Zizek Study:

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

As I return to Zizek, I cannot help but do so with a certain amount of hesitation and anxiety. As anyone knows who has occupied these boards with me: my love (maybe just like/hate (with a dash of contempt (relationship with Capitalism has often led to some rants that have been hurtful towards people who, despite my issues with their issues, I care a great deal about. As I have said before: I try to make peace with it since there is nothing I can do about it which makes it hardly worth alienating people I actually do love despite their politics. At the same time, as I once saw on an avatar that consisted of graffiti written on a broken down wall:

“Every day I wake up on the wrong side of Capitalism.”

With Zizek, I find myself approaching the beast, and everyone in between, with my finger on the trigger. And even within my start with the introducing graphic guide (and quit rolling your eyes: they are a useful summary of the issue (the notes are flowing.  The rants are sure to follow. And I apologize ahead of time to anyone who gets caught in the crossfire.

All of which kind of imposes upon me the first point to be made: the push-pull relationship I/we tend to have with Capitalism and the Jouissance it implies –Jouissance being a term that was strangely missing from the graphic guide. One of Zizek’s concerns that came up was the intimate relationship between law and prohibition and the transgression of them. In a sense, it is as if the very creation of these laws and prohibitions creates the desire to transgress them and, in turn, the very push-pull relationship that defines Jouissance.

Now what is notable here is Zizek’s Lacanian understanding of the subconscious as that which works in a way opposite to consciousness: as a kind of counterbalance to the conscious imperatives the self finds itself faced with. The thing is that Carl Jung saw the subconscious in the same sense and used it as a primary agent in the maladies that extreme introverts or extreme extroverts can succumb to. But first we have to understand what Jung actually meant by the terms as compared to the popular notions about them. The terms extrovert and introvert are actually a phenomenological issue of one’s relationship with the world of objects.  For the extrovert everything begins and ends in the world of objects (the realists (while for the introvert everything begins and ends in the self (the groundhogs of reality going into the world and bringing back objects to store in their own little hole.

Jung then goes on to describe the maladies that both can fall into because of the counterbalancing role of the subconscious.  The malady of the extrovert is that of hysteria:  the subconscious seeking to overwhelm their focus on the world of objects and them reacting by throwing themselves deeper into that world in an exaggerated way. Hence: their propensity towards dogma since dogma is basically “out there”: a product of the symbolic order.

The malady of the introvert (for which I lack the actual term (consists of the subconscious asserting an attraction to the world of objects while the individual, at a conscious level, is repulsed by it. And, unfortunately, I can testify to this anecdotally in that much of my critical stance towards Capitalism results from the push-pull relationship I find myself in with a world of consumer goods: the objects occupying my environmental and cultural space.

I hope to go into this deeper in the context of Zizek (my window has run out (but before I go I would offer a more finished piece I did on the subject:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=179930
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

Iona wrote:I'm trying to understand what it is your saying here, or trying to say.

I could say a great deal about Zizek, but I'm not sure that is the point of this thread?...
Hopefully, Iona, we'll work that out as we go along. And having seen you work, I'm quite sure you can say a lot about Zizek and am looking forward to it.

The main thing I can offer now is that I am primarily working from the book Plague of Fantasies and the role that Jouissance (that push/pull relationship we tend to have with reality (can play in human cruelty among other aspects of the human condition.

However, I feel like I owe you an elaboration on the point of Jouissance. I was hoping to just come on the boards and just respond to points the peers I have collected have made: to just engage in a friendly exchange of licks: the jam. But you have turned this into yet another postcard -you bastard.

Anyway, my understanding of Jouissance came from the graphic guide: Lacan for Beginners. And know that I am mainly explaining this for the sake of intellectual curiosity. If it feels like I am hitting on you, it is only because Lacan was a bit of womanizer and tended to use his intellect towards that purpose.

But if you look at the experience of sex, it is one of experiencing pleasure at a conscious level while experiencing discomfort at a subconscious level. The argument used for this is that if you cut the sexual act off just before climax, you will experience discomfort. But I think it runs a little deeper and more subtle than this. If you actually think back to any sexual experience you have had, it is one of trying to work towards a threshold that will take you out of place you are really enjoying at the time. In other words, when you are in the sexual act, you are in a state of going in 2 directions at once.

