Just Looking ...

Here are a few video clips to give perhaps greater insight into the inner workings of Zizek's mind:



And my personal favourite, "dental-vagina-like:"



Enjoy.

As you all know, every year in October, you can find all kinds of horror movies showing on TV; from the classics such as "The Omen" and "The Exorcist", to those that were in theatres fews years ago such as "Freddy vs Jason" and "Dawn of the Dead".

Sometimes when we are watching films with supernatural theme, we question the "realness" of the makeup, CG, or even the plot. Some of you might have seen spirits or ghosts before, but I doubt that you guys have met a vampire or werewolf or other mystical beings... Then why do people criticize that in "Child's play", Chucky's movements are too robotic? It's not like they have ecountered a killer doll before. And how do they know if zombies walks like those in "Resident evil", or runs as fast as those in "28 weeks later"?

In horror movies, it seems like we are treating these socially constructed beings as "the Real", and how the director and actors and computer graphics interpret them as "the Reality". Then when we say "that ghost is so fake", we feel that "real ghost don't look like that"; that "something is missing" feeling, is that "the Surplus" that we are talking about in class? What do you guys think?

P.S. Happy Halloween everyone~~!!

I just saw John Carpenter's 1978 film "Halloween" for the first time and I thought to myself that Michael Myers (the serial killer in the film) is an example of a human who is only fuelled on a drive to kill. He is devoid of any human emotions, conscience or any human behaviour really, no sense of reality. Rather he is kind of mechanical and robotic as the cyborg is in the Terminator.

When Michael Myers is 6 years old he initially kills his older sister on Halloween by stabbing her to death. He expresses no remorse nor emotions for what he has done. Furthermore, he doesn't even have a motive for murdering his sister, not that he should have one anyway. What struck me however, is the fact that he never spoke following the incident and never speaks in the whole movie. According to Lacan's three stages to self-development, Michael appears to represent the real. He is physically human; however, his body is a merely shell for a person that has no consciousness, no conscience nor ego for that matter. Furthermore, he doesn't speak which implies that he hasn't learned, or negates the use of language (symbolic stage, thus is still attached to the realm of the real.

The white mask which he dons throughout the whole film is somewhat symoblic of the real vs. reality where the reality of the white mask is a blank; expressionless face of a serial killer and through the small black holes where his eyes are, are the windows into a black abyss that lacks any soul or human substance within it, rather a darkness; a surplus that is the "real" part of him.

I found it interesting to note how no matter how many times he is shot, or stabbed he never dies. He always comes back from the dead. According to our lecture this week on Zizek's"The Social Context of Second Death," the deceased return because they are denied a proper natural, "real" event (burial) within our symbolic order or reality. Michael is always killed in violent ways, of course because his victims are attempting to defend themselves from him; however, in the processs' of killing him, he is always denied a proper burial, for example, being buried in a cemetary. Yet, as Michael appears to be independent from the symbolic (Lacan's symbolic stage), he keeps returning from the dead as a driven, relentless killing machine. He's pretty much a cyborg dressed up as a human.

(Advanced apologies for rambling on; my thoughts are all over the places and I'm sure I've digressed in more ways than one, but it's near midnight and I have another paper due tomorrow! =\ But go me, for not posting my shopping list instead . . . :p)

In class this week, we examined the Terminator, which involves a robot/machine (the Terminator) operating solely on the basis of drive [to kill Connor], without desire. To quote (courtesy of Wikipedia), "Listen! And understand! That Terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!"

I thought it interesting that there exists quite a few instances of human characters in popular culture who are very much in line with this theme. To start off, we could take a look at Agent 47 from the popular video game series, Hitman.

Now, whether or not we can consider this character to be an entirely human character is up for debate, since he is, in fact, a clone created for the sole purpose of killing (more details here), but I think he's a good starting point in our transition from machines (or, indeed, characters of some supernatural origin) to 'ordinary' humans. Although 47 does develop some 'deviations' from the original plans of Dr. Ort-Meyer (the scientist who created him), notably free will, he is still distinctly bound by his drive and we can observe throughout his story that there is very little, if any, true human desires in him. He operates purely on his 'drive' to accomplish the missions (i.e. assassinations) assigned to him by the Agency -- as well as to survive, which is where he strays slightly from the Terminator theme. He does not reserve much affection for women nor men -- Diana is slightly exempt to this, but I highly doubt that there's any 'desire' in Lacan's sense of the word involved. Money, while he makes a point of receiving what he was promised, is not something he inherently desires either.

