About 📜

The lion only leaps once

The older About page introduced Žižekian Analysis as an ‘organ-without-body’ for Cluster Struggle, promising a community gathered around a Žižek-event and a workshop for coining new distinctions fit for a new century. It showed a Janus-like emblem of two Žižeks, alluded to Pravda’s double-Lenin anecdote, and closed with an exhortation to learn, learn, and learn. That page helped name an energy, but it blurred a decisive line: it treated surplus-information as if it were already a method, and in doing so it failed to separate information from surplus-enjoyment. The result was an atmosphere in which vocabulary and references grew while procedures did not change. For continuity and accountability, the archived page remains available here (🔗). (Žižekian Analysis)

What changes with a slogan that names the cut

The new slogan is literal and technical: the lion only leaps once. In ‘Analysis Terminable and Interminable,’ Freud warns that a miscalculation in analysis cannot be repaired, adding that the saying about the lion’s single spring applies in the clinic. The point is not color or metaphor but timing and irreversibility: interpretation that matters punctuates, and once missed, the same gesture loses force when repeated. Readers can consult the essay directly here (🔗). (winnicottisrael.com)

Why the prior surplus served lapdog ideology

Treating surplus-information as a master key meant that our output could glow with novelty while nothing in the object changed. That glow was enjoyment. Without a punctual separation between information and enjoyment, analysis slid into a loop where scandals refreshed the feed and procedures stayed intact. We named and critiqued that loop in ‘The Truth Is Out There—and Going Nowhere,’ showing how surplus-information functions as a game mechanic rather than a method that moves a lever in the object (🔗). In that same sequence, we read ‘Metastases of Enjoyment’ against its own staging to isolate what we call ‘lapdog ideology’: a structural choreography in which juniors polish credentials and seniors radiate aura, each securing the other while calling the exchange transgression (🔗; 🔗). The new page is a correction to that complicity, not a performance of outrage. (Žižekian Analysis)

Against the switch from act to ambience

A recurring temptation in the literature around the Wolf-Man is to replace a punctual act with an ambience of multiplicity. Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘One or Several Wolves?’ is the canonical version of that move: it recasts the case in terms of packs and becomings, polemically counterposing their several wolves to Freud’s punctual cut. Our objection is not a matter of taste but of procedure: when ambience substitutes for act, the separation between information and enjoyment dissolves and analysis becomes theatre. Those who want to check the polemical terms of that substitution can read the relevant chapter here (🔗) or in the full book (🔗). Our discipline keeps the act central: the lion’s once-only leap marks the difference between change and churn. (azinelibrary.org)

IPA∕FLŽ as the name for punctuation, cut, separation

Beginning in April 2025, we organized our commitments under IPA∕FLŽ to bind analytic technique to public procedure. The principle is exact. Bring the clinic’s courage to end into public analysis; refuse privatized reasons; and require that every concept introduced do visible work that can be checked, quoted, and contested. The founding manifesto set out this orientation and placed the lion’s leap at the center; readers can open it here (🔗). Subsequent posts stress how quickly a feed of ‘surplus’ becomes a narcotic without this punctuation and how a strategy is needed to combat mediatized syndromes, archived together here (🔗). (Žižekian Analysis)

The present constraint: hypocritique, motherators, analyseverbot

In the present media ecosystem, a particular bind prevails. Hypocritique declares that everything is a game in order to justify ever larger gestures inside the same frame. Interlectural motherators police tone in the name of civility while freezing procedures in place. The law we call analyseverbot—an unwritten prohibition on the cut that would change the scene—follows from that policing. Ž himself often appears hostage to this regime, performing torque while remaining inside a setting that treats interpretation as spectacle. Our own sequence from early September 2025 maps this bind across texts, from the lapdog analysis to the surplus-information loop; the two anchor pieces are here (🔗) and here (🔗). (Žižekian Analysis)

How the site will read under this discipline

From now on, pieces will show their steps and account for their timing. When a text becomes sharp about offense, identity, or belief, it will be because that sharpness reveals a procedure in the object, not because it stokes a feed. When Freud’s clinic appears, it will mark a moment of separation rather than lend borrowed authority; when Žižek’s torque is used, it will be because it moves a mechanism in the object; when Lacan is cited, it will be to keep the difference between surplus-information and surplus-enjoyment clear so that analysis does not become a show. This discipline does not require mystique. It requires a public record of the cut, a dated reason for turns, and a standard by which a claim either changes the state of the problem or it does not. (winnicottisrael.com)

What remains, and what we leave behind

Curiosity remains; public reasoning remains; and the willingness to cut remains. What we leave behind is the glamour of rotating emblems, the parade of clever distinctions, and the comforting buzz of a scene that mistakes expansion of vocabulary for alteration of structure. Those who arrive expecting credential theatre will be disappointed. Those prepared to exhibit the cut they make in an object will find a home. The lion only leaps once, and when it does, the state of the problem changes. The rest is noise. (Žižekian Analysis)