Lacan then goes on to explain that in the case of neurosis or hysteria, the dynamic is reversed. In that case, discomfort is experienced at a conscious level while pleasure is experienced at a subconscious level. This is why we tend to repeat behaviors that give us displeasure at a conscious level. This, for instance, explains why women will stay in abusive relationships or why a guy will continue to imagine their girlfriend having sex with someone else regardless of what they’re actually doing.

Now in order to understand what I’m getting at: imagine a song that makes you want to fold into yourself: that is the very Jouissance that underlies acts of cruelty: the way Nazi’s would go home at night and listen to Wagner in order to prove to themselves that they were, after all, civilized men. As Zizek writes in Plague of Fantasies:

“It is especially important to bear in mind how the very ‘bureaucratization’ of the crime was ambiguous in its libidinal impact: on the one hand, it enabled (some of) the participants to neutralize the horror and take it as ‘just another job’; on the other, the basic lesson of the perverse ritual also applies here: this ‘bureaucratization’ was in itself the source of an additional jouissance (does it not provide an additional kick if one performs the killing as a complicated administrative-criminal operation? Is it not more satisfying to torture prisoners as part of some orderly procedure –say, the meaningless ‘morning exercises which served only to torment them –didn’t it give another ‘kick’ to the guards satisfaction when they were inflicting pain on their victims not by directly beating them up but in the guise of an activity officially destined to maintain their health?)”
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by Arising_uk »

Who's Iona?
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by Wyman »

Arising_uk wrote:Who's Iona?
I've never figured out who he's talking to, either.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

“Let me excerpt some bits from the Primordial One thread. I think you'll find this all pertains quite acutely to the question of organism and jouissance. I propose that the very nature of being is over fullness, thus that this Hell-raiser kind of situation is in fact an existential fact, which is however not endured by humans; after the organism, the man will attain a few moments of clarity where he is able to reflect on himself, on his reality. This clarity, this calm after the orgasm, is in fact a kind of artificial space almost 'outside of existence', a state of very different conditions than what existence normally requires -- this over fullness, this constant overflowing which alone is the proof of overfullness. But nature devised a way to expend her self temporarily, so that it can climb back into itself, re-fill itself. Within this space, the capacity for thought is born, I would think.”

I would focus first on this point:

“I propose that the very nature of being is over fullness, thus that this Hell-raiser kind of situation is in fact an existential fact….”

It seems a little profound to me that you would point out that Jouissance is basically a fact of life: a cornerstone if you will. I, for instance, would like to go to my deathbed knowing that I did what I came to do: had passed the threshold of climax: but I’m almost certain that no matter how long I live I will never permanently reach that point. No matter what I manage to fulfill, that fulfillment will only lead to other things I will find myself reaching for. No matter how long I go on there will always be that one other thing I have to do.

So you’re right: it (the ongoing discomfort of Jouissance (may not (probably isn’t (just be a description of Hell, it may well be a description of life itself. At the same time, there are those momentary stays against confusion. As you describe:

“after the organism [do you mean orgasm?], the man will attain a few moments of clarity where he is able to reflect on himself, on his reality. This clarity, this calm after the orgasm, is in fact a kind of artificial space almost 'outside of existence', a state of very different conditions than what existence normally requires -- this over fullness, this constant overflowing which alone is the proof of overfullness.”

It seems to me that what you are mainly talking about here is libido: that life force which I think can be attributed to women as well, even if it takes different expressions with them. But, once again, I would use the description that Robert Frost used in describing the poem: a momentary stay against confusion. And I would attribute the back and forth relationship between Jouissance (the Dionysian ecstatic (and those momentary stays against confusion (the Apollonian (to the human capacity for creativity: that which you pointed out when you said:

“Within this space, the capacity for thought is born, I would think. “

And I think Zizek sees as much as the 2 of us: that Jouissance lies at the foundation of existence itself. But it comes with a catch: what drives our creativity is also what can drive human cruelty or the creative ways in which humans can engage in cruelty. Once again, quoting from Zizek:

“It is especially important to bear in mind how the very ‘bureaucratization’ of the crime was ambiguous in its libidinal impact: on the one hand, it enabled (some of) the participants to neutralize the horror and take it as ‘just another job’; on the other, the basic lesson of the perverse ritual also applies here: this ‘bureaucratization’ was in itself the source of an additional jouissance (does it not provide an additional kick if one performs the killing as a complicated administrative-criminal operation? Is it not more satisfying to torture prisoners as part of some orderly procedure –say, the meaningless ‘morning exercises which served only to torment them –didn’t it give another ‘kick’ to the guards satisfaction when they were inflicting pain on their victims not by directly beating them up but in the guise of an activity officially destined to maintain their health?”