There are two small exceptions that I can recall at this time: the canary he is seen keeping as a pet in Hitman IV: Blood Money, and the temporary period of voluntary 'redemption' spent at Father Vittorio's church in Hitman II: Silent Assassin. I don't feel that we can necessarily say that either desires were circular, but we can certainly see that his drive triumphs over both (to make long story short, he kills the canary when its noise serves against his situation, and he leaves the church after seeing that he could never find peace there). In spite of his desire to repent and lead a righteous life, the very nature of who he is prevents him from making any permanent changes to his circumstances due to external forces that desire either to kill him or to employ his services.

One thing of interest to note is that his drive itself seems in part to stem from some distorted manifestation of what very closely resembles circular desire. His first 'desire' was to escape the crude facility in which he was born, and as an extension of that, to kill Dr. Ort-Meyer (which he does). Perhaps what drives him to accept the Agency's assignments is a circular manifestation of the same desire transferring onto other targets. The key, I think, is to determine whether he needs to kill (drive) or he simply wants to kill (desire). The reason I do not call this pure desire, however, is that 47 is not portrayed to be some psychopath who has an innate bubbling desire to go on some gleeful murdering spree (though that can certainly be done if player desires so in-game). He certainly takes no enjoyment in his work, nor does he have any sort of personal vendetta at stake against the vast majority of his victims.

A question that I would ask at this point is if he personally discriminates his list of targets. In the game, the targets are invariably, without exception, what one might call 'villains' who slipped through the nets of the legal justice system (murderers, mob bosses, violent political figures, known child molesters, and so on). It is never explained if this is by 47's choice, or if the Agency only assigns these types of missions. The latter is implied by the fact that the Agency seems to be allianced with some sort of royalty (Diana addresses 'her/his majesty' at the end of Blood Money, and the insignia of the Agency closely resembles a fleur-de-lys). However, if it is by 47's choice, then there must be some shred of morality involved, which would indicate desire rather than drive.

Another reason I used Hitman as an example is that there is an instance of Second Death at the end of Blood Money. Technically, this is not what Lacan would have referred to as true Second Death, since 47 did not actually die (it was a 'Romeo and Juliet'-esque scenario where a serum was used to imitate death), but it nevertheless seems in tune with the idea of the dead returning to extract revenge against the living. I do not see it fit to delve into the whole story here (available here for your reading pleasure), but to cut to the chase, 47 is revived surreptitiously during his funeral procession and has a field day with the corrupt members of the Franchise (a rival agency).

A third reason I used Hitman is that the game itself illustrates the neutralisation of death and violence in modern popular culture. Not only does the game revolve around the act of ending other characters' lives (the issue of whether or not 'justice' is served in so doing notwithstanding), but the gameplay leaves plenty of room for 'collateral damages,' especially if some poor NPC comes walking on their merry way into 47 engaging in a suspicious behaviour and turns into a liability that could compromise the mission, or starts shooting at 47 for no good reasons (e.g. examples). This very problem is wrought throughout countless action/adventure themed materials, where the hero/protagonist saves the day (or whatever s/he is trying to protect/accomplish) -- and leaves trails of innocent corpses behind (which we conveniently never see on screen, and which everyone in the story seems to ignore or forget).

Moving onto more fully 'human' characters without desires, I would like to turn to the Bourne series. The novels are not quite as good examples for this purpose (although Bourne does become the ruthless agent we see on the films, he is driven by a very strong desire for a specific goal rather than acting with a senseless drive as an agent of the government), but the film, I think, portrays a good instance of such a phenomenon; not so much in Bourne himself, but in Treadstone/Blackbriar 'assets.' "I can see their faces," Bourne is quoted as saying. "Everyone I ever killed -- I just don't know their name." We do not know what desires motivated any of them, including Bourne, to enter the program (not that it really matters, since it is made clear that they were 'tricked' into believing they would be 'saving lives'), but once they have undergone the extensive series of conditioning, we can definitely see strong semblance to the Terminator in each of them. "Look at what they make you give," says the Professor -- a phrase echoed by Bourne near the end of the film trilogy.

