produced in him at the point where the tension of desire is located’. Traditional ethics, such as Aristotle’s, which seek to maintain order and the service of goods, which keep the social functioning, utilise and rely upon an objective notion of guilt, insofar as there is a measure by which it can be judged whether one has acted correctly or not. For Lacan, while such ethics may function very well, and he is clear to point out that he is not dismissing them as such, they necessarily occlude the subjective position which is inescapably a position entailing, and even defined by, desire. This is the meaning of the so-called maxim concerning ceding on one’s desire.

Neill - Lacanian Ethics and the Assumption of Subjectivity. 2011 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

you start by wanting to ‘change the world’ without endangering the subjective position from which you are ready to enforce the change

[but] there are Leftists who do have the courage of their convictions, who do not only want ’ revolution without revolution’, as Robespierre put it

they … are prepared to call into question their subjective position in a direct negation

then, in the 'negation of negation’, the subject enacting the change is ready to pay the subjective price for it, to change himself, or, to quote Gandhi’s nice formula, to be himself the change he wants to see in the world
—  s. zizek
Further, if communism is to be thought again as a real movement we must accept that it cannot be a unitary process, but only the combination of manifold desires and needs of more or less separated proletarians, uniting for selfish reasons, but producing a telos in excess of their selfishness, a transindividual sublation of their individuality. Marx saw this clearly when he participated in the Parisian proletarians’ conviviality. He noted that the means to create communism is communism itself: that is, communism practiced produces itself as a need and an aim in itself. Communism is not an abstract Kantian “ideal” nor a plan, nor a universal and global horizon from which to judge all struggles or find hope. Communism, instead, is best described as a possible emergent telos in processes of combination, when they fold back on themselves and become self-reproducing, self-organized and capable of defending themselves. Such deseparation can only be effective when it involves the world of things and begins to abolish property as a form of separation.

Rules: Just insert your answers to the questions below. Tag at least 10 followers.

  • Name: Mermaid
  • Nickname: Merm, Momo, Tiny Thing of Violence, Fierce Tiger, Mo
  • Birthday: October 5
  • Gender: Aggressively uncertain
  • Sexuality: Asexual
  • Height: 5'0’’
  • Time zone: Eastern
  • What time and date is it there: 8:56 pm, 8/29/14
  • Average hours of sleep: ~6 or so 
  • OTPs: Lenalee/Allen/Lavi, Haru/Makoto, Princess Marya/Natasha, Aoba/Clear
  • The last thing I googled was: Buy scalpels online
  • First word that comes to mind: Sublation
  • What I last said to a family member: Can you send me some dog pictures?
  • One place that makes me happy and why: The meetinghouse of my church. It is very quiet, and I have always felt safe there.
  • How many blankets I sleep under: Four. 
  • Favorite beverage: Lemonade 
  • The last movie I watched in the cinema was: Guardians of the Galaxy 
  • Three things I can’t live without: Books, my glasses, my girlfriend
  • Something I plan on learning: Goldwork on leather and cloth for bookbinding
  • A piece of advice for all my followers: Take the darkness and fear, and skin it, and wear it. Do not let it wear you.
  • My blog/s: This one, and wadjetseye, my Changeling: the Lost rp blog. It is very good. 
  • You have to listen to this song: The Well, by Omnia (trigger warnings for infanticide, rape, and incest)
  • I tag: an-odd-mrree; the49thname; incurablenecromantic; ahi-at-trab; ultimaromanorum; caesarsaladin; aristodile; hoiplatapolloi; euphorbiapulcherrima; caleb-harker
  • I was tagged by: kitty-bandit : D
The practical necessity of greed and the truth of our statements concerning the failures engendered by greed which is not greedy enough are demonstrated continually in the history of the modern revolutionary movement. Just as, in 1871, internalized ideology and a miserable handful of guards were enough to deter the armed Communards from seizing the French National Bank at a time when money was desperately needed, so in 1968 French insurgents (mystified by trade-unionist and anarcho-syndicalist ideology) failed to comprehend all the world around them as social property (and therefore theirs) and thus tended to restrict self-organization to “their own” work places. Though greedy and egoistic in their own right, both these movements fell victim to the mystification, the fetishism of privatized territory. In both cases, the revolutionaries were left in paltriness, the pathetic possessors of mere fragments of a revolution (these fragments by their very nature sublated into naught). In both cases it was a limited greed, in their theory and their spirit, that led to the practical (indeed even military) defeat of these revolutions. The meaning of Marx’s ‘I am nothing, but I must be everything’ unfolds its truth fully when we realize that only when we become everything shall we cease to be nothing.
—  For Ourselves, The Right to be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Absolutely Everything
The Hegelian spiritual substance exists only insofar as subjects act as if it exists. … Hegel’s key insight is: Reconciliation cannot be direct, it has first to generate (appear in) a monster.
—  Slavoj Zizek