I would also offer, as an example, our American right-wingers who seem to be completely lacking in compassion for the victims of their policies or seem oblivious. I would argue that they, much as the Nazi’s were with the Jews, or a serial killer is with their victim, are perfectly clear on the harm they are doing. This is why they must turn to hysteria (their expression of Jouissance (in order (through a kind of momentum (to put themselves beyond the issue of their guilt. They may seem totally satisfied with their description of reality, but it is always the result of their desire to convince themselves that their complete self interest at the expense of others could actually be justified.

Context: http://www.humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop ... 1752#p1752
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

My next experience/experiment w/ Zizek came down to 2 books that were on Kindle (I didn’t have time to wait (vacation being almost over (for a hard copy through the mail: The Parallax View and Did Someone Say Totalitarianism. The Parallax View, going by the reviews, seemed a little more abstract (almost Deleuzian abstract (than what I was ready for at this time and the latter seemed a little closer to my heart in that one of my primary focuses with philosophy, as Deleuze and Guattarri encourage us to do, is to seek out the pockets of Fascism (the cornerstone of Totalitarianism (that emerge everywhere, including and most importantly within ourselves.

And whenever I start with new philosophical text, I find it helps to start with your own instincts about what it means and play it against reality: that of reality itself which includes the reality of the actual text. Therefore, I base the following on my instincts about it based on the reviews, what I do know about Zizek from other books, and what little of it I have read. And I do so with full disclosure that I may well be proven wrong on much of it.

My sense of it is that words like “totalitarianism” and “fascism” are terms we tend to throw at social, ideological, and political policies we don’t like when, in fact, they are basically abstractions that distract us from the very real issue (the particulars (of just and unjust policies. And I am as guilty as anyone else of this. To put it in Deleuzian terms: they only serve as the molarization (the buzzwords (of experience that can distract us from the true molecular aspect of the phenomenon we tag as such.

To give an example from my own possibly half-assed understanding: I like to say that it’s been said that to forget history is to repeat it; but to remember it in half-assed ways is to repeat it in different ways. Now imagine what it must of felt like to be a German in the years between the treaty that ended WWI and the rise of Hitler. Imagine the hell they must have been going through. Then imagine yourself in a pub during Hitler’s war economy in a pub having the time of your life.

Now imagine your average sports bar in America, that sense of being on top of the world and utter indifference to whose expense comes at, then put uniforms on them. Or imagine it with hipsters, many of which are grabbing their wealth on Wall Street.

Now the thing is this isn’t exactly “totalitarianism” or “fascism” in the same sense as Germany in the 30’s. But it does warrant concern. And terms like “totalitarianism” or “fascism” can only distract from a full understanding of how odious this all actually is, how much of a sickness, very much like that of a drug addict, this actually is. It keeps us looking for socially programmed cues for socially programmed responses (such as government over-reach (when the only real evil (that which approaches totalitarianism and fascism while not actually being totalitarianism or fascism (is that which is doing the programming.
*
Now let’s push the issue a little deeper in terms of setting aside terms like “totalitarian” and “fascism” and focus on the term (the buzzword (“freedom” in terms of how the German’s might have seen it at the time.

Now if we were to look at it superficially, we might look at it in terms of the German’s suffering some really harsh economic times while the Jews were prospering: mainly because of their willingness to commit fully (via their close family ties (to economic prosperity: to set aside all other desires for the sake of it. And I'm sorry, but I cannot doubt that there were Jews that argued that if the Germans made the same commitment as them, they would be prospering as well.

Therefore: while we can see the anti-Semitism of the Nazi’s as a result of resentment (that is at a superficial level (we can also see it as a resentment of the message being presented (one we can all be uncomfortable with: that success in the market is a matter of committing fully to it: the opposite of freedom.

