This is the thread where we talk about Slavoj Zizek...

lol

lol amazing

btw just to continue conversation from other thread:

And specifically in "Living in End Times" he writes (I don't have a page cite - PLEASE FORGIVE ME) that with Democracies there is the appearance of consent so resistance/protest in light of inequalities is v limited. By contrast a dictator knows he only rules with the consent of the people in a much more explicit manner and therefore needs to act more in their self interest. in my own words: that democracy can serve as a valve to let off steam and not let any real reforms come to the surface while dictators need to be more responsive more immediately or risk losing their heads.

― Mordy, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:03 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

Zizek dropping truthbombs in a footnote:

This limitation of democracy has nothing to do with the standard worry of the liberal
exporters of democracy: what if the result is the victory of those who oppose
democracy, and thus its self-cancellation? "This is a terrible truth that we have to
face; the only thing that currently stands between us and the rolling ocean of Muslim
unreason is a wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that we have helped to erect"
(Sam Harris, The End of Faith, New York: Norton 2005, p.132). Here, then, is
Harris's motto: "when your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become
another weapon in his hand" (ibid., p. 202). And, from here, predictably, he proceeds
to justify torture . . . While this line of reasoning may appear convincing, it is not
pursued to the end; it remains stuck in the terms of the tiresome liberal debate: "Are
the Muslim masses mature enough (culturally fit) for democracy, or should we
support enlightened despotism amongst their rulers?" Both terms of the underlying
choice (either we impose our democracy on them or we exploit their backwardness)
are false. The true question is: what if the "wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that we
have helped to erect" is precisely what sustains and generates the "rolling ocean of Muslim
unreason"?

dude should ring in to any answers?, someone basically says that every week

not always w/comedy speech impediment obv.

The true question is: what if the "wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that we have helped to erect" is precisely what sustains and generates the "rolling ocean of Muslim unreason"?

again with the misplaced 'precisely'. if the world really did fit together like a balanced equation, sure, maybe... is he talking about egypt? i think the case of egypt shows that we shouldn't accept, as zizek does, the 'ocean of muslim unreason' assumption. but it would be bad history to try to explain away the muslim brotherhood (which does meet the description of muslim and unreasonable) solely as a response to... well, someone's definition of what the US was doing in egypt in the 1970s. im pretty sure the MB was being whaled on by the egyptian government a long time before the US could really be called an ally. i dunno if this is a bit empirical sry.

i think even zizek must know he cld do w/ a dose of empiricism from time to time

idk if zizek deals w/ his whole biography anywhere of if he's too self-involved to attempt to historicize/contextualize his own work/ideology as he does everyone else's

h-mayne: nah he's not talking about egypt, that's from his 2008 book — just struck me as oddly relevant.

and uh... wtf, he's obviously not accepting any kind of argument about "muslim unreason" — pretty sure he's repeating dude's absurd rhetoric in order to further mock him.

should have said: "precisely in order to" etc etc

he puts "muslim unreason" in quotes, but i don't think the sentence makes any sense whatsoever if we think he doesn't mean it in some way.

The true question is: what if the "wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that we have helped to erect" is precisely what sustains and generates the "rolling ocean of Muslim unreason"?

what is the true question here, if we don't believe in the "rolling ocean"? or, are we also to discount the existence of the "wall of tyranny and human rights abuses", which are also in quotes?

i get he's not talking specifically abt egypt, but, well, what is he talking about if not egypt? to which situation is he referring?

right but like... the dude he's quoting is basically saying "welp, they can't have democracy because our wall of tyranny is the only thing holding back the rolling ocean of unreason, so we might as well enjoy getting our hands dirty and to hell with scruples!", to which zizek replies that, 'convincing' as this argument may appear (and it does, because it is almost tautological), it perhaps overlooks one or two things...

I mean, is it really controversial to assert that "unreason", terror, and religious fundamentalism have been promoted rather than cured by US support for repressive dictators? I thought this was like, post-cold war politics 101

or in other words, I don't think he's referring to any particular "situation" so much is he is criticizing a particular approach to american foreign policy

I mean, is it really controversial to assert that "unreason", terror, and religious fundamentalism have been promoted rather than cured by US support for repressive dictators? I thought this was like, post-cold war politics 101

― on some outer space shit (bernard snowy), Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:13 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

it's not controversial, but it's not incontrovertible in a fair number of cases, egypt being the example which i gave, as the most obviously favoured-by-the-US of all middle eastern dictators. to repeat, islamic fundamentalism there did not begin as a result of US policy.

either way, saying that it is 'precisely' US policy that actually generated (as against promoted, failed to prevent, etc) islamic fundamentalism is wrong.

his whole appeal rests on 'precise' paradoxes; he wouldn't be a big shot without them.