Labels: Bourne, Hitman, Lacan

Early on in the series Spike is portrayed as a ruthless vampire who seeks to fulfill his mechanical death drive. He desires to kill Buffy in particular, except he is not able to do so as a result of a chip that is implanted in his brain. Since this chip renders him incapable of killing humans, he is stripped of his drive and hence goes on to project his desire on another object in order to continue to exist. This object turns out to be Buffy herself, whom he now comes to love. Unfortunately, Buffy does not share the same sentiment and once again, Spike is devoid of desire. He then goes on to project his death drive onto himself and seeks closure in being able to rest peacefully in his grave. According to Zizek, the living dead arise “because they were not properly buried”, and in this context, it is not far-fetched for Spike to desire being buried six-feet under. With a sudden twist of events, Buffy does reciprocate his feelings and his vampire drive for death is subdued.

Buffy, a human, who dies while trying to protect her sister, is revived in order to fulfill her role as the vampire slayer. Since she only does as she is told by her mentor, Giles, who is a member of an organization that combats malevolent supernatural entities, it would be safe to say that she plays an important role in maintaining the order of things in the symbolic world. She is very well aware that she is being used for a purpose and since she does not know much about Giles’ organization, she finds it difficult to remain motivated.

While Buffy would be considered a living dead as per Lacan, she does not possess the drive which is characteristic of one “between the two deaths”. Although she is expected to combat and slay supernatural entities, she does not exist by the death drive. She wants to fill in that void in her life and seeks something of an objet petit a so that she can continue to exist. Since she functions as part of the symbolic order, it appears that she desires something that has nothing to do with the symbolic order and this would explain her attraction to Spike.

Thus, while Spike and Buffy would be expected to live again only to fulfill their persistent drive, neither of them do so. Both of them are actually driven to seek an object of desire, and in achieving so, they continue their existence.

Zizek argues that Arnold Schwarzenaager in the terminator represents drive without desire. He is a machine driven purely by a need to fulfil its task - to terminate. It is beyond reason or control, and cannot be disuaded from its calling. this week's blog question asks for other examples of drive without desire.

It seems there's an abundance of examples in Popular Culture to sift through. Zombies were discussed extensively in class. I considered mercenaries and hit men, like John Cusack in Grosse Point Blank. Then there are Storm Troopers, who like zombies, are missing some essential human qualities. They are weak-minded and physically indistinguishable, if somewhat less menacing than a zombie since they seem pretty easy to take out with a blaster. An army of storm troopers, nonetheless, is a brain-washed, uncaring force, oblivious to the senslessness of its destructive behavior.

While all of these are plausible examples, in the end I've had to conclude that its a point from the Matrix that really takes the cake. Agent Smith's description of a virus as a relentless force of consumption is a great example of drive without desire. A virus feeds off its host until it has completely depleted it, then moves on leaving a wake of death behind it.

Funny thing you may recall - and pertinent to the course's aim of understanding society through popular culture - is that Smith parallels the virus to humans. The general tendancy of the dominant capitalist model is to exploit both people and the environment, in an effort to churn out "goods" at an ever-increasing rate.

Perhaps in the developped world of consumption for consumption sake and prgress in the name of progress, our own society is the best contemporary example of drive without desire that we can offer?

This is a response to Freud and Lacan's ideas about the Real. I suppose its more pertinent to psychology and a bit of a tangent from the actual lecture, but it got me thinking so here goes...

If self-awareness is what distinguishes reality from the Real, then perhaps we reconnect with the real in moments when we lose self-awareness. In lecture, the prof said that the Real is the sense that "something's missing," universal to all people. He suggested we satisfy our desire to reconnect with the Real by sating our desires for sex and food. I wonder if it also in the moments that we are truly engaged - in conversation with friends and peers, or overcome by a beautiful sight or sound - that we stop being aware of ourselves, no longer plagued by the loss of the Real.

In this light, it is interesting to consider a quote from Engels. Describing the working class men of the early decades of the British industrial revolution, he notes that

"liquor is almost their only source of pleasure...[Drunkenness provides] the certainty of forgetting for an hour or two the wretchedness and burden of life and a hundred other circumstances so mighty that the worker can, in true, hardly be blamed for yielding to such overwhelming pressure."

