Reflection: Desire, Demand, and Attachment Laclaus Desire vs.

Demand (from class discussion/On Populist Reason) Desire = insatiable = Consumerism Demand (drive and affect) = can be satisfied = Political Advocacy

According to our discussion in class regarding Laclaus distinct differences between Desire and Demand, we (us students, which hold position 2 within the class room context) are now equipped with the knowledge and ability to clearly specify each trope. However, it could still be used against ushow do we distinguish the two, for example, hypothetically, in a state of consumerist zombie apocalypse chaos? Well, in that case, youd be a bitten by a consumerist zombie, turn into one, and have no brain to tell the difference between the twobut thats beside the point. If it were still to be used against us, my weapon of choice would be my sharpened sword glazed gleaming gold of knowledge and understanding of attachment. For me, attachment is the key to this puzzle. In a class discussion, one person brought up Buddhist Monks and their practices of intense meditation allowing them to transcend desire, therefore living an ascetic lifestyle. Conversely, I would argue that Buddhist Monks do have desire, but do not have attachment to the outcome of that specific desire. Like these Buddhist Monks, we too need to possess a non-judgmental consciousness of our attachments to our desires and demands, if ever caught in the instance of having to discern between the two. Arriving at this understanding of attachment is not easy. It takes experience, which requires making lots of mistakes, maybe even becoming obsessed, going through pain, pleasure, the sublime, to reach a tipping point that balances us out, where we learn the difference between what we want (desire), what we need (demands), and the extent to which we are able to control the outcome (attachment).