>i find zizek's analysis useful inasmuch as he doesn't make the usual claim
>that if you just show people how untrue such a view of the world is, it's
>all be okay in the morning light. ie., zizek doesn't presume that an
>irrationality such as this is a result of an erroneous perception of what
>is an essentially rational world.
Why is this so bad a claim? Social change happens all the time, and I'da thought the best change is most possible where the changer/changee does not continue to harbour logically untenable bigotries. And where's the value in presuming the inapplicability of rationality, anyway?
>for zizek, an irrational world
>necessarily produces irrational beleifs:
Exactly what is it about or in the world that makes it irrational here - such that the beliefs of those in it are its product, ie. something other?
>antisemitism might well be
>unthinkable without the history and dominance of christianity, but it's
>refound presence in places like malaysia suggests, for me at least, that it
>has much more to do with the ascription of antagonism, of distress, and of
>social incohesion -- where the underlying premise is, of course, that
>without x there would be no antagonism and there would be social cohesion.
Well, I guess an irrational belief is as good as any other at cohering people and keeping internal antagonism down. But the price of that is less coherence and more antagonism viz those against whom we identify our selves/binding ties . So if there's a rational pointer to coherence and peace, based on recognising society's internal mode of organisation as the problem and its ensuing transcendance (that is, if it were consciously removed by people who were rational in this sense) as the answer, we'd be irrational not to desire it, I reckon. Yep, even in the language of desire, it makes sense, no? It's an enjoyable fantasy already, and it surely could be an enjoyable actuality (certainly, I don't see why it would be less enjoyable than my nationality [I've had a few, and they're much of a muchness, really - and there are ever more like me in this age of mass migration]).
I realise I'm a bit of a simpleton at this stuff, but I just can't get my aching head around the thought (even the possibility) of a politics based on everything always already being irrational. I'm not sure I know what it means, for a start (but then how do you explain an irrational universe from within it, eh?). And I have no idea what 'progressive' would mean in its context. Nor why socialism might be a 'good' thing in it. Or doable for that matter.
I've not read this bloke, and I don't say there's not a good reason to have a look at him, but I'd need to know why you reckon this particular bit is so especially useful, Ange. I can't make hide nor hair out of it.
>and horror in the world there's a shitload of.
That there is, Ange. And the idea that all is irrational (if that's what we're talking about here - I'm still not sure) doesn't do much to lift its thrall.
Yours completely lost, Rob.