Most people know that alcohol and drugs can provide the chance to relax and "escape reality." Assume reconnecting with the Real seems essential to mental health and satisfaction. In demanding work environments, perhaps mild substance abuse can accelerate the process?

So the next time you're at a U of T pub nite, take a moment to be aware of your surroundings, if you can. Look around at your peers. Consider that you may be witnessing not only people unwinding, getting and drunk, but perhaps some "reconnections with the Real." Doesnt that feel better?
Cheers

At first blush, the image of the house on Shaw Street is an eye sore to say the least. However, sitting in lecture last Tuesday, I could not help but view the house as emblematic to the value of a dollar in Toronto. To me, the house seemed altered, compressed, to represent the reality that Torontonians experience daily – we need a lot to get a little. Sure, the house is tiny, and, thus, appears inundated with icons of ancient prestige, but the reality of Toronto realty is that this house is worth big bucks. In my area, Don Mills, a duplex can cost up to $400 000.00, a small house can run upwards of $600K, yet outside of the Greater Toronto Area, $600 000.00 will buy two large homes. So, is the owner of the Shaw Street home putting on airs, or does his asserted status fairly represent the kind of lifestyle he has acquired? This brings me back to the question, “Is there a working class in Toronto?” The answer is no. In Toronto, the average salary is higher than those outside of the GTA, but that is largely due to the fact that the cost of living is so steep. Many people who work in Toronto, cannot afford to live here, and this is why Toronto is nearly impossible to navigate before 10AM on any given weekday. Those who can afford to live here, often live modestly, regardless of being able to live quite comfortably 60KM outside of the city – like our good friend on Shaw Street (although, the term “modestly” should be taken lightly in this case). For all we know, the owner of the Shaw Street Massacre had a dream to buy an expensive home and live like a Greek god – unfortunately he opted to purchase his palace in our fair city and did not get quite as much bang as he would have liked for his buck. Thus, he had no choice but to overcompensate resulting in the complete disarray apparent on Shaw Street today. To conclude, I would like you to visualize this symbol, $, being compressed and hold that image with the Shaw Street home in your mind. Now, take those images and stretch them – suddenly both make sense.

When someone mentioned embourgeoisement, we think of a middle class person (or at least someone with a full-time job) trying to move up the social class. One of the reasons is that elite tastes are usually associated with goods and activities with higher prices. But it seems that embourgeoisement is starting to affect the younger age groups.

I don't know if you guys have noticed, there are more and more students carrying Gucci or LV hangbags in campus, and most of them are first or second year students. That does not only apply to girls, you can sometimes see guys buying lunch and flashing their LV wallets... Around 3 or 4 years ago, you rarely see students carrying these pricey or high class accessories to lectures.

Then I ask myself, is this just another newly developed trend, like Nano, NDS Lite and Wii? But when you look at Nano and stuff, they are more or less designed for teenagers or young adults, and their prices are usually acceptable and affordable to students with only a part-time job or no job at all. Whereas by observing the design and price of the products of Gucci, LV and Tiffany & co., you can tell that their target market is not the teenage group at all.

So, what drives the younger ones to take 2 part-time jobs and save for 3 monthes just to buy a $800 worth Gucci bag? What makes them beg their parents for 8 months just so that they could get a Tiffany necklace for their birthday? Is embourgeoisement really the reason to all these?

Understanding whether the house is an example of resistance or hegemonic compliance all comes down to the attitude of the homeowner. What are his motives in painting his house white, installing Greek-style columns, and adorning the house with statues?

On the one hand, if he honestly believes that his home looks grander than those around it, and that he's fooling his neighbours into thinking a palace, then his actions are an example of hegemony. (He is also slightly deluded.) In this scenario, one could assume that
a) he believes his house to be better than everyone else's and
b)that adorning it with symbols of higher class raise his and his home's status. Obviously, this is an ironic action, since if really did have the money of an upper-middle class person and wanted a palace, he likely wouldn't live on Shaw street in the first place. By making his home stand out like a sore thumb, is he saying "I dont belong here" ?
Perhaps he is commenting that it is possible to live in a neighbourhood on Shaw street and still have all the cultural clout of someone who lives in a mansion? Maybe he is a very rich man who has elected to live on Shaw street, despite his millions, but wants everyone to know he ascribes to a higher class? Even then he's missing the point, because his tacky house lacks taste, something one could argue is essential to high class.

