PDA

View Full Version : The Phenomenal Slavoj Zizek



josef k.
18-08-2008, 02:59 PM
Slavoj Zizek has been around and about lately; reviewing Peter Hallward's book Damming the Flood in the New Statesman, pontificating on Tibet, and then Radovan Karazdic's poetry in the LRB, answering a Q+A in the Guardian, and, of course, publishing a new book.

http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/08/haiti-aristide-lavalas

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n12/letters.html#letter5
(and see Rebecca French's Reply)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n15/letters.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/09/slavoj.zizek

What do Dissensusers think of his work?

Mr. Tea
18-08-2008, 03:20 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/09/slavoj.zizek


Hahaha, awesome:



Q. What does love feel like?

A. Like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures.

mistersloane
18-08-2008, 06:37 PM
He answered me back on myspace so he gets more credit in my book than Thom Yorke, Kode9 or Gus Van Sant, who never.

vimothy
19-08-2008, 12:01 PM
:):):)

mos dan
19-08-2008, 12:23 PM
He answered me back on myspace so he gets more credit in my book than Thom Yorke, Kode9 or Gus Van Sant, who never.

he has a myspace? that's so freaking cool. i wish all my favourite writers had myspaces.

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 12:29 PM
An interesting and provocative thinker- though whenever i watch one of his lectures from the last couple of years everything about his delivery and mannerisms suggest he's nosed a half kilometre line of chong five seconds before he came on. it's really distracting. anyone else noticed that?

vimothy
19-08-2008, 12:34 PM
Would explain a lot. But not everything. Perhaps he's mixing kenny in with his nosebag.

Brad DeLong is the same by the way...

mistersloane
19-08-2008, 12:58 PM
he has a myspace? that's so freaking cool. i wish all my favourite writers had myspaces.

Innit? It was him as well cos he sent me his address so I could send him stuff, it's little things like that that make me really happy.

I think he's just totally ADD rather than on the toot, you see him in that documentary and he's hyper all the way through. Big brain + no attention span = cultural studies.

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 01:11 PM
I think he's just totally ADD rather than on the toot, you see him in that documentary and he's hyper all the way through. Big brain + no attention span = cultural studies.

haha. yeah probably so... i dunno though...it's the constant sniffling and playing around with his face, combined with a seemingly increasing inability to stay on topic. As with his lecture, "Cocaine, a New Opium for the Masses" ;)

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

I find myself in agreement with a lot of what he says anyway, even the more fanciful stuff.

mistersloane
19-08-2008, 01:18 PM
haha. yeah probably so... i dunno though...it's the constant sniffling and playing around with his face, combined with a seemingly increasing inability to stay on topic. As with his lecture, "Cocaine, a New Opium for the Masses" ;)

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

I find myself in agreement with a lot of what he says anyway, even the more fanciful stuff.

lol. the idea of zizek on crack fills me with total, absolute fear.

3 Body No Problem
19-08-2008, 02:47 PM
lol. the idea of zizek on crack fills me with total, absolute fear.

Zizek a cokehead? Lot's of things make sense under that hypothesis! ;) Speaking of Lacanians, the Mirror Stage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_stage) seems to have been confirmed in Magpies (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060202&ct=1&SESSID=c2cec6e3d6d04478453e23c61897317b). Make of this what you will!

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 03:29 PM
Heh, I thought the url said 'zizekology', which could presumably be a whole field of study in itself. :)



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


Also, why the painting of a half-naked woman in the background? ("Why not?", I guess...)

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 04:03 PM
Also, why the painting of a half-naked woman in the background?

...bleeding from the pants. also distracting. i'm sure slavoj fucked the woman who gave the introduction straight afterwards as well. she is definitely hot for it. sorry this is devolving into a very unintellectual consideration of zizek's cultural contributions...back on topic i do like the fact he's a "messy" thinker, tangential and not afraid to contradict himself. easy meat for his detractors of course but i find it engaging. i also prefer hearing him speak to reading the books, a good orator with such a great voice and that way there's less of the crit theory academic jargon to struggle through

swears
19-08-2008, 04:14 PM
i do like the fact he's a "messy" thinker, tangential and not afraid to contradict himself. easy meat for his detractors of course but i find it engaging.

Yeah, I found a lot of the ideas interesting, like how modern western countries can be "liberal" but still shit on the poor and excluded, or how resistance can be packaged and sold, becoming part of the problem. Although... he spoke as if he was working towards a central point, but I couldn't really discern one, he didn't even talk about ecology for that long.

I was expecting him to mention how as consumers, we are all encouraged to do things to conserve energy and resources like recycling or using more efficient light bulbs or reusing plastic bags, yadda, yadda... Which is all pissing in the wind because the only way large-scale enviromental damage can be stopped is by international cooperation on regulation of carbon emissions, which is never going to happen because governments are shit-scared of tanking their economies in a competitive global market.

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 04:30 PM
he spoke as if he was working towards a central point, but I couldn't really discern one, he didn't even talk about ecology for that long.



combined with a seemingly increasing inability to stay on topic


Zizek a cokehead?

;)

the ecofad is a somewhat pernicious one as it gifts people an incredible sense of self satisfaction. i know people who feel genuinely salvationary and oppositional because they ride a bike and grew a turnip in their window box once. it is a pacifier of sorts and to that degree i take his point.

would anyone agree with his formulation that capitalism's tipping point will come when the excluded form a critical mass and initiate a "low level civil war"? early manifestations being recent terrorist attacks

meanwhile over in the music forum....



zizek... put a donk on it

:cool:

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 04:44 PM
i know people who feel genuinely salvationary and oppositional because they ride a bike and grew a turnip in their window box once. it is a pacifier of sorts and to that degree i take his point.

The thing about all this DIY eco-friendly stuff like energy-efficient bulbs, cycling, recycling and all the rest of it is that it actually would make a pretty big difference to the country's overall GHG emissions *if* everyone did it. That's the thing, though - efforts like this will remain tokenistic for as long as they're voluntary, because people en masse are lazy and short-sighted and won't do it if they don't have to.

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 04:48 PM
yes yes, we all know that. the point is what it gives people in a transactory sense. similar i suppose to the fairtrade debate that was had on here a while ago

john eden
19-08-2008, 04:50 PM
What using energy efficient lightbulbs gives people is the same as what reading Zizek gives people though?

IdleRich
19-08-2008, 04:52 PM
"What using energy efficient lightbulbs gives people is the same as what reading Zizek gives people though?"
A headache?

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 04:57 PM
But if people are making a (small) difference, why shouldn't they feel good about it? I'm getting really fed up with the self-satisfied doom-mongering of people who've 'seen through it all' and are seemingly happy for the whole world to go to hell because it's our just deserts for being so profligate and consumerist. (Hello, gek-opel!)

The worst thing about this attitude is that if we're not careful it's going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

john eden
19-08-2008, 05:05 PM
It depends what the aim is.

Some people think that making a small individual difference to climate change is pissing in the wind because ultimately what has to change is the economic system. Others think that it is precisely that incremental beavering away which can create a culture where it becomes the norm or is at least much higher on the agenda.

It is undeniable though that the green movement in the UK has been a lightning rod for middle class puritans who like to look down their noses at poorer people who are less "enlightened" and more "materialistic".

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 05:10 PM
A headache?

Ha, I saw John's comment and was gonna say "some kind of brain-damaging radiation".

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 05:20 PM
It is undeniable though that the green movement in the UK has been a lightning rod for middle class puritans who like to look down their noses at poorer people who are less "enlightened" and more "materialistic".

Things is, though, stuff like changing to energy-efficient bulbs actually *saves* you money. Sure, they cost a few quid to start with, but they last forever and pay for themselves in a few months in reduced energy bills.

I think a lot of people in this country - and, I have to say, a lot of poor(er)/working class/unemployed people - seem to be pretty crap at considering the long-term consequences of short-term expenditure. Look at the mess so many people are in with credit card debt, hire purchase, 0% finance and all the rest - in fact it's likely the massive unchecked growth of these industries in recent years has brought this about this situation. Sp like a lot of things, it's a case of a small initial investment of cash or effort to reap a long-term benefit.

john eden
19-08-2008, 05:23 PM
Perhaps but you have to factor in the huge industries which have sprung up to encourage people to consume vast quantities of crap and get into debt.

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Perhaps but you have to factor in the huge industries which have sprung up to encourage people to consume vast quantities of crap and get into debt.

