No, Object #1

Zizek asserts that "the (form of) Law emerges at the precise point where representation (of the Supreme Good) is lacking ... . The form of Law is thus not simply the form of a certain content ... : it is so to speak the form supplanting, holding the place of the missing content" (p. 230 in they know not what they do, 2nd ed., London: Verso, 2002). This has to remind a modern American poet of what plays out when Olson's formulation that "Form is never more than an extension of content" crosses into the Creeley response that "Content is never more than an extension of form." It is the place between where one turns into the other (Moebiusly) that reveals that the content of the Law is the form it takes for us, the cop or the judge or the classroom teacher turning a dictate into a reason/excuse for an action and suggesting it is "for your own good." Every kid hears how hollow that is.