>>> <kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca> 05/05/00 09:59PM >>>
On Fri, 5 May 2000 15:59:04 EDT Apsken at aol.com wrote:
> Sadly, it is how Marxism becomes religion.
Yeah, sure, whatever. Temple of the Slovene School. Anyway, I tend to find your charge of elitism overwhelmingly ironic. You've made a case for straightforward nose to the grindstone Marxism and charge a bunch of us "Lacanians" (anarchists, marxists, whatever, it's all the same religion, right?) with obscurantism or depraved mysticism, yeah, check, whatever. But this advertising approach to revolution, that's what I find truly offensive. Yeah, like the "average guy" is too stupid to comprehend dialectics so we need to default to something sloganistic. Look, Zizek isn't complicated, he's not even obscure. His work, like that of Hegel, Butler, Lacan, Adorno and Kristeva is as plain as day. You just need to spend more than 3 seconds with the text.
________________________
CB: As to the average person, actually, it is true that most people are not going to read a whole lot of someone unless they have a reason to believe the person has something to offer. Usually, one has to get a preliminary indication of a writer's worth through either pithy passages from their work or a summary of their most important contributions before one is going to spend a long time reading them.
Why would I spend a lot of time reading any of the above instead of writing myself based on the preliminary excerpts of them adduced to this list ? From what I have heard of them so far , my writing is more important than theirs.
I rather hear from the people on this list, than be referred to some other guru of theirs. What are your ideas ? Give them to me with summaries of how these other authors impact your ideas.
_____________
So yeah, it isn't COKE IS IT, it demands a little more, not much, a little. So what's the big deal? I have absolute confidence that pretty much anyone can pick up the finer points of negative dialectics after a good look over and some preliminary reading.
__________
CB: As far as I know , I am already an advanced practitioner of negative dialectics and positive dialectics. What specifically, briefly, in outline/list form do these other writers contribute that I don't already do ?
___________
So why do we need slogans if we're all smart enough to comprehend even the most brilliant? I figure a richly developed argument will go over better than "Prepare to meet thy Marx!"
___________
CB: Don't you think we need both complex and simple statements of the important theories ? It is true that everybody is smart, but everybody is not as much into reading long, long books and essays as more specialized intellectual workers.
______________
So, at least we can agree that Zizek isn't any more complicated than Marx or whomever the socialist of the week is.
______________
CB: I am no more complicated than Marx either. Read me. You will learn as much as you learn from Zizek.
Likewise, I rather read you than Zizek. At least , I can have a dialogue and debate with you. That's one of the great things about e-mail.
Take yourself as seriously as you take Zizek.
CB