Yeah yeah, that's what I meant by the unchecked growth of companies whose purpose is to encourage people to piss their money away and then pay it back twice a few years down the line. It's a bad situation and it should be more tightly regulated, but at the same time I think people ought to take more responsibility over their own finances. If you can't afford something, you probably shouldn't buy it.

john eden
19-08-2008, 05:29 PM
Our Great Economy relies on a credit/housing bubble, tho.

You're not trying to suggest that we get rid of all this Amazing Financial Growth that has made everyone middle class recently are you?

josef k.
19-08-2008, 05:31 PM
I'm getting really fed up with the self-satisfied doom-mongering of people who've 'seen through it all' and are seemingly happy for the whole world to go to hell because it's our just deserts for being so profligate and consumerist.

I agree with this - and think that there is a sense in which Zizek gives to his readers the same thing that he says that ecology gives to its advocates; this is, the sense that they are resisting, that they are doing something, and so on... so that they can then look down there noses at the people earnestly buying energy saving light bulbs, for example...

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 05:43 PM
What using energy efficient lightbulbs gives people is the same as what reading Zizek gives people though?

i'm imagining an "if" after the first what here (right?) therefore making a similar point to JK's above...and to some extent this is a valid criticism, though it can be applied to most theoreticians. However i would say that Zizek seems to me too provocative and scattergun to induce a sense of comfort. he might not offer solutions but he might also encourage people to go and investigate issues for themselves


Iso that they can then look down there noses at the people earnestly buying energy saving light bulbs, for example...

no one looks down their noses on the act itself. it's something which in a best case scenario would be normative. it's the insidious marketing and context that allows people to think they are therefore "doing their bit". as i said a pacifier of sorts. Also



It is undeniable though that the green movement in the UK has been a lightning rod for middle class puritans who like to look down their noses at poorer people who are less "enlightened" and more "materialistic".

this shit right here^^^

IdleRich
19-08-2008, 05:44 PM
"I think a lot of people in this country - and, I have to say, a lot of poor(er)/working class/unemployed people - seem to be pretty crap at considering the long-term consequences of short-term expenditure."
Yeah, but if you can't afford to make the short term outlay for the long term saving then it's not that easy. It's obviously better value to buy a year long bus pass but there are lots of Londoners who can't afford that so they get fifty-four weekly ones instead - it's not that they don't realise that it's more expensive or that they are stupid or something, it's just that in any given paypacket they won't have the necessary x hundred pounds left over to buy the year pass.

vimothy
19-08-2008, 05:56 PM
Our Great Economy relies on a credit/housing bubble, tho.

You're not trying to suggest that we get rid of all this Amazing Financial Growth that has made everyone middle class recently are you?

Actually, asset bubbles rely on monetary policy (they don't simply spring from "Our Great Economy"), and the monetary policy that encourages bubbles (intead of, say, more unemployment) is generally regarded as leftist/liberal/progressive and the do-nothing liquidationists (a la Mellon) are generally thought of as being very conservative. 'Kay?

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 06:07 PM
Yeah, but if you can't afford to make the short term outlay for the long term saving then it's not that easy. It's obviously better value to buy a year long bus pass but there are lots of Londoners who can't afford that so they get fifty-four weekly ones instead - it's not that they don't realise that it's more expensive or that they are stupid or something, it's just that in any given paypacket they won't have the necessary x hundred pounds left over to buy the year pass.

Fair enough, but these bulbs cost like a fiver each. That's a packet of fags, or not quite two (London) pints. And stuff like recycling doesn't cost anything, all it requires is a (very small) amount of effort.

Edit: got to pity these poor working class types who don't even know how many weeks there are in a year... ;)

noel emits
19-08-2008, 06:41 PM
Sneering at people putting principles into action is sheer hipsterism is it not? The cry of the culturally castrated lashing out at those who still have the balls to believe. ;) That notion that individuals can not make a difference and the accompanying capitulating disavowal of responsibility are two of the most pernicious trendy lies going around right now. Just because what you can do might appear quite meagre on the face of it doesn't mean you should not do it. On the contrary it means it's easy! So why not do it! Afraid you might feel pacified? Or is it the sense that you might then be granting admission to a larger world of responsibility?. But regardless of an action's immediate visible efficacy, the gesture is important in and of itself, and also crucially in its intent, I would argue. Both as reproducible 'revolutionary' act, and also as a motion towards bringing awareness of an issue closer to everyday consciousness. Something those of us in the relatively comfortable West can always do with.

Economic change is absolutely key ultimately, but we can achieve some of the aims of that change now, i.e. living differently as a society and with our environment. It has to start somewhere. It make sense to live by example, even if just for yourself.

I think also the notion of this self-deluding middle-class green contingent for whom ecological issues are a pacifying crutch is a bit of a myth. And a nice comforting hipper-than-thou one at that, rather like some others I could mention. There are of course some blatant contradictions in people's actions, but is it down to venal hypocrisy or is it more about ignorance and the constraints of circumstance? I dunno, seems churlish to knock people for trying, since when was that a crime?

So is Zizek's work very much philosophy as hipsterism? I do enjoy (;)) his stuff quite a bit - he hits on some right good ideas, and is more often than not entertaining and provocative, but his main project actually lies in attempting to be 'ahead of the game' in his iconoclastic reversals does it not? I think that actually works though, it serves a purpose, at least in concert and contrast with other commentators.

josef k.
19-08-2008, 06:57 PM
Well put, I think.

Mr. Tea
19-08-2008, 07:05 PM
Great post, noel.

I think also some of the opposition to the DIY green stuff comes from the fact that it can involve buying things - even if it's just buying different things from what you'd otherwise buy, like efficient vs. normal bulbs or local market vs. supermarket veg - and this can trigger a reflex anti-consumerism in some leftists, because Nothing Good Can Ever Come From Buying Stuff. That and, as you hint at, a k-punkish loathing for all things *spit* middle-class.

fokse vektaire xeven
19-08-2008, 09:18 PM
this seems to have gone a bit awry. i don't think anyone has suggested that being ecologically conscious is a bad thing. i certainly don't think there's any reason to be making statements like:




I think also some of the opposition to the DIY green stuff

as it isn't like there's significant opposition of any kind to "diy green stuff". everyone still has their personal freedoms here no matter what is or isn't said.

it isn't about the acts themselves, which is the way the discussion here has gone, but the way they are framed, the surrounding discourse. Noel it may be your opinion that green politics as a pacifier is a myth, but i'm saying i've seen it in direct action amongst people i know. in such cases it can be seen as part of the acceptance of capitalism as an omnipresent "background noise" that cannot be opposed and rather has to be accepted whilst avoiding its power dynamic, to paraphrase the lecture (at two removes). most of the politically conscious people i know have drifted that way and i miss the idealism they used to have, as , well, idealistic as it may have been.

As for John Eden's point, i came across a recent council supported initiative to show people around local eco-homes- places for the most part 80%+ of the population could not afford to live in. the glossy accompanying literature with its litany of wall heating and solar panels was virtually pornographic and i don't think had anything to do with being socially conscious or a desire to make the world a better place.

also might it be possible to have a conversation on here allowing for the colloquial, humour etc. without accusations of elitism, sneering or the dreaded h-word coming into play? this doesn't have to be about the supposed or inferred personalities of the posters, there's more important stuff to talk about than that

IdleRich
20-08-2008, 12:43 PM
"I agree with this - and think that there is a sense in which Zizek gives to his readers the same thing that he says that ecology gives to its advocates; this is, the sense that they are resisting, that they are doing something, and so on... so that they can then look down there noses at the people earnestly buying energy saving light bulbs, for example..."
Strong support for this viewpoint here


"The conservatives are very materialistic and they dress this up with their new greenness but it's just a new form of consumerism. All these things are status symbols, like Liz Hurley's Gloucester Old Spot pigs."
from Rachel "sister of Boris" Johnson in a puff piece for her new book, the sequel to Notting Hell - Shire Hell.


"in such cases it can be seen as part of the acceptance of capitalism as an omnipresent "background noise" that cannot be opposed and rather has to be accepted whilst avoiding its power dynamic"
What about the people who thoroughly embrace capitalism and think it's the best system and who choose to buy energy efficient lightbulbs? What I mean is, just because someone is "green" and isn't anti-capitalist it doesn't mean that they abandoned their principles - maybe they never had those principles in the first place and hold political opinions of their own that just happen to disagree with yours.

