>This is precisely where forms of resistance are to be found.
>In contrast to the pervert and the psychotic, Zizek identifies, in
>the hysteric, the moment of critical and cynical doubt.
zizek is such an enlightenment thinker......
>Maybe
>we don't have the answers? Maybe Coke isn't it!
ken honey you is tall ice cold drink of Coke in the old fashioned bottle any ole day. [oh and gutenmorgen, buena manana, boa manha.]
btw, i think zizek should steal the uncola slogan from 7-up
>Theory can't tell you want to do. The truth may in fact be true,
>hell, it might even be objective, but this does not exclude it
>from ideology. If the ideology is true, so much the better. So
>in terms of transcending racism, nationalism, and class
>struggle - these are the aims of phronesis, not theory. Theory,
>in the Slovene Lacanian School, outlines failure, and criticizes
>that which claims to be successful.
phronesis? outlining failures? oh my god! they're neo-Aristoteleans.
and ken, dude, who ever said theory dictated practice? not moi. i will stand by my claim that theory and methods are *conceptually related to* [in a non-accidental way] what kinds of knowledges are produced and thus what we can work with. that is, positivist theory produces the kinds of knowledges that yield a social engineering policy science; interpretive theory produces knowledges that cohere into various kinds of identity politics. but this certainly is not a claim that theory dictates practice.
>>>WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR CHANGE?
>Quantum physics, evolutionary biology, chaoplexity,
>neuroscience, the Big Bang... maybe even superstring. What
>are you looking for?
ken, barbie needs a little interpassivity here and would like for you to beat her over the head with a bat about 187 times because banging my head against a steel wall on my own is too damn much work.
>The origins of contingency can be
>explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, which actually
>coincides with the second draft of Schelling's "Ages of the
>World." Take your pick.
clearly, then, the split subject is a universal. is that it?
>Isn't that what I said?
yes, but like gouldner says: YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IT ANYWAYZ. so the real answer is, "NO you didn't say it."
>I'm stepping into a trap here so I'll sidestep it
the deal is this, ken: you should try to keep the dog from crapping on the yard to begin with.
> like this: the
>Real is that which *hasn't* been articulated into language.
>Every act of symbolization is a bringing into language
>something of the Real... but there is a remainder. Got it?
you mean remaindered? as in barnes and noble buys too many books, there are a ton left over and they get shipped back and sold at a discount? overflow perhaps? like mebbe you need a box of depends? leakage? like when the air conditioner is leaking? no, no wait?! the air conditioner is really condensing. excess? as in acid indigestion or perhaps acid reflux. gets some tums boy.
seriously, tho: barbie gots it.
>See above. If the Real couldn't be symbolized, in fragments,
>then consciousness couldn't exist.
ahhhh yes! enlightenment.
>Wouldn't Marx have maintained that class struggle can be
>theorized adequately? (in the sense Hegelian sublation).
that depends on what kinda marxist you is..... 'sides, if you're objecting to marx then you're saying that marx and marxists are inadequately theorizing which then commits you to the implicit claim that what you offer up is superior in some sense. and then you is fucked. paradoxically fucked even.
why fucked good and proper, too.
hell, mebbe even fucked good and properly dead!
>Class struggle exists. We live in it. Thought cannot reflect
>itself outside of historical contingency. The unconscious is
not transparent.
OM MANI PADME HUM...... OM MANI PADME HUM...... OM MANI PADME HUM......
oh. i felt the urge to assume the lotus position for a moment there. sorry. but the aphorisms drive me thoroughly insane after awhile.
now where were we?
If these statements are correct, then class
>struggle is Real and not merely imagined. If class struggle is
>not Real, then (obviously) you either have to deny that it
>exists or maintain that all human beings are identical.
oh now ferpetesake this Real v. the merely imagined, where does that come from? this is not what the Imaginary signifies in lacanian theory is it? the Imaginary isn't merely imaginary is it?
