yoshie wrote
>>>Why are late modern philosophers so damn prolific? Philosophical
>>>speed-up & de-skilling, it must be.
peter asked
>So being prolific is now a crime? I thought that maybe Eric was turning this
>quote back on Yoshie, but I doubt anyone would consider her de-skilled.
>"De-skilling," I'd take it, refers to Zizek's use of popular culture.
i think it was a ref to "volume" aided by the technology of scanning. deskilling in terms of the craft of actually having to write your own interpretations of other authors and weaving them throughout your own positioning. reasoning, and wrestling with the ideas. the craft has been deskilled by scanning [i guess?] those quotes to the list. nice once in a while, but not all the time. so speed up [volume] aided by technology. sometimes, nothing but the quote will do the trick. yes. but it should generally be illustrative, yes? [mike, this isn't a flame; it's a good humored nudge, at least on my part. like the kind workers give each other all the time in order to criticize someone, but maintain solidarity at the same time. i lived that; i'm sure you have too. one's politics and exemplariness in that regard doesn't excuse what takes place on this list at times.]
>Clint Burnham writes in _The Jamesonian Unconscious_ "Would Zizek have
>achieved quite his notoriety or popularity if he didn't talk so much about
>Hitchcock and other mass-cultural texts widely available in the
>Anglo-American world?"
No, probably not. But, then, I don't think most people are paying him much attention, actually. Not in academic circles--my impression is that zizek is pretty much isolated to certain fields. rarelly see him come up on the cultural studies list even.
Elena once noted on the pulp list that she always saw Zizek as made for export to the US. But this is the trend, this is our culture, this is our ground, our political ground. Sneering doesn't help and I'd guess that the same could be said of the Constance Penleys &tc who do Porn Studies now.
>And Kelley, I'm afraid you lost me back at "twice now"
oh just meant that Yoshie used the metaphor--it's hard to swallow--twice. Once in the initial post and then again to you, with the emphasis on _is_ the second time round. I mean, she was talking about Clinton: it is hard.
it really _is_ hard. and it brought to mind his need to prove a point about his masculinity.... and the infamous hummers. man, must be monica wasn't into swallowing and/or bill was into the money shot coz that blue dress wouldn't have presented such a problem. oh yeah, let's talk about jouissance, the stain, and the gaze. now there's a topic.
but don't let that
>stop you - no shit, right? -
NEVER!
and anyway I for one do sort of enjoy reading
>stuff which I find incomprehensible - overdetermined? - even though there
>seems to be some logic at work behind it all.
i do too. did you think i said otherwise about you? i was speaking to the crowd who always complain about the purported opacity of certain writers, always calling for plain speaking....don't understand the folks who insist on simplicity all the time and in every venue. bleh. never was the type to have a type you see.
>slipaggingly yours,
oh! the anticipation!
kelley