Mr. Tea
20-08-2008, 02:57 PM
What about the people who thoroughly embrace capitalism and think it's the best system and who choose to buy energy efficient lightbulbs? What I mean is, just because someone is "green" and isn't anti-capitalist it doesn't mean that they abandoned their principles - maybe they never had those principles in the first place and hold political opinions of their own that just happen to disagree with yours.

Indeed, there's nothing inherently green about socialism, or inherently socialistic about being green - see the USSR's environmental record, passim. In fact there's always been a (usually fairly fringe, admittedly) environmentalist element on the right, and even the far right - though this has of course tended to be overshadowed by concerns in big industry.

josef k.
20-08-2008, 04:20 PM
What about the people who thoroughly embrace capitalism and think it's the best system and who choose to buy energy efficient lightbulbs?

Or indeed, the people who thoroughly embrace capitalism and don't give a shit about energy saving lightbulbs, or indeed, anything, besides making money...

Mr. Tea
20-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Or indeed, the people who thoroughly embrace capitalism and don't give a shit about energy saving lightbulbs, or indeed, anything, besides making money...

Well once our hypothetical capitalist has made lots of money, how does he choose to spend it? Is he, Ebeneezer Scrooge-style, as thrifty as possible, valuing only the number of noughts in his bank statement? Because in that case, he'd definitely buy energy-saving bulbs, because they save you money in the long run.
Or might he buy normal bulbs just to show off how little he cares about saving a few quid here or there, because it makes no difference to him? Or does he think the electricity company is a deserving cause and should get as much money as possible? Or is he, in fact, a major shareholder in an electricity company?
Sorry, rambling a bit here...

josef k.
20-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Indeed... all of which raises the question:

How important is ideology anyway?

Are we sure that it's real?

Mr. Tea
20-08-2008, 05:49 PM
Um, how do you mean 'real'? I'm sure it's every bit as real as any other intangible thing, like languages, emotions, the periodic table and the number 6.

Or do you mean, are there such things as Ideologies to which people adhere, or are they just handy descriptive terms for people whose opinions on certain matters happen to be similar, the way some people happen to like a certain food, football club, style of music or whatever? In which case, I'd go mainly with the former, as there are certain ideologies that people consciously associate themselves with; liberal, Marxist, anarchist or whatever - to say nothing of religious ideologies.

josef k.
20-08-2008, 06:50 PM
Maybe I should be more specific.

Zizek's critique of ecology is that it functions as an ideological palliative - the aim of his own argument, accordingly, is to short-circuit (and Zizek is in fact the editor of the book series "Short Circuits") this process, to stop it from functioning smoothly.

The intervention he is making, in other words, is an intervention into ideology... he wants to effect change from there. He thinks if he can, through the power of his own discourse, convince people to think differently about something, then change follows from that.

Or perhaps better... he only needs to confront people with ecology's ideological aspects, and then, the discourse changes, somehow, and I guess becomes more progressive...

I don't know. I'm babbling. Maybe this should be a new thread.

Mr. Tea
20-08-2008, 07:05 PM
OK, that make some sense. But where does he actually stand on ecological issues? Does he want to people to stop making small, personal, tokenistic 'consumer choice' type actions so they can concentrate on massive political change instead, with the ultimate goal of (amongst other things) preventing catastrophic climate change? Does he think climate change isn't important, or is much less important than economic inequality, war and so on? Or does he think there's nothing we can do about it, so it's better to concentrate on things we can actually change?

josef k.
20-08-2008, 11:23 PM
I'm not sure that Zizek himself knows.

He says (at the end of The Parallax View) that people should stop supporting good causes, in order to concentrate on the Revolution. His fundamental and basic stated aim is bringing down capitalism through a bloody, violent revolution; anything which doesn't contribute to that is, at least as far as I understand Zizek, part of the problem.

josef k.
20-08-2008, 11:40 PM
To surmise, insofar as Zizek may be said to have a position today, it seems to amount to a vague summons to violence.

Mr. Tea
21-08-2008, 12:27 AM
Hmm. To be honest, it's hard not to get the impression he's a bit of a dick.

*awaits Dresden-scale flaming*

Slothrop
21-08-2008, 12:41 AM
I'm not sure that Zizek himself knows.

He says (at the end of The Parallax View) that people should stop supporting good causes, in order to concentrate on the Revolution. His fundamental and basic stated aim is bringing down capitalism through a bloody, violent revolution; anything which doesn't contribute to that is, at least as far as I understand Zizek, part of the problem.
Couldn't that be seen as a bit of an ideological pallative in itself? It kind of smacks of the old religious line of "don't worry about trying to better your lot on earth, if you're good and do what you're told you'll have eternal bliss to look forward to when you pop your clogs.' So long as the revolution is sufficiently distant and improbable, you're basically able to sit around and theorize and discuss and lecture and never worry that you aren't actually doing anything to make the world a better place.

CHAOTROPIC
21-08-2008, 08:24 AM
I'm not sure that Zizek himself knows.

He says (at the end of The Parallax View) that people should stop supporting good causes, in order to concentrate on the Revolution. His fundamental and basic stated aim is bringing down capitalism through a bloody, violent revolution; anything which doesn't contribute to that is, at least as far as I understand Zizek, part of the problem.

All sounds a bit Trotskyist. He's hilariously funny though. My friend fancies the pants off him.

IdleRich
21-08-2008, 10:19 AM
"All sounds a bit Trotskyist. He's hilariously funny though. My friend fancies the pants off him."
Apparently he tends to avoid "the usual masturbation with a living partner" so that may be unrequited.

Tweak Head
21-08-2008, 12:58 PM
Hmm. To be honest, it's hard not to get the impression he's a bit of a dick.

*awaits Dresden-scale flaming*

It's impossible not to get that impression if you read the Q&A (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/09/slavoj.zizek) in the Guardian.

I confess I had never heard of the guy before, so I am unable to give a critique of his views on ecology, capitalism or anything. However, I think I am qualified to say that the guy is so far up himself that he can never come back. Either that or he has the driest sense of humour ever. But I don't think so. Makes a change from the usual Q&A platitudes though.

CHAOTROPIC
21-08-2008, 12:59 PM
Apparently he tends to avoid "the usual masturbation with a living partner" so that may be unrequited.

Unusual masturbation? Like, using your feet, monkeystyle?

Immryr
21-08-2008, 01:03 PM
i thought his answers in the Q & A were great :eek:

Mr. Tea
21-08-2008, 01:26 PM
i thought his answers in the Q & A were great :eek:

Yeah, love is well shit, innit.

*goes back to listening to Nine Inch Nails*

Edit: although, when all's said and done, ludicrous misanthropy *is* at least a bit more thought-provoking than platitudes, even if it is expressed to be self-consciously provocative. He seems to represent a sort of bogeyman figure, in that his views, while they may be contradictory or barking, are nonetheless a valuable input into contemporary dialogue. At least, people round here who seem sane enough appear to find them valuable. Is this fair? Virtually all I know about the guy has come from what people on here say about him - does this ring tru with anyone who actually knows something about the guy?

swears
21-08-2008, 02:32 PM
He looks like Ricky Tomlinson.

Mr. Tea
21-08-2008, 02:35 PM
He looks like Ricky Tomlinson.

Yeah, I guess! Ironic that a belligerent, dogmatic Marxist ideologue...

...should resemble Slavoj Zizek. ;)

vimothy
21-08-2008, 04:08 PM
What has been your biggest disappointment?

What Alain Badiou calls the 'obscure disaster' of the 20th century: the catastrophic failure of communism.

Zizek = Galloway

:rolleyes:

vimothy
21-08-2008, 04:13 PM
Just watched his piece (anyone see it?) on that dystopian UK film --Children of Men -- and had a thought....

Is Zizek's 'problem' that he sees this dystopian future as the product of (something called) 'capitalism', (rather than, say, vice versa) and so sees history as some kind of choice? Some kind of personal choice even? It's ideology driving the conspiracy, sure, but there's definitely something driving -- a bullet in the right place...

mistersloane
21-08-2008, 04:47 PM
Just watched his piece (anyone see it?) on that dystopian UK film --Children of Men -- and had a thought....
.

Where is that Vim? I'd really like to see it.

Mr. Tea
21-08-2008, 04:54 PM
Zizek = Galloway

:rolleyes:

He still reckons we should give it another shot, though (Zizek, I mean, in the Q&A). Third time lucky, I guess?