Hence the inclusion of another buzzword, “socialism”, in the acronym NAZI.

This is not to say that it was the Jew’s fault or that we should sympathize with the NAZI’s. It is simply to say that if we set aside such molar terms as “totalitarianism” or “fascism”, and actually try to understand the situation others have been in (including the Germans in the 30’s (we get all that closer to stopping it from happening again.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

“The last thing we need is a dictator. In fact that is what the oligarchy we have is. the continuation OF the dictator”

Yeah, it's a form of dictatorship based on a kind of parliament of aristocrats that over-rides and controls the democracies of the people: that which is suppose to look out for our interests.

And I understand, zz, that the word "dictator" strikes fear in the hearts of most people. I'm scared of it myself. And I'm not saying we should turn to one. All I'm saying is that the only thing that may be able to deal with the beast we are facing is the good fortune of actually finding a benign dictator that can take us out of the inverted totalitarianism we are dealing with (in which economics is given privilege over state (by casting aside the illusions that producer/consumer Capitalism has cast over us and putting state back into its proper role: that as check and balance (for our sake (to corporate power.

You need to understand that in order to push back the power that the aristocracy/oligarchy (the economic coup ( has accumulated, everything has to be on the table: running from an expansion of the public economy, to socialism, and to outright communism if that is what it takes. This is because (and make no mistake about it (the rich will do everything they can to maintain their privilege at our expense.

To give you sense of the urgency involved, you have to consider a point made by Chris Hedges: that what we are dealing with now is a kind of inverted totalitarianism (and I hate to use that term given the study I’m in now (in which the market is given privilege over state: that in which our present aristocrats/oligarchs are validated by the market: the fact that we buy the products that allow them the wealth and power they have. Now compare that to classical totalitarianism where state is given privilege over the market.

Now think about the situation we are in now economically: one in which the differential between the exchange value of everything and the actual buying power it creates is so large that there is no possible way it can sustain a respectable economy. This is why our economy is no longer based on what we can afford to buy, it is now based, via credit, on what we may be able to afford in the future. Now what happens when that flow of exchange collapses and the market is no longer there to justify the privilege of the aristocracy/oligarchy? Do you think they are just going to give it up, say “game over”, and walk away from that privilege?

Or is the more likely possibility that they’ll turn to classical totalitarianism by giving the state (which they own, BTW, along with the military (privilege? The scenario I’m waiting for is some Republican suggesting that people who are in debt, rather than turn to bankruptcy, turn themselves over to slavery until their “debt is paid”. It might also be suggested as a more practical alternative to welfare and unemployment.

(And, BTW, I do believe that the Republicans (along with the tea party (the brownshirt appendix to the repugs ( are that smug, obtuse, hateful, and evil. There is no doubt in my mind about how low they would go to protect the interests of their country-club buddies.)

Now maybe I’m wrong. And I actually hope I am. But then maybe the radical possibility of a benign dictator may be the only hope we have given where our liberal democracies seem to be leading us.

Context: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/addpost.php
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by Ansiktsburk »

d63 wrote:As I return to Zizek, I cannot help but do so with a certain amount of hesitation and anxiety. As anyone knows who has occupied these boards with me: my love (maybe just like/hate (with a dash of contempt (relationship with Capitalism has often led to some rants that have been hurtful towards people who, despite my issues with their issues, I care a great deal about. As I have said before: I try to make peace with it since there is nothing I can do about it which makes it hardly worth alienating people I actually do love despite their politics. At the same time, as I once saw on an avatar that consisted of graffiti written on a broken down wall:

“Every day I wake up on the wrong side of Capitalism.”

With Zizek, I find myself approaching the beast, and everyone in between, with my finger on the trigger. And even within my start with the introducing graphic guide (and quit rolling your eyes: they are a useful summary of the issue (the notes are flowing.  The rants are sure to follow. And I apologize ahead of time to anyone who gets caught in the crossfire.