If, on the other hand, as the prof suggested, he knows how ridiculous his house looks, then his actions can be interpreted as a kind of tongue-in-cheek act of resistance. He is taking the symbols of the higher classes and putting them where they dont belong. This cheapens them, and begins to break down their meaning. If any bum on Shaw street can have Greek columns, then I guess they aren't so elite anymore. Its the same phenomenon of rip-off louis vuitton hang bags. People buy them to ascribe to a higher class, but as a result cheapen them by making them common.

So those are my thoughts...what do ya think?

I lived in Parkdale too and I totally agree with the last post. I lived right across the street from the Drake. I saw the whole thing being transformed. It totally changed the social scape of Parkdale and 'Queen West Village'. Where I used to ocassionally get woken up at night from a couple of the local neighbourhood drunks, after the facade/business development of the Drake I was suddenly getting woken up ever Fri, Sat and Sun by a line of drunken girls laughing to loudly and obviously totally incapacitated - not to mention when it was subzero weather they would be hanging out there in close to nothing and their high heels - in snow people!

Sorry that was more of an angry rant at the girls who would wake me up. Anyways what i'm getting at is that all the new development started attracting a whole new crowd into the area - "hipsters" and all there pretentions and emo-ness. Where I was a young artist who was making less than min. wage, I realized my beloved 'cheap, eclectic, and somewhat downtrodden' neighbourhood suddenly didn't reflect me anymore. Eventually I just couldn't afford to live
there anymore and had to move away... :(

Another recent example of this is happening with where I currently reside in the Cabbage town Regent Park area. I saw the tearing down of one of Toronto's oldest 'ghettoes' - yes it needed to be done - albeit badly too. I couldn't help but wonder though where the people who used to live there went? Did the govt' provide temporary housing until the new units were built? I know the plan was to make Regent into mixed income housing - so that the area wouldn't be ghettoized any more - but would it really work - would people really be unable to tell the difference betwenn those in govt' subsidized housing and those that weren't?? If the theory of embourgeoisment works than those that are from poorer social strata (lower working class - proletariat) would be surrounded by more of the middle classes and could hypothetically adopt the values, dress, and behaviours of 'those' people?? I don't know but could this be the cities attempt at homogenizing it's citizenry??? Is this an act of hegemony??? I don't know.

Also another interesting aside - I am taking this other anthro course called "South Asia: Practices, Theories, Representations" taught by Prof. N. Dave (awesome prof!!!)- in this course we are reading this ethnography called "The Remembered Village" by M.N. Srinivas. It's about the social interactions of a small Indian Village called Rampura (simplification). It is important to note here that it talks alot about the Indian Caste System and how that effects the interactions among people. Srinivas coined the term "SANSKRITIZATION " which basically means to try and elevate ones position by mimicking or adopting the rituals and behaviours of a higher caste.
This makes the caste more (ritually at least) pure and in the eyes of others (other castes) makes them (from the lower caste) less polluting and more pious. This actually to me is very similar to embourgoisment. Maybe not entirely similar but adapted to fit into a specific context.

Is this entirely dissimilar to what happens to new immigrants in TO? My mom and dad have totally westernized and adopted the values of middle class "white" people - we were one of the few Chinese families in our neighbourhood, my dad even sits there proudly looking at his garden saying it is comparable to the "white" families out there - (because the sterotype he is agreeing with is that working class chinese people at least in inner city TO don't take care of there lawns or gardens). Is he making himself more like the middle class "white" people - just as the castes in India are ritually elevating themselves, and just as Parkdale is looking more like Queen Street (and Just as Queen Street is looking more like Yorkville - Joni Mitchell people Big Yellow Taxi be warned)
sorry i have gone on for too long.

When I was a kid I used to live in Parkdale (think roughly Queen West centre around Dufferin and Lansdowne). It was the kind of neighbourhood where my dad was offered heroine on the way home from buying a chicken, crack dens were raided a few doors down and hookers would show up at our door making housecalls. Now, it's still pretty sketch, but it's trendy. Indy.