Also, this is spray-painted (with a stencil!) on the underside of a bridge over the Regent's Canal in Hackney:


BEWARE
GEORGE GALLOWAY
IS THE NEXT HITLER

:D

vimothy
21-08-2008, 05:04 PM
Where is that Vim? I'd really like to see it.

It's one of the extras on the DVD. YouTube thingy here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgrwNP_gYE).

vimothy
21-08-2008, 05:06 PM
Top film.

vimothy
21-08-2008, 05:15 PM
He still reckons we should give it another shot, though (Zizek, I mean, in the Q&A). Third time lucky, I guess?

Also, this is spray-painted (with a stencil!) on the underside of a bridge over the Regent's Canal in Hackney:


BEWARE
GEORGE GALLOWAY
IS THE NEXT HITLER

:D

Ha

I'm thinking of like a constructivist (Z boy) vs ecological (me) approach to history -- if those terms have any meaning in this sense -- where, you know, history doesn't just happen, but works according to a formula that you can not only understand, but also harness...

Mr. Tea
21-08-2008, 05:24 PM
Ha

I'm thinking of like a constructivist (Z boy) vs ecological (me) approach to history -- if those terms have any meaning in this sense -- where, you know, history doesn't just happen, but works according to a formula that you can not only understand, but also harness...

...predict, even manipulate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Series :cool:

vimothy
21-08-2008, 05:30 PM
Hahahah --- exactly! I wonder -- has Zizek spoken or written about The Foundation series?

Mr. Tea
21-08-2008, 06:17 PM
Hahahah --- exactly! I wonder -- has Zizek spoken or written about The Foundation series?

I read a slightly far-fetched but very interesting piece in a paper a few years ago that speculated that bin Laden and co. may have been inspired by science fiction novels. It pointed out that 'al Qaeda' is, after all, Arabic for 'the base', or 'the foundation', and drew parallels between modern-day jihadism and the millennial struggle and warrior cult of the Fremen in Dune.

It was in al-Guardian though, so you probably missed it. ;)

fokse vektaire xeven
21-08-2008, 11:35 PM
also might it be possible to have a conversation on here allowing for the colloquial, humour etc. without accusations of elitism, sneering or the dreaded h-word coming into play?

i'm taking this back so i can call you a bunch of freaking nerds

Bettysnake
25-08-2008, 12:00 PM
My friend fancies the pants off him.

Thats the sickest thing I've ever heard.

dHarry
25-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Thats the sickest thing I've ever heard.

well, have you seen his wife?

http://www.higher-yearning.org/uploaded_images/zizek_wed-784030.jpg

droid
25-08-2008, 01:32 PM
I read a slightly far-fetched but very interesting piece in a paper a few years ago that speculated that bin Laden and co. may have been inspired by science fiction novels. It pointed out that 'al Qaeda' is, after all, Arabic for 'the base', or 'the foundation', and drew parallels between modern-day jihadism and the millennial struggle and warrior cult of the Fremen in Dune.

It was in al-Guardian though, so you probably missed it. ;)

And of course Bin Laden wrote science fiction. OK stuff as well.

Mr. Tea
25-08-2008, 02:00 PM
And of course Bin Laden wrote science fiction. OK stuff as well.

No wai! Do you know if it's available on the internet somewhere? I'd be interested in having a look at that.

Also, Mrs. Zizek appears to be about 12.

Edit: ha, the Spanish mag that photo is taken from has called him 'Slavov'.

Edit edit: here's the Guardian piece I was talking about: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/aug/24/alqaida.sciencefictionfantasyandhorror

droid
25-08-2008, 02:36 PM
No wai! Do you know if it's available on the internet somewhere? I'd be interested in having a look at that.


Dunno. John Eden sent me a pamphlet version of one of his stories.

You could probably pick it up somewhere though. Londonistan is swarming with extremist mosques and booksellers isnt it?

DJ PIMP
25-08-2008, 03:45 PM
well, have you seen his wife?

http://www.higher-yearning.org/uploaded_images/zizek_wed-784030.jpg
he really nails the scarface look right down to the eye bags and sweaty hair

that guardian q&a reads like classic woody allen...

humour might not be the only thing they have in common - how old is his missus?

zhao
25-08-2008, 04:48 PM
i knew bin laden is graceful and intellegent and a highly regarded poet, but did not know about the sci fi. not surprised.

slovaj is pimp.

fokse vektaire xeven
26-08-2008, 06:30 PM
fuck the haters. Voj ain't rampin

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u133/exeryad/zizek.gif

josef k.
26-08-2008, 06:33 PM
Unfortunately for Slavoj, my information is that he and Analia are now separated.

fokse vektaire xeven
26-08-2008, 06:47 PM
this is better than Hello. I heard he couldn't get it up after all the coke. he just wanted to sit there and critique post capitalist culture all bloody night

Mr. Tea
26-08-2008, 06:51 PM
Well if he regards sex as 'masturbation with a living partner' he's probably not too hot in the sack.
Maybe he prefers dead ones, who knows?

Alfons
02-09-2008, 02:11 PM
this thread needs to get back on topic (altho it is still entertaining)


Has anyone heard/read Zizeks theory of the four things that the current capitalistic system can not deal with? Speaking from memory from a lecture in march but it was definitely ecology (i.e. how global warming can only be answered by massive stalinist measures from top down), copyright and intellectual property in the p2p age, the mobilasation of the worlds large number of poor peolpe in its slums and ghettos (Chaves and so on...) and now I cant for the life of me remember the fourth thing but it was there...

Like many aspects of his lecture it seemed very convincing when he was talking about it but less so when you thought about it afterwards.

josef k.
02-09-2008, 11:51 PM
"this thread needs to get back on topic (altho it is still entertaining)"

Okay, let me try, with a rather polemical paragraph.

Zizek is as a new kind of philosopher - a man who has perfected a personal style halfway between language and cathode ray. He knows, when it comes down to it, nothing (a certain amount of insight into Lacan besides) but has an opinion on everything. In this respect, the status he enjoys amongst certain bloggers is not coincidental. At the same time, Zizek is not entirely a figure of the new media (though pehaps blogs aren't either): his standing mode of address - the sweeping, empty, pronouncement, tossed off periodically - is that of the opinion journalist, which is perhaps why other opinion journalists, like Johann Hari, despise him: its a crowded market.

Moreover, I think that Zizek considered sociologically - as himself a phenomenon - is much more interesting then the content of anything he actually says. Though what he says is perhaps a factor of his own peculiar sociological status: when one considers it, Zizek's philosophy is precisely constructed to lend figures like himself a great deal of status. Ideology is everywhere, and everything is ideology - and hence you need a contrarian to get people thinking. Capitalism is triumphant, and attempts to narcotivize - thus you need Zizek, making blood-curdling statements, which, although strangely attractive to the media, nevertheless can be understood as "the true leftist position."

Finally, Zizek is a figure of the identity politics which he himself affects to despise. Want to establish an identity as "a leftist"? Follow Zizek - he'll let you know what to think, and give you your talking points.

nomadthethird
03-12-2008, 02:11 AM
Actually, if anything, Zizek knows full well that he's pissing in the wind. Better than anybody.

And minor academic celebrity status notwithstanding, he's far from the "voice of the left", anywhere. Any and all stretches of the imagination also notwithstanding.

m99188868
03-12-2008, 03:49 AM
There is good video of a lecture at youtube, which all of you presumably have already seen. I discovered it tonight. The sniffing is hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x0eyNkNpL0

josef k.
03-12-2008, 09:15 AM
Adam Kirsch and the TNR have gotten into the act with a recent hit piece on the man:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=097a31f3-c440-4b10-8894-14197d7a6eef&p=1

viktorvaughn
03-12-2008, 10:19 AM
He is doing a talk at South Bank Centre (as is Ian Sinclair).

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 09:06 AM
i thought his answers in the Q & A were great :eek:

Agreed.

Looks like Zizek has about as much respect for journalists/journalism as Derrida had.

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 09:08 AM
Well if he regards sex as 'masturbation with a living partner' he's probably not too hot in the sack.
Maybe he prefers dead ones, who knows?

Anyone who doesn't know what Zizek means by "masturbation with a living partner" has never had sex with a male.

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 09:15 AM
"this thread needs to get back on topic (altho it is still entertaining)"

Okay, let me try, with a rather polemical paragraph.