All of which kind of imposes upon me the first point to be made: the push-pull relationship I/we tend to have with Capitalism and the Jouissance it implies –Jouissance being a term that was strangely missing from the graphic guide. One of Zizek’s concerns that came up was the intimate relationship between law and prohibition and the transgression of them. In a sense, it is as if the very creation of these laws and prohibitions creates the desire to transgress them and, in turn, the very push-pull relationship that defines Jouissance.

Now what is notable here is Zizek’s Lacanian understanding of the subconscious as that which works in a way opposite to consciousness: as a kind of counterbalance to the conscious imperatives the self finds itself faced with. The thing is that Carl Jung saw the subconscious in the same sense and used it as a primary agent in the maladies that extreme introverts or extreme extroverts can succumb to. But first we have to understand what Jung actually meant by the terms as compared to the popular notions about them. The terms extrovert and introvert are actually a phenomenological issue of one’s relationship with the world of objects.  For the extrovert everything begins and ends in the world of objects (the realists (while for the introvert everything begins and ends in the self (the groundhogs of reality going into the world and bringing back objects to store in their own little hole.

Jung then goes on to describe the maladies that both can fall into because of the counterbalancing role of the subconscious.  The malady of the extrovert is that of hysteria:  the subconscious seeking to overwhelm their focus on the world of objects and them reacting by throwing themselves deeper into that world in an exaggerated way. Hence: their propensity towards dogma since dogma is basically “out there”: a product of the symbolic order.

The malady of the introvert (for which I lack the actual term (consists of the subconscious asserting an attraction to the world of objects while the individual, at a conscious level, is repulsed by it. And, unfortunately, I can testify to this anecdotally in that much of my critical stance towards Capitalism results from the push-pull relationship I find myself in with a world of consumer goods: the objects occupying my environmental and cultural space.

I hope to go into this deeper in the context of Zizek (my window has run out (but before I go I would offer a more finished piece I did on the subject:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=179930
I'm slightly dyslectic, so I didn't make it past this post, so I'll comment that. I have also some kind of relationship to Zizek like yours. Even though I have not read any of his works (and I don't think I ever will), but watching his videos all over the place, and if he ever get to Sweden, of course I'll go to whatever seminar he will give.

The word here, I think, is Amplitude. Or quantity as sometimes superior to quality. Sometimes having too much of the meaning of the swedish word "lagom" (google it up in your language) gets totally inadequate. We need stimulation, we need to feel that we get away from the normal. And capitalism is surely playing in that ballgame. It's about differences, about differing. That creates a tension that gives, if not pleasure, at least a sense of life. A little like spanking.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by Arising_uk »

d63 wrote:...
Now if we were to look at it superficially, we might look at it in terms of the German’s suffering some really harsh economic times while the Jews were prospering: mainly because of their willingness to commit fully (via their close family ties (to economic prosperity: to set aside all other desires for the sake of it. ...
But this wasn't the case? The average German would have known poor Jews in Germany at the time.
Therefore: while we can see the anti-Semitism of the Nazi’s as a result of resentment (that is at a superficial level (we can also see it as a resentment of the message being presented (one we can all be uncomfortable with: that success in the market is a matter of committing fully to it: the opposite of freedom.
I thought the resentment came from the belief that the Germans were betrayed in WWI by the Jewish bankers and the problem that the war was a draw not a defeat.
Hence the inclusion of another buzzword, “socialism”, in the acronym NAZI.
What buzzword? The acronym stood for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

“The embodiment of this surplus is the toothpaste tube whose last third is differently coloured , with ‘YOU GET 30% FREE!’ in large letters – in such a situation I am always tempted to say: ‘OK then, give me only this free 30 per cent of the toothpaste!’ In capitalism, the definition of the ‘proper price’ is a discount price. The worn-out designation ‘consumer society’ thus holds only if one conceives of consumption as the mode of appearance of its very opposite, thrift. Here, we should return to Hamlet and to ritual value: ritual is ultimately the ritual of sacrifice which opens up the space for generous consumption – after we have sacrificed to the gods the innermost parts of the slaughtered animal (heart, intestines), we are free to enjoy a hearty meal of the remaining meat. Instead of enabling free consumption without sacrifice, the modern ‘total economy’ which wants to dispense with this ‘superfluous’ ritualized sacrifice generates the paradoxes of thrift – there is no generous consumption; consumption is allowed only in so far as it functions as the form of appearance of its opposite. And was not Nazism precisely a desperate attempt to restore ritual value to its proper place through the Holocaust, that gigantic sacrifice to the ‘obscure gods’, as Lacan put it in Seminar XI? Quite appropriately, the sacrificed object was the Jew, the very embodiment of the capitalist paradoxes of thrift. Fascism is to be situated in the series of attempts to counter this capitalist logic: apart from the Fascist corporatist attempt to ‘re-establish the balance’ by cutting off the excess embodied in the ‘Jew’, we could mention the different versions of the attempt to restore the premodern sovereign gesture of pure expenditure – recall the figure of the junkie, the only true ‘subject of consumption’, the only one who consumes himself utterly, to his very death, in his unbound jouissance.” -Zizek, Slavoj (2014-04-08). Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: 5 Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion (The Essential Zizek) (Kindle Locations 664-681). Verso Books. Kindle Edition.