>Yes. But how do you explain their failure as political
>projects?
uummm...................
well.........
errrr....
pass the bong dude.....
firstly, what can you possibly mean by "failed"? was there a test on this?
no one told me that we were going to be tested on this? and fercryinoutloud is it a timed exam? i thought it was open book and as long as you possibly needed--like a dissertation. you'll excuse me for a mo' but i must get subbed to all the feminist theory lists and let them know that we were being tested. well hell, it looks as if we've already been tested and found to be abject failures. i'll be back in a few, 'kay?
are you assuming some sort of straight, easy path to the promised land?
and secondly, once you've cleared up this 'failed' bizzo, can you possibly account for the unfailures of marxism and feminism?
failure=coke; unfailure=7up?
feminism, imnsho, only appears to fail because we take the advances for granted and, at the same time, start to see new problems that need addressing. and these new problems can be 'seen' for different reasons, not the leastt of which is the result of internal criticisms of feminist theory and practice by feminist theorists. to me, this signals the strength of feminist theory--a strength that is too often seen as a weakness by those who want to see it as such.
as for marxism, i can [because i must, but i'm pretty sure i'm not sure] only say that you are brave and stupid to say such a thing here.
>There is a difference between theoretical interrogation and
>actually sitting in a room with other people for infinity yelling
>at each other and making accusations of performative
>contradictions and
>normative defeceits.
^^^^^^^^^^
i love the slippage ken. this is better than weigh your desire out on wax paper. seriously. this tops them all. defeceits....defecate? defeat? deceit? it's beautiful man. its REAL.
otherwise, what the HELL are you talkin bout willis? who's doing which. i take it the slovenes are doing the former and habermas the latter. oh come on, approximately 67.2% of habermas's work is theoretical interrogation. gadamer? parsons? garfinkel? mead? weber?
*duh i finally saw your offlist, so i see now. but still....what's wrong with talking? and hollering? and joking? and cracking each other up my h'omelette? how is this some sort of proceduralism anyway. so what if we can only ever sit around bitching at each other? theoretical interrogation is nothing more and nothing less than bitching at each other is it not?
Habermas seeks (in
>theory) to reduce (unintentionally I believe) democracy to a
>procedure and not an ongoing praxis.
he has written far too much about the horrors of rationalization. i still don't get where you find this proceduralism in his theory. there are three levels to his argument coz hab ole boy does like his threesums: theoretical inquiry, the process of enlightenment, and political practice. now, wrt to theoretical inquiry, you[re right. he argues that the aim of theory is true statements involving the formation and elaboration of cirtical theorems which must pass the requirements of rational argumentation in order for claims to validity to recieve *tentative confirmation*. a theory may be valid in these terms but it must also be realized in and through the process of enlightenment, the aim of which is self- and social insight. and success is measured not in positivist terms, but rather insofar as the theory is accepted freely and used as the basis for self/social understanding and interpretation. now here he is on the dodgy territory of enlightement reason and freedom, and indeed that can be and has been too often reduced to proceduralist standards reconstituted as rationality and negative freedom. but habermas is well- aware of this.
he's too much of a weberian not to be sensitive to this problem. anyway, so theory guides the process of enlightenment, BUT NOT political practice whose aim is phronesis, prudent judgment about strategy, the resolution of practical, tactical questions, and the conduct of political struggle. in other words, praxis involves phronesis but it is NOT reducible to it.
now, what i've typed here is based on his early work, in Theory and Practice, and elsewhere. but i can't see how you can possibly say that H undoes all this in his latest work because he is so friggin wedded to this tripartite conception of society: empricial/analytic science, historial/interpretive science, and critical/emacipatory science which are then mirrored in the his threesum formulations: theory/enlightenment/praxis; market/state/civil society [though he adds public sphere as something yet to be realized].
>Yes... theory = confession. It's good for the soul. Some might
>even say that this is postmodern!
confession produces the soul, love. quite modern.
could also call it navel gazing. that produces lint.
>What is the symbolic imaginary?
i meant to put a slash between.
>Know thyself?
>I can because I must.
>But I'm just not sure.
you are such a pud.
>Welcome to modernity.
charmed, i'm sure.
why is this unique to modernity?
barbie