Zizek is as a new kind of philosopher - a man who has perfected a personal style halfway between language and cathode ray. He knows, when it comes down to it, nothing (a certain amount of insight into Lacan besides) but has an opinion on everything. In this respect, the status he enjoys amongst certain bloggers is not coincidental. At the same time, Zizek is not entirely a figure of the new media (though pehaps blogs aren't either): his standing mode of address - the sweeping, empty, pronouncement, tossed off periodically - is that of the opinion journalist, which is perhaps why other opinion journalists, like Johann Hari, despise him: its a crowded market.

Moreover, I think that Zizek considered sociologically - as himself a phenomenon - is much more interesting then the content of anything he actually says. Though what he says is perhaps a factor of his own peculiar sociological status: when one considers it, Zizek's philosophy is precisely constructed to lend figures like himself a great deal of status. Ideology is everywhere, and everything is ideology - and hence you need a contrarian to get people thinking. Capitalism is triumphant, and attempts to narcotivize - thus you need Zizek, making blood-curdling statements, which, although strangely attractive to the media, nevertheless can be understood as "the true leftist position."

Finally, Zizek is a figure of the identity politics which he himself affects to despise. Want to establish an identity as "a leftist"? Follow Zizek - he'll let you know what to think, and give you your talking points.

Zizek is not a new kind of anything. He's a guy who likes Hegel and Lacan who grew up in the Communist bloc and who publishes books that are not even that well-received by the "left" or academia at large. I've never, not even once, in 8 years in philosophy and media studies, EVER had a professor assign a Zizek reading or even mention him in class. (And, if I'm not mistaken, he was a visiting professor at my grad school for a time).

Zizek himself would be the first to admit he's a "figure of identity politics" insofar as we all are, insofar as any public figure is bound to be one. This is one of the problems with our current preferred forms of social organization, in his view.

I think you're confusing a small corner of the blogosphere (in their strong interest in Zizek) for "people at large" here and in some other threads. A common error in online discussions.

josef k.
07-12-2008, 12:57 PM
Zizek is not a new kind of anything.

You don't think so? It does seem to me that, if nothing else, Zizek is something quite different from your usual grey man academic. He has a cross-platform media strategy and has starred in his own television show and also a film: Zizek! He produces a kind of discourse which is, I think, extremely unique, in its blend of pop cultural references and mighty philosophical thinkers, laying the groundwork on that basis for a further discourses conducted in similar terms.

I recog that Zizek is not hugely important in the wider world outside of (para)-academia. This is his milieu. I'm just trying to figure out what his relationship is with the outside world. I'm interested in Zizek's politics in the context of his milieu, and its relations with other milieus.

UFO over easy
07-12-2008, 02:06 PM
Anyone who doesn't know what Zizek means by "masturbation with a living partner" has never had sex with a male.

rofl!1!!|


He has a cross-platform media strategy and has starred in his own... film

So did Derrida. I do think you're right though :)

Slothrop
07-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Anyone who doesn't know what Zizek means by "masturbation with a living partner" has never had sex with a male.
I blame socially constructed gender roles and patriarchy. It makes a change from blaming it on the booze, at least...

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 09:12 PM
I blame socially constructed gender roles and patriarchy. It makes a change from blaming it on the booze, at least...

Ummm.

Ok. Good for you.

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 09:15 PM
rofl!1!!|



So did Derrida. I do think you're right though :)

If being media savvy is an academic crime there are quite a few theorists who need to be hanged.

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 09:29 PM
You don't think so? It does seem to me that, if nothing else, Zizek is something quite different from your usual grey man academic. He has a cross-platform media strategy and has starred in his own television show and also a film: Zizek! He produces a kind of discourse which is, I think, extremely unique, in its blend of pop cultural references and mighty philosophical thinkers, laying the groundwork on that basis for a further discourses conducted in similar terms.

I recog that Zizek is not hugely important in the wider world outside of (para)-academia. This is his milieu. I'm just trying to figure out what his relationship is with the outside world. I'm interested in Zizek's politics in the context of his milieu, and its relations with other milieus.

There was no such thing as "pop culture" in the form of Hollywood movies and such until the 20th century, at which time theorists (Adorno and the Frankfurt school for starters) certainly did talk about it.

If Zizek seems to represent a point in academic culture when media saturation has increased significantly in a short period of time, it's because this is what's happened everywhere, in every sector...it's the new media/digital revolution...

UFO over easy
07-12-2008, 10:45 PM
If Zizek seems to represent a point in academic culture when media saturation has increased significantly in a short period of time, it's because this is what's happened everywhere, in every sector...it's the new media/digital revolution...

Seems like you guys basically agree then

nomadthethird
07-12-2008, 11:03 PM
Innit? It was him as well cos he sent me his address so I could send him stuff, it's little things like that that make me really happy.

I think he's just totally ADD rather than on the toot, you see him in that documentary and he's hyper all the way through. Big brain + no attention span = cultural studies.

I see two Zizeks on myspace but only one that looks legit.

I'm gonna add him and see if I can get a response to a question about his work.

I saw this interesting short bio of him on some weird channel (maybe ion television) in the 800s once, and I was unsurprised to find that he had some interesting mannerisms. I loved it when his son laughed smugly and Zizek said "he is narcissistically amused..." He did seem quite yakked through most of it.

Agent Nucleus
07-12-2008, 11:24 PM
i think it's odd that a Lacanian would become a rock star in Europe (with the underwear model wife and all) in the wake of the Sokal affair. Zizek seems to avoid the later Lacan and i think his interpretation of the sinthome as essentially "stupid" is way off. The only Lacan really worth anyone's time is Seminar 17 and everything that came after it (through 27 i think). That was when Lacan dealt with the Real register in-depth. Zizek's idea of the real seems self-contradictory. His explanation of the drive v. desire is fantastic though.

I would put a few living intellectuals ahead of Zizek: Jean-luc Nancy, Jean Michel Rabate, Frederic Jameson, Arne Naess, Paul Virilio, Anthony Vidler, and Manuel de Landa. But that is jmo.

nomadthethird
08-12-2008, 12:21 AM
Agree totally that there are more prominent living theorists.

Thing is, Zizek's application of Lacan to films was sort of what interested me in Lacan, who before then seemed just a little too elliptical and, hmm, French about psychoanalysis. I've always found Lacan a tad opaque, and before I could make some clearer historiographical connections between Lacan and Freud, and see Lacan as someone who de-formalized psychoanalysis, generalized it so it worked outside of Victorian Austria, I wasn't too thrilled by him. It's kinda like the difference between a science and an art, the difference between Freud and Lacan.

Zizek's fascination with Hegel kinda bores me, tbf, but I do appreciate his kitchen sink approach to topical analyses by way of critical theory. Just wish Zizek didn't plagiarize his own work so often. (You'll find pages and pages from one book that are exactly copied from another...)

Agent Nucleus
08-12-2008, 07:02 AM
no i like Zizek - to me reading his stuff is like a workout. it is very encyclopedic, dense, pynchonian, esp The Parallax View, the David Lynch essay, and Introduction to Lacan through Popular Culture. The later Lacan stuff is really interesting, especially Seminar 23: The Sinthome which is about James Joyce and topology. My only prob with Zizek is that I can't identify a "big theory" he originated. His elaboration of the parallax is fascinating but he takes it from Karatani.

Lacan is pretty opaque. I had to take two courses, one on Lacanian theory (we read the Ecrits in three weeks), and one called Lacan/Hitchcock/Lynch. The second was by far the more interesting - we read Zizek, Laura Mulvey, anti-Mulvey critics, and queer theorists ("Rear Window's Glass Hole", "Anal Rope", "Spreading the Cheeks of Interpretation" - that one was by the prof... eh).

Zizek or Rabate? idk. I think David Lynch is Lacan's best interpreter but yeah it is science and art.

Mr. Tea
08-12-2008, 02:52 PM
Anyone who doesn't know what Zizek means by "masturbation with a living partner" has never had sex with a male.

Lol, tell me about it, sometimes I'm so boring my hand falls asleep on me.

Slothrop
08-12-2008, 03:16 PM
no i like Zizek - to me reading his stuff is like a workout. it is very encyclopedic, dense, pynchonian, esp The Parallax View, the David Lynch essay, and Introduction to Lacan through Popular Culture. The later Lacan stuff is really interesting, especially Seminar 23: The Sinthome which is about James Joyce and topology.
Sorry to ramble into this thread on page 7 with a n00bish question, but is there any of this sort of stuff that's a) online and b) accessible (fsvo accessible) to someone who doesn't know tons of theory already? I only really know about Zizek from reading k-punk and discussions on here, and I'd be quite interested to read him at first hand...

jambo
08-12-2008, 03:22 PM
There's lots of Zizek's writing online Sloth.