I started thinking about how its changed and it reminded me of our whole talk about embourgeoisement. Some may call it gentrification, but in my opinion it's pretty much the same thing. It started off relatively innocently. Instead of the mom and pop video store on the corner we used to rent Sega games at, a Blockbuster now provides your video-gaming services. Most of the convenience stores have closed in place of a Grocery Store (IGA or Loblaws or Price Chopper or something). There's even a Starbucks that has opened up nearby - far surpassing the original Coffee Time in extravagance.

Two more examples of the changing face of Parkdale has been the renovation of the Gladstone Hotel and the Drake Hotel. They are now both home to exclusive art shows, chic bars, jazz nights and function as clubs some nights of the week. Due to the low rental costs of many of the commercial properties in the area, independent art, clothing and furniture stores have descended on the area. However, although the businesses have changed, the population in the area has, to a great extent, not.

Nevertheless I believe that the influx of these "high culture" and "tasteful" institutions (pretentious art galleries...Starbucks) are in their own way changing the way that the neighbourhood's denizens are experiencing their world. They are being introduced to and are accepting these new and "classier" establishments and even welcoming them. I am hesitant, though, in saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's just an example of how cultural hegemonization is occurring in a neighbourhood close to my heart.

Whadda ya think?

Despite such a catalogue of economic casualties and social costs, as long as the system keeps on delivering greater prosperity, the shows stays on the road, even if that road is increasingly pot-holed , congested and destructive of the environment> Momentum is sustained by new forms of what Marx termed commodity fetishism. Rising levels of consumption are no longer driven by the prime modern phenomena of built-in obsolescence and the "motor of fashion". To them can now be added "branding" based on the increased technological capacity to "gold-plate" products ..... Though Sennet does not involve the parallels , the innovation of ceaseless 'choice' and unrealizable fulfilment are all too redolent of the pressures towards states of anomie.

Over the past week the National Hockey League began its regular season and I find absolutely amazing as to how much people have waited for the season so begin. Even though hockey has roots in Canada that date back several decades, hockey, today, is extremely involved in the public eye in Canada.

The reason why I think hockey is popular culture is because it only seems to exhibit this much media coverage and publicity in Canada, with comparisons being made the USA. Yes, the USA broadcasts hockey but the passion that is visible in Canadian hockey markets is absolutely everywhere. Everywhere you go in Canada you will find someone who has played hockey.

Why I find it remarkable is that popular culture in the form of hockey is evident. For those who play hockey they want to have the style of play, the look and the admiration from followers just like superstar hockey players such Sidney Crosby. These players will wear a visor to protect their eyes and face because the best players are now wearing them. This is very evident as several years ago the visor was not a popular item to wear and people who just looked up to professionals did not wear them either.

Also, as in most sports, the fashion statement of wearing a jersey is extremely popular. In Toronto, you will find a mix of several sports jerseys but the day of Toronto Maple Leaf game you can spot that blue and white sweater everywhere you look. In fact, seeing that jersey, even if there is not a hockey game that day, sparks something inside of everyone that makes you feel proud to know that you cheer for that hockey team. For example, I was travelling in Greece 5 years ago and I saw a young boy, maybe 6 or 7 years old, wearing a Toronto Maple Leaf t-shirt. I was so proud to see that and I actually went up to him and talked to him just because of that shirt.

Hockey is part of our popular culture in Canada and is something that is embedded in all of us. Many of us say that we do not like the sport or, for that matter, even hate the sport of hockey. However, being able to see our hockey team in Toronto, the Maple Leafs, succeed is something we all hope and wish for. This is why, hockey in Toronto and Canada, is part of our popular culture because it is everywhere you look.

I came across this article earlier - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7024728.stm
I think it touches on Benjamin's concerns about reproduction (although not as eloquently as him), particularly the passage : 'Go back a few hundred years and the typical book was an object of extraordinary cost and rarity, where the value of the book itself was bound up with the importance of the information. Now Google gives them away for nothing.'
Interesting that I came across the article for free on the internet..I think that about sums everything up!

I'm in the midst of reading "Sex, Drugs and cocoa puffs" by Chuck Klosterman, its a thorough analysis of popular culture today. It can be a difficult read if you don't know every single tv show, novel or movie ever written...but it's an amazing novel and I highly recommend it to people who are really interested in the contents of this course!