Now in order to get at what is at work here, we first have to understand the Economics 101 concept of the Paradox of Thrift. On one hand, despite the popular doxa and mythology among Republicans and Neo-Cons that investment is the driver of a strong economy, the only real driver in the real world is demand. I mean all the investment in the world isn’t going to do shit for us if no one has the money to buy the product. On the other hand, when it comes to the struggles of the poor under producer/consumer Capitalism, the Capitalist must defer to the alibi of free-will and thrift:

“If you would have spent your life “putting a little back”, you might be able to enjoy a better retirement at a younger age.”

And the problem here is rooted in an inherent contradiction that lies within the very logic of Capitalism itself. If you ask a Capitalist about the power that the rich can accumulate with their wealth and the exploitation of both consumers and producers that is sure to follow, they will resort to arguments about the god-like entity of the Invisible Hand of the market: that it will counter any negative effect on your average producer/consumer. But when you bring up the misfortunes of your average producer/consumer, the whole conversation switches to an issue of free-will and self determination. But which is it? Either this god-like entity of the Invisible Hand has the power to overcome the actions and excesses of the rich, in which case it is perfectly capable of overcoming the actions of the average producer/consumer. Or it does not, in which case the free-will and actions of the Capitalist are perfectly capable of overcoming the efforts of the average producer/consumer. Either way, the average producer/consumer is perfectly screwed –despite what the mythology of Capitalism might lead us to believe.

And the marketing strategy of “30% more” is how Capitalism overcomes the Paradox of Thrift by enfolding it within an act of consumption much as Starbucks does social responsibility.

The truth is that producer/consumer Capitalism is far more dependent on consumption than what we gain through production, to the point of not being just dependant on the buying power we have from production at any given time, but from the buying power we might gain in the future: hence our economy’s high dependence on credit. The other truth is that if everyone engaged in thrift (the moral imperative that Capitalism pimps as alibi (our economy would collapse almost immediately. I would point to the last point made in the quote:

“– recall the figure of the junkie, the only true ‘subject of consumption’, the only one who consumes himself utterly, to his very death, in his unbound Jouissance.” -Ibid

Note here, for instance, the denial that drives the willingness of Capitalists to keep the consumption going in the face of man-made global warming and the ultimate depletion of our natural resources. How can we not think of Capitalism as anything more than a sickness? We focus, in our discourses, on how despicable lawyers are. But many of them are actually working for just causes such as the ACLU and labor and environmental issues. What are business men and marketers doing but administrating the Land of the Lotos Eaters we presently find ourselves in?

The brilliant point that Zizek makes here is in pointing out how the dynamic can be traced to pre-Capitalist forms of social organization. When it comes to Capitalism as a form of oppression, there is nothing new under the sun. It simply utilizes old forms in more subtle ways: such as the old divine right theory that now manifests as “the market has spoken” when it comes to the rich.

In other words, no matter what ideological flag we fly, there will always be a handful of people who think they deserve a little more than everyone else, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else. And therefore, the role of the dissident: the artist, the poet, the philosopher, the intellectual: will always be secure.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

“I stand by Ayn Rand. I reread some of her writing on and she is profound and truthful. It is pointless for me to try to convince anyone of this - she is hated as the Great Satan of Greed. But she only opposed the banal form of Christian pathos, of all - consuming (literally) equality. “

First of all: as you should. I mean we all gotta find our flow.