Some random bookmarks I had:

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-superego-and-the-act-1999.html
http://www.lacan.com/zizek-youmay.htm
http://www.lacan.com/symptom/?page_id=247

Also a lot of talks / interviews on youtube for the full audiovisual experience.

Also, primer on some of Lacan's basic terminology - http://www.cla.purdue.edu/English/theory/psychoanalysis/lacandevelop.html

No doubt there will be scoffing. ;)

I think we should compile a top 100 Zizek moments.

Agent Nucleus
08-12-2008, 04:13 PM
for Zizek, the Democracy Now interviews and The Pervert's Guide to Cinema are great introductions. Pervert's Guide is on YouTube in chunks or i can hunt down a torrent. Zizek's Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture (1991 i think) is excellent, very entertaining cultural studies, film criticism, lit criticism etc. from an oblique psychoanalytic perspective. Zizek makes Lacan entertaining somehow. Reading Lacan is kind of like dental surgery without anesthetic. But the seminars are way more accessible than the Ecrits (writings).

viktorvaughn
10-12-2008, 08:07 PM
The Deadly Jester - http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=097a31f3-c440-4b10-8894-14197d7a6eef

Has this been discussed?, apologies if so.

"To put it succinctly, the only true solution to the 'Jewish question' is the 'final solution' (their annihilation), because Jews ... are the ultimate obstacle to the 'final solution' of History itself, to the overcoming of divisions in all-encompassing unity and flexibility."

Sounds a bit dodgy, any fans wanna explain it to me (i know very little about him)?

poetix
10-12-2008, 09:39 PM
Zizek is a raving theory-fiend who spends his spare time building models of concentration camps out of matchsticks, and populating them with figurines of characters from Hitchcock movies. His publications have a sinister, mesmerising power which enables them to turn otherwise decent people into fanatical communists, slavering with blood-lust and restlessly prowling the halls of academia in the vain hoping of finding some kulaks they can liquidate. Also, he talks very quickly in a faintly humorous Eastern European accent, and our informants in the former Yugoslav Republic tell us that he was personally responsible for everything unpleasant that has ever happened in that otherwise moderate and convivial region. His beard should be burned and his books shaved, and his legions of sycophants should be given Cognitive Behavioural Therapy until they realise it's time to grow up and get proper jobs.

This is a 100% reliable summary, and you now do not need to read anything by Zizek, ever.

nomadthethird
10-12-2008, 10:05 PM
roffle

vimothy
09-04-2010, 05:29 PM
Interesting argument about Zizeck going on over at Lenin's Tomb between various people and the blogger I mistook for HMLT a couple of months back in this thread: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/04/class-struggle-and-invention-of-race.html

nomadthethird
09-04-2010, 06:28 PM
Interesting argument about Zizeck going on over at Lenin's Tomb between various people and the blogger I mistook for HMLT a couple of months back in this thread: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/04/class-struggle-and-invention-of-race.html

I agree with her on most counts, as entertaining as Zizek can be. I think it was American Stranger who put it best on that blog post about the inherent (and perverse) conservatism of structuralism (Lacan, Saussure, and that whole lineage within theory in particular...)

nomadthethird
09-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Wins thread:


Guest
Can I just say something? As a cis-woman, mostly hetero, of-colour, middle-class, in a theory-heavy MA program at a leftie university in Canada?

I'd just like to share my experience of how Zizek is being taken up among my peers. Especially young, white, heterosexual men on the "neu-neu-Left" or whatever we now call this loosely defined 'group' of "philosophizing" theory-heads ("theory boys" as they have been referred to elsewhere) who drag along Deleuze to coffeeshops, argue about Derrida in dingy bars filled with other disaffected looking (usually hipster) youth and generally spend all their time being... subversive or something. They often engage in similar "Zizekian" activities such as pop cultural analysis of film, making 'transgressive' (and misogynist) jokes, ironizing this, that and the other thing. All I can ask is whether, in a parallel concern to the one mounted by Chabert, we might consider Zizek's popularity to be worrying precisely because it is a symptom that certain discussions -- the struggles of feminists 'then and now', anti-racism activisim worldwide, the increasing isolation of the 'academe' from the 'real' (all scare-quotes, all the time, because I am making sweeping generalizations here) -- are becoming pooh-pooh issues for the NNL? I ask this because I see Zizek as a figure with whom so many of my (white, hetero, male) friends form the ultimate relation of transference: he is the person that absolves the new generation of guilty white straight men of their responsibility for political praxis while simultaneously guaranteeing them a set of performative idiosyncracies that assauge the insecurities of their masculine identifications. "He's an academic" -- so we excuse him the responsibility for what he says and what he does or does not do? "He's an academic and -so am I-" -- thus dissolving responsibility for the new masculinist irony that takes no political responsibilities for what is said and what is not done. I'm not saying that Zizek doesn't have interesting things to say. But perhaps there are two simultaneous conversations happening here: on the one hand there is the question of what it is that he writes (literally, Zizek's "content") and the function that he plays for the NNL (more allegorically, that which Zizek "does")... Two functions which are, of course, never hermetically sealed away from one another. Sorry for having only done a quick scan of the comments and entered by way of excerpting my comment from a longer-running conversation with a friend who feels similarly uncomfortable with the 'phenomenon' of Zizek.

Also: I identified myself positionally because let's not assume that people all "read" Zizek in the same way, and let's not assume he intends to have the same effects on all of us. If I find him, more often than not, some variation on violent-exclusionary-aggressive, it is because I cannot read him any other way given my history and my experiences. Surely we might consider the curious distribution of his popularity on the Left to be a question of interest

polystyle desu
10-04-2010, 12:04 AM
'Theory boys' lol and pretty spot on

grizzleb
10-04-2010, 01:03 AM
Mercy!

Mr. Tea
11-04-2010, 10:06 PM
Note to self: begin more monologues with "As a cis-man..."

nomadthethird
12-04-2010, 02:30 AM
Read this (http://www.lacan.com/zizarchives.htm) and try not to facepalm yourself a concussion.

baboon2004
12-04-2010, 10:24 AM
Hmm, I find it renders much more directly the traumatic-subversive-creative-explosive power of feminine subjectivity.

I know nothing about him (he's not that well-known really outside academic circles and having a cool name, is he?), but is Zizek a bit like philosophy's answer to Houellebecq? :eek:

Mind you, I did watch that Pervert's Guide to Cinema (well, the bits i could find on youtube), and I liked his reading of Lynch. Are any of his essays on Lynch up on the internet for free?

grizzleb
12-04-2010, 03:20 PM
Hunners of essays online I think. Say what you like about some of the peeps who are into him (who would have been doing the same thing quoting Neitzsche 40 years ago, Habermas 30 years ago etc) but much of his chat is thought-provoking and interesting. I'm sure there's lots of stuff you could pick with him, especially re the psuedo racist/sexist slant he goes for, but all his books I've read have always been lively, entertaining and thought-provoking. Though he seems to just chop up and re-edit alot of his material which is a bit weak.

baboon2004
12-04-2010, 04:03 PM
Hunners of essays online I think. Say what you like about some of the peeps who are into him (who would have been doing the same thing quoting Neitzsche 40 years ago, Habermas 30 years ago etc) but much of his chat is thought-provoking and interesting. I'm sure there's lots of stuff you could pick with him, especially re the psuedo racist/sexist slant he goes for, but all his books I've read have always been lively, entertaining and thought-provoking. Though he seems to just chop up and re-edit alot of his material which is a bit weak.

Yeah, just being a cult figure amongst a particular, well, fraternity with annoying tendencies, doesn't make the work bad per se. Pseudo-racist/sexist slants are more worrying tho.

Interested to read the Lynch thing tho - didn't realise it was a whole book.

grizzleb
12-04-2010, 04:55 PM
His point is a bit more subtle, but there is an argument to be made. I think the problem that that poster had was that it allows that type of person a guilt-free means of making these jokes, under the guise of being subversive "I'm actually undermining racism/etc"

I do like big Zizek though. The Lynch stuff is really interesting and fun.