dude I think you're conflating ideologiekritik with philosophy

what is "precise" is the way in which different aspects of the world-view in question (Harris') reinforce one another towards a definite end. there are pieces there that more-or-less correspond to certain realities (US-backed human-rights abuses on the one hand, an angry "ocean" of "unreason[able]" people [i.e. mass popular discontent?] on the other) but somehow they are not put together correctly ('maybe some of the things they're angry about are... our fault?').

but whatever we're obviously not gonna change each other's minds on this one

I haven't chimed in on this bc I think that Zizek's comment is one of his less interesting, less insightful bits, but the fact that you guys keep arguing about it makes me think that you're seeing something there that I'm not. Isn't linking our support for human rights violations to anti-American sentiment a really old argument at this point? Like Glenn Greenwald or half a dozen people on ILX make that point every week. Is he adding anything to it?

Why does he SNIFF so much when he's talking?

this guy has used mountains of cocaine.

― by another name (amateurist), Sunday, May 23, 2010 9:58 PM (9 months ago) Bookmark

In seminars, Lacan acts as analysand, he “freely associates,” improvises, jumps, addressing his public, which is thus put into the role of a kind of collective analyst. In comparison, his writings are more condensed, formulaic, and they throw at the reader unreadable ambiguous propositions which often appear like oracles, challenging the reader to start working on them, to translate them into clear theses and provide examples and logical demonstrations of them. In contrast to the usual academic procedure, where the author formulates a thesis and then tries to sustain it through arguments, Lacan not only more often than not leaves this work to the reader – the reader has often even to discern what, exactly, is Lacan’s actual thesis among the multitude of conflicting formulations or the ambiguity of a single oracle-like formulation.

zizek u have no self awareness do u

http://www.lacan.com/zizhowto.html

Zizek calls himself a Lacanian all the time

has he weighed in on libya yet? he was super gung ho about the egyptian revolution and projected all kinds of utopian aims on to its protagonists.

It's a silly complaint since liberalism as it is practiced in America IS economic neoliberalism. People who oppose neoliberalism are either the detoothed hippies who cannot engage the system in a meaningful way, or the radical terrorists who move the battlefield from an economic confrontation to one of violent force. But if you're gonna take about liberal democracy in the US you have to talk about economic neoliberalism.

― Mordy, Friday, December 17, 2010 7:40 AM (3 months ago) Bookmark

so incredibly offensive on so many levels

so be less offended

omg mordman

lol, are either of you going to point out to me the relevant non-neoliberal groups in America?

beliebers

never change with your either/or simplifications. Mordy. fortunately the real world is more complex.

by the way there are friends of mine who are gonna be in jail for years to come for some serious environmental sabotage actions and I do not appreciate your spoiled liberal NYC characterizations of their motives.

dude, take a look around. the neoliberal superstructure is more powerful than ever. how did your friends challenge the system whatsoever?

and btw: environmental sabotage probably falls under the move to radical violence category so Zizek accounts for that (and kinda favorably too)

+ btw sleeve, lol at you of all ppl accusing someone of simplifications

why would I bother trying to point you towards some oppositional groups when you reserve the right to define "relevancy", like you think you have the right to define the terms of every single argument you get into.

fwiw I think the farmer's market movement has done more good than the friends I reference.

lol ok. why don't u go be angry somewhere else

why don't you stop simplifying complex elements of resistance to fit your kneejerk prejudices?

you're right. i should stop. there. i stopped. thx for changing my life.

its amazing i get up to take a shit and its like the muppet babies broke loose

gross

think we maybe all need a reminder this isn't the US Politics thread but the This is the thread where we talk about Slavoj Zizek... thread

on cspan atm talking about wikileaks

w/ Amy Goodman

oh, and Julian apparently! just noticed him sitting there

yeah i saw that on saturday, kind of fun, mostly just recaps his piece in the LRB about how wikileaks has changed things and implores assange not to let wikileaks be subsumed into the "freedom of the press" thing and maintain their independence as something more than radical "journalists" and shit

this idea that censorship indicates something positive about a country bc that censorship is needed is such a stupid idea and i think it's really indicative of a failing of the left to grapple meaningfully w/ these reasonably open democratic societies such that there's this natural yearning to go back to a moment of censorship where it becomes more clear what needs to be resisted.

also a failing of zizek to stop himself from saying whatever is the craziest thing at a particular moment

goin to a conference in oct where among those in attendance will be the director of "zizek!"

have u seen the examined life by the same woman that also features zizek & is a lot better both for his segment & the rest imo?

also she is jeff mangum's girlfriend or wife

i just saw it last night, by coincidence! and yeah his segment is fun for sure

lol @ michael hardt

more like michael fardt

empire by michael fardt and antonio naglri