Secondly: it seems we find some common ground in that Marx is considered the great Satan of egalitarianism as well as the primary blame for the atrocities of both Stalin and Mao Tse Tong.

And finally: what we’re both probably dealing with is the misuse (much as happened with Nietzsche (of our respective heroes. As I like to say:

Ideology does nothing; people, however, do.

The problem for me, however, is that Rand seemed pretty clear on her assumption that the only way anyone could achieve “self valuing” was through Capitalism and clearly rejected Marxism (perhaps because of her reactionary sentiment towards having come from Stalinist Russia (as a means of people finding (to put it in Maslow’s terms: self actualization. Plus that, it became pretty clear to me in Atlas Shrugged II (the movie version (that anyone who attempted to pass policy that interfered with the workings of the market was basically a “looter”: much as Jews were “Rats” to the Nazis and Tutsie’s were “cockroaches” to the Hutus. And while it may well be impossible for me to ply you from your embrace of Rand, it would be equally difficult for you to convince me that there was not a fascist element in her use of the term. Or are you going to try to tell me that she didn’t actually use it in the book?

The interesting thing here, though, is the common ground between Rand and Marx. You and Iona argue, in the typical KTS fashion of the Neo-Nietzscheian gospel , that it is ultimately about people finding their higher selves. But let’s try a perfectly valid description of Karl Marx (one that Zizek actually fits:

A guy that found his higher self and was willing to sacrifice (live in poverty (to create a society in which everyone could find their higher selves as compared to submitting themselves to the role that producer/consumer Capitalism imposes on them. And while Marx may have suggested a final end (communism ( that was egalitarian in nature, it was merely an even playing field in which individuals could freely work towards their different levels of achievement. Now granted: Zizek may not have made quite the sacrifice that Marx did. But I would far rather see a man or woman (such as Zizek, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, or Melanie Klein (get rich looking out for the little guy as compared the sociopathic approach of entitlement such as that of Gene Simmons, Jack Welch, or even Rand. The former just seem more heroic (in a very Nietzscheian sense (than the latter. This makes the following feel like petty nit-picking:

“Every so-called progressive or leftist or socialist type is basically just operating by a fake psychological mechanism of partial denial of self-valuing in order to gain some self-value in other ways, but none had the strength to truly live their philosophy of deliberate lack and rejection of excess. Leftist and communists who rise in social position or wealth always gather luxury and vanity around themselves. “

Now here’s the problem with this: no one is denying that the progressive or the leftist or the socialist is acting out of self interest. They (like Marx (are basically seeking a world that would accommodate people like them: the intellectually and creatively curious. The main difference is that they have moved to the next evolutionary step of the cooperative model in recognizing that looking out for the interest of others is, ultimately, in their interest (of putting their baser impulses in cooperation with their higher cognitive functions: that which the meat of the brain has evolved into (and moving beyond the competitive model which puts our higher cognitive functions in the service of our baser impulses: that, BTW, which leads to the really bad reasoning above - along w/ our possible extinction via producer/consumer Capitalism.

It is, as far as I'm concerned, the distinction between using intellectual pursuit as a way to make the world better (the cooperative model (and simply engaging in a pissing contest (the competitive model.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

Excellent post as well, Joseph. And yeah, Downfall is an excellent film. It must have taken some real courage for the actor that played Hitler to do so in such a sympathetic way. And I would say as much for the actors that played the Goebbels. The subtle complexity of the scene where they kill their children was storytelling at its best. On one hand, it was sympathetic in the sadness you felt through them. At the same time, it didn’t totally let them off by portraying the resistance of the one daughter.

What was interesting, philosophically, was the way in which Mrs. Goebbels demonstrated Kierkegaard’s concept of the continuation of sin by avoiding guilt through the act of throwing herself blindly and completely into the ideology of National Socialism: that which led to her killing her children.

And I think my point was well made by Eva Braun being portrayed as a party girl –a type, strangely, that you could easily see Hitler drawing to.

But the most interesting (as well as moving (aspect of it was what it said about the German zeitgeist at the time it was made. It was as if they were saying: look, we fucked up; but you have to understand something.