Tentative Andy
12-04-2010, 05:31 PM
I appreciate Zizek's analysis of ideology and how it operates, and I feel that it's actually aided how I understand current media and political discourse.
I'm much less comfortable with him when he's preaching his own ideology, as it were, and I feel like this side of his work has become more and more dominant. It's not so much that I disagree with his political views totally, but I think they're full of confusions and contradictions and contatin some potentially dangerous elements. The bottom line is that I don't think they're the best way for socialism to go forward.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that the raising up of x reactionary/offensive viewpoint under the guise of 'but I'm just promoting debate' is dishonest and unhelpful. But this is something I need to think about more, and obviously extends much wider than just Zizek.

baboon2004
12-04-2010, 05:47 PM
His point is a bit more subtle, but there is an argument to be made. I think the problem that that poster had was that it allows that type of person a guilt-free means of making these jokes, under the guise of being subversive "I'm actually undermining racism/etc"



which is a huge contemporary problem, generally speaking. 'irony' has a lot to answer for (as does Ricky Gervais, obviously).

edit: which Andy just said, in fact.

People use the flak jacket of irony to say appalling things very frequently.

vimothy
12-04-2010, 05:55 PM
Does Zizek even have an ideology? I thought he was all about the style, maaaaaan.

baboon2004
12-04-2010, 07:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPVzQjp1INk

i like this clip. of course he forgets that men narrativise sex incredibly, so the view of women as Other is a bit tiresome, but, altogether, very interesting subject if he could get past that.

Tentative Andy
12-04-2010, 07:11 PM
Does Zizek even have an ideology?

State communism.
Christianity without the belief in god bit.
'The West' as an historical ideal.

Of course, as chabert points out in the debate that you linked to, a degree of deniability and wriggle-room is very much built into the style of his writing (so in that sense you're right). But if you read through even a small fraction of his work, he's clearly much more sympathetic to some viewpoints than others.

vimothy
12-04-2010, 07:40 PM
State communism.
Christianity without the belief in god bit.
'The West' as an historical ideal.

Of course, as chabert points out in the debate that you linked to, a degree of deniability and wriggle-room is very much built into the style of his writing (so in that sense you're right). But if you read through even a small fraction of his work, he's clearly much more sympathetic to some viewpoints than others.

^^Just games people play.

Tentative Andy
12-04-2010, 08:14 PM
^^Just games people play.

Well from my own reading experiences I'm not wholly convinced about that, but if he really is just playing games then I'd be tempted to say who cares about anything he writes?
("Not me" would be one potential answer to that...)
It's unfortunate though because as I said there is a more analytical aspect to what he does, but that seems to have become increasingly obscured of late.

baboon2004
12-04-2010, 08:24 PM
Why people will play such games (if they are games, of course - and they may be part game and part not) is exceptionally interesting in itself.

vimothy
12-04-2010, 08:30 PM
...The colostomy point was introduced in order to say, badly, that there is a distinction in what I claim to be advocating, and what I might actually be advocating. There is a difference between the label and the thing. This is especially true in the orgy of cross-dressing that is contemporary politics.

Zizek says he is a Marxist-Leninist - but what does that mean in an era in which this label possesses no mass movement at all. There is an argument - I think a good one - that Marxism was tied to a certain set of historical, social and technological conditions, and derived its power from them. So what does it mean to be a self-proclaimed Marxist today?

The only thing I'd suggest is it means something to do with genre. That is, it is about a politics of style, rather than politics in the traditional sense. It is about a certain way of staging an appeal. About a style which allows a writer to link the personal to the political, beneath the shelter of a redemption narrative and a sense that they are in some self-evident way serving the Good.

These genre rules are derived from Marxism, but do not necessarily always serve Marxist political ends. There is a notable genre similarity between certain Marxist and fascist narratives, though there are differences as well. The question is: When does the one bleed into the other? When does a genre-narrative which calls itself Marxist, in the rhetorical act of promulgating a message, become something else?

Again, I don't think the answer is necessarily to be found in the content of what is actually being advocated. I think instead instead it is do with the nature of the appeal, what it leans on, and what it closes off.

Intellectuals look to establish certain patterns of communication between people. It is these patterns - these games - which are transmitted more powerfully then the content of the messages they claim to be standing for.

http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?8527-Fascism!&p=158938#post158938

swears
12-04-2010, 08:42 PM
Josef was a top poster, and frequently OTM, imo.

He went through a phase of being pretty hardcore leftist inna Richard Seymore stylee before joining Dissensus, y'know.

scottdisco
12-04-2010, 10:15 PM
Josef top boy in the game (and Arsenal fan like Paul Nomos) :D

Zizek was pretty decent around the time of the Haiti quake, he was very much bigging up Peter Hallward.

i don't think Hallward is probably perfect on Haiti, sure (and i only say that because people like J. Michael Dash might have a slight disagreement w him, even if it is nothing massive *), but he was a damn sight better than many if not most commentators, and he kept rightly banging that Franco-US historical plunder drum.
(i seem to recall k-punk and LENIN'S TOMB both quoting that fine Hallward Comment is Free piece that drove that message home for the general reader.)

anyway, bit off-topic.

* though both men know a lot more about Haiti than me, natch, so what do i know

baboon2004
12-04-2010, 11:24 PM
Zizek was pretty decent around the time of the Haiti quake, he was very much bigging up Peter Hallward.


ah, my friend knows him thru academia. pretty sure i met him v briefly at a talk on Haiti. Seemed, er, very nice, but I have no knowledge of his thought (tried the Jedi mind trick, failed)

nomadthethird
12-04-2010, 11:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPVzQjp1INk

i like this clip. of course he forgets that men narrativise sex incredibly, so the view of women as Other is a bit tiresome, but, altogether, very interesting subject if he could get past that.

That's bullshit, every word of it.

If I had a dime for every time I sat in a room surrounded by my brother and his friends and was forced to listen to them recount every sexual encounter they'd ever had, in gorey detail, so they could all bond over it, I'd be rolling in dimes.

Then, if someone took away a dime every time I knew a girlfriend of mine had had sex with someone, but she didn't say anything about it, I'd be poor again.

Zizek has this strange tendency, where he thinks he's really onto something when he simply flips the terms of a ridiculous stereotype-- the stereotype is that men brag about sex to their friends, so let's "reverse" this, and it'll seem like a brilliant flash of insight.

It isn't. It's just a stupid stereotype in reverse.

scottdisco
12-04-2010, 11:57 PM
sorry more OT, but i'd forgotten the fun on that fascism thread, superb. 75 pages, excellent stuff, i remember following it to the end.

loving the early doors stuff (http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?8527-Fascism!/page3)


I guess I'm principally interested in the more micropolitical forms of fascism... "the fascist within", to quote Deleuze and Guattari.

I used to subsribe to these kind of ideas, too. "Anti-Oedipus is an Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life" and all that. Now I don't, because in the end it gets as hollow and airy as 'power = fascism'; it's exactly what leads to the denuding of fascism as a useful and apposite term. The trouble is, the Fascist and Nazi regimes, when they existed, didn't or couldn't effectively theorise themselves, and attempts to do so became famous jokes (Marinetti's punch-ups, Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century lying unread next to Hitler's bed). Go to a decent bookshop and you can usually find a well-stocked Marxism section, but you wouldn't even be able to stock a Fascist equivalent. In the last few years I've read George L. Mosse and Renzo de Felice, and their books Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fascism-Informal-Introduction-Theory-Practice/dp/0878556192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228324702&sr=1-1) and The Fascist Revolution: Toward a General Theory of Fascism (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fascist-Revolution-Toward-General-Fascism/dp/0865274320/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228324666&sr=1-4) are both rich and vivid and useful.

I think part of the corruption of fascism as a clear political and theoretical category was caused by the Cold War 'totalitarian' theories, too, and that's to be regretted: this seemed to sharpen the critique of Communism while diluting the defeated foe (that still actually existed in Portugal, Latin America, etc.): so you end up with, I suppose, Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 'Dictatorships and Double Standards' (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/dictatorships--double-standards-6189). Actually, Felice's analysis of fascism is so specific and forensic that he doesn't even consider the Franco regime to be fascist, per se.

baboon2004
13-04-2010, 12:26 AM
That's bullshit, every word of it.

If I had a dime for every time I sat in a room surrounded by my brother and his friends and was forced to listen to them recount every sexual encounter they'd ever had, in gorey detail, so they could all bond over it, I'd be rolling in dimes.

Then, if someone took away a dime every time I knew a girlfriend of mine had had sex with someone, but she didn't say anything about it, I'd be poor again.