It’s like I like to say: forgetting history may doom us to repeat it; but remembering it in half-assed ways only dooms us to repeat it in different ways (one of main points I'm getting from Zizek. And I would argue the movie Downfall to be a classic in the way it works against the latter. Along with the Hollywood level production values involved, there was an honesty and complexity about it that is rarely achieved in movies.

The Germans should consider it a national treasure, even if it might make them a little uncomfortable.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

It's odd that Zizek (as far as I know or have read (never mentions Foucault: especially given Foucault's emphasis on the relationship between so-called knowledge and power: what strikes me as a form of hegemony. As I like to say:

The minute someone brings up such words as rational or reason or objective, you have to ask 2 questions:

By which criteria is an assertion deemed to rational, reasonable, or objective?

And who has the power to define these criteria?

Now as far as the last term, objective, Zizek does deal with this in The Plague of Fantasies (I believe that is the book ( when he (in perhaps a Hegelian manner (synthesizes the mind/body (subjective/objective (dichotomy into the subjectively objective and objectively subjective -which makes perfect sense to me. And he does bring up the issue of authority as defined by the power structure: the one who is suppose to know.

Still, Foucault, despite the obvious relationship, is never brought up.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by d63 »

The thing about fancy, son, is that it is a necessary and important part of our makeup. And as coincidence would have it, I'm reading Zizek's Plague of Fantasies which (once again: coincidentally (in the first few pages I have read has pointed out that fantasy is not so much a compensation for something we desire and cannot get as a mechanism for figuring out what it is we desire. In fact, no one who has achieved anything has done so without fancy. I mean its kind hard imagine how anything could start anywhere else but a daydream.

But I should first explain to you what I mean by fancy in relationship to imagination. I’m mainly working from the distinction between fancy and imagination made by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in an essay brought to my attention in a creative writing class –one that is increasingly showing significance in my philosophical process. Fancy is more primal and base of the brain, which is why it gives us so much pleasure. It’s what the mind does when we let it do what it naturally does. Therefore, it would naturally follow that what lies behind it are our natural drives and desires. Imagination is a little more cognitive (and therefore a little more uncomfortable (in that it is a matter of playing our fancies against the reality of things and including our findings. Unlike fancy, imagination takes a little work. We can see a correlation here with something else Coleridge said:

“It’s alright to build castles in the sky. The idea is to build foundations under them.”

However, too often, fancy that fails to make the leap to imagination can all too often end up being dangerous and destructive. To give you a personal example: I am what I am because of a lot of daydreaming (fancy. And I have spent a large part of my life building foundations under those castles in the sky. The thing is that that propensity for fancy is always there and tends to get accelerated when I’m drinking. This combination of fancy and alcohol has been the source of every embarrassing moment I have had on these boards. I, of course, always start out with imagination which results in the daily rhizome. But once I get to a certain point, fancy (my primal impulses and desires (seems to take over. And that is a big part of the pleasure we get from alcohol.

And as I go into Zizek’s Plague of Fantasies for the 100th time (excuse the hyperbole: the fancy (I realize that this week will give me an opportunity to further explore the social, political, and philosophical implications of failing to make that leap from fancy to imagination. If you really look at it, son, it is fancy that our system, via media, tends to exploit to keep us passively accepting our exploitation through producer/consumer Capitalism: American Idol, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, name your poison. If there is anything that Capitalism sells best, it is possibility: fancy. Those hipsters and geeks quoting Nietzsche are not Nietzsche’s fault –anymore than NAZI Germany was. They’re the result of a one-sided embrace of the fanciful aspect of Nietzsche much as NAZI Germany was.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Zizek Study:

Post by Dalek Prime »

How did I not notice this thread before, I wonder? You are referring to Slavoj Zizek, yes? Did you know, though he is the father of two sons, he too is an antinatalist, d63? Small world.
If you could edit your past, what would you change?
My birth. I agree with Sophocles: the greatest luck is not to have been born - but, as the joke goes on, very few people succeed in it.
I'm not really interested in either his Marxism or his Atheism, though.

I actually posted this link elsewhere on the forum, to a brief Q&A with him, but I can't recall where. Here it is, if you're interested. He's quite abrupt and funny.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... avoj.zizek
Post Reply