Both ways round are stupid stereotypes. Some men never talk about sex, some women recount their experiences in detail. I talk to my female friends way more about sex than my male friends, in terms of graphic detail, but that might be quite different for other people in their friendships. Things don't cut neatly across gender lines.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 01:15 AM
Both ways round are stupid stereotypes. Some men never talk about sex, some women recount their experiences in detail. I talk to my female friends way more about sex than my male friends, in terms of graphic detail, but that might be quite different for other people in their friendships. Things don't cut neatly across gender lines.

Yeah, I know. That was my point.

I was just trying to point out that making sweeping categorical essentialisms based on "gender", whether you think gender and sex are one or not (a lot of Zizekians/Lacanians claim not to, but it's the same message either way) is stupid, precisely because you can only ever base your opinions on anecdote.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 01:49 AM
You see, anecdote will never amount to evidence because all it takes is one counter-anecdote to invalidate any other anecdote. My story, if it contradicts yours, invalidates yours. And vice versa.

The problem with privileged discourses like philosophy, theory, etc.-- and those who are lucky enough to find themselves included in them-- is that both operate under the assumption that the privileged subjects who produce this discourse are in some special position of authority, rendering their anecdotal, "eyeball ethnographies" (to borrow a phrase from Chabert) unassailable and unable to be effectively countered by anyone but another symmetrically privileged subject.

So, in Zizek's view (although this is implicit, never explicit), a woman or feminist could never rightfully undermine his essentialisms and anecdotes about Woman-- only someone with the same amount of class, race, gender, and institutional privilege as he has could possibly effectively challenge his authority. In other words, Zizek's discursive ramblings will only ever "give way" to those of, say, a Badiou or a Toscano. No discursive ground will ever be ceded by Zizek to anyone who isn't a "universal subject" or at least a speaker-for-universal-subjects, i.e., a white, Christian, heterosexual cis-male.

Handily and conveniently enough, Zizek's discourse even goes one further on the rest and hermetically seals itself off from critique from lesser-than-universal-subjects (e.g., black American or French muslim feminists) by rendering any and all utterances by those lesser beings a form of rank, politcally correct multiculturalism; which is, incidentally, also responsible for any failure on the part of the revolutionary European Left to get anything done. (Riiight...)

Zizek is fun to read when he talks about film and other pomo media, especially when his Lacanianism is particularly strained and overwritten. He seems like such a teddy bear, then. It's when he gets "political" that things tend to go spiraling downward.

zhao
13-04-2010, 09:21 AM
i want to buy a non-theory friend a few theory books, and am considering Welcome to the Desert of the Real, just because it is short, grounded in current events, and relatively lite and accessible. which would you choose for this purpose?

also in the list is Virilio's Vision Machine, that one i am certain about. any other recommendations welcome cheers

scottdisco
13-04-2010, 10:52 AM
You see, anecdote will never amount to evidence because all it takes is one counter-anecdote to invalidate any other anecdote. My story, if it contradicts yours, invalidates yours. And vice versa.

damnit, someone needs to tell the tabloids in the UK.


(e.g., black American or French muslim feminists) by rendering any and all utterances by those lesser beings a form of rank, politcally correct multiculturalism

this is one reason why so many of today's feminists are self-deluding Orientalist dupes you see, shoring up the whole edifice w their bourgeois morality systems.

i actually see Josef's opening post mentions P Hallward, my bad.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 11:35 AM
this is one reason why so many of today's feminists are self-deluding Orientalist dupes you see, shoring up the whole edifice w their bourgeois morality systems.


Eurgh...multiculturalism, equality and human rights are all so revoltingly Westernliberalborgeois, don't you find? ;)


Martin Amis recently attacked Islam as the most boring of all religions, demanding its believers to perform again and again the same stupid rituals and learn by heart the same sacred formulas – he was deeply wrong: it is multicultural tolerance and permissiveness which stand for real boredom.

Hell yeah, life is much more interesting when you live in an oppressive, racist dictatorship! Say what you like about the Nazis, but they knew how to paint the town red, eh?

scottdisco
13-04-2010, 02:06 PM
Martin Amis recently attacked Islam as the most boring of all religions, demanding its believers to perform again and again the same stupid rituals and learn by heart the same sacred formulas he was deeply wrong: it is multicultural tolerance and permissiveness which stand for real boredom.

there is a rich vein of potential genre analogies here :cool:

Islam as the minimal of the world of organised religion? repetition to reveal inner workings.

Buddhism could be glam rock.

grizzleb
13-04-2010, 03:11 PM
Catholicism as emo rock, all self hatred and the like.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 03:30 PM
Eurgh...multiculturalism, equality and human rights are all so revoltingly Westernliberalborgeois, don't you find? ;)

Hell yeah, life is much more interesting when you live in an oppressive, racist dictatorship! Say what you like about the Nazis, but they knew how to paint the town red, eh?

Oh yes, and what's even better about these types is that they're constantly going on about the evils of moral relativism...and how the only thing that will save us is like Badiou's Ethics. But Badiou's Ethics is basically Situational Ethics 2.0, the idea is there is no universal ethical principle, it's all situational. (Ok I simplified his argument but that's the gist of it). That's pomo as fuck, I'm sorry.

Meanwhile, Zizek and Badiou and theorists who claim to be soooo over moral relativism are constantly using it to excuse things like: oppressive religions that force women to wear veils, oppressive religions with figureheads like Saint Paul, basically any issue where white men get to tell women or racial minorities what they are and what they should be doing, etc.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 03:58 PM
"Faith" for these people is self-help... and they have the fucking nerve to accuse other people of putting aside important "political" concerns in favor of self-help.

And of course, the people they're saying this kind of thing to are the types who've been repeatedly raped, abused, assaulted, discriminated against at work, discriminated against at home, in their communities, who can't make a living wage anywhere near what these fucks make for drooling their idiotic pronouncements all over the place.

It's sick. Fuck all of them.

Tentative Andy
13-04-2010, 04:31 PM
^^ Yeah I was going to say something about that quote, but nomad has basically covered it all plus a good deal more that wouldn't have occured to me. I'm going to butt out again now as it seems pointless giving any more time to debating a guy I don't really read or care about much anymore.

(Very) ignorant question before I go though: what is the cis- thing all about?

grizzleb
13-04-2010, 04:33 PM
^^ Yeah I was going to say something about that quote, but nomad has basically covered it all plus a good deal more that wouldn't have occured to me. I'm going to butt out again now as it seems pointless giving any more time to debating a guy I don't really read or care about much anymore.

(Very) ignorant question before I go though: what is the cis- thing all about?

Yeah, the relativism thing is one thing that irks me a great deal about these guys. Lambasting moral relatvism but then being heavily evasive in how you actually go about getting outside of it.

The cis-male means 'not transexual male' I think.

What do you mean by 'faith is a means of self-help" nomad? I don't think I've caught your line of thought there. Good posts though.

Tentative Andy
13-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Yeah, the relativism thing is one thing that irks me a great deal about these guys. Lambasting moral relatvism but then being heavily evasive in how you actually go about getting outside of it.

The cis-male means 'not transexual male' I think.


Thanks.

padraig (u.s.)
13-04-2010, 05:20 PM
the cis- prefix specifically refers to someone who identifies as the gender they were born with/assigned. cis & trans are both Latin, cis meaning "on the same side" & trans meaning "opposite". i.e. cis or trans isomers in chemistry. I dunno, my approach w/gender pronouns is to go case by case. some transgender people I've known took it really seriously, some didn't. also, some preferred to just be referred to as the they gender they identified as. calling someone a cismale seems a bit like overkill when its patently obvious in the first place (i.e. just another way to identify said person as privileged, e.g. wrong) but then again I am a cis, hetero, white, middle class, etc dude, so.

also, I miss josef k.

also, w/r/t religions as music, surely Catholicism can only be Gothic? also I nominate vegan sXe HC for Calvinism.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 05:26 PM
The same people who question whether an American sex worker can "consent" to sex work have no problem with the idea that muslim women all autonomously "consent" in their purest subjective selfhood to wearing a veil and getting stoned for the crime of being raped?

Give me a break. At least be consistent for five minutes.

What I'm talking about with the whole "faith" thing is that if you question "faith" as a material and social reality, as a set of institutionalized norms and cultural system of negotiating value/s, these Zizekian/Badiouian "Christians" (who mostly claim not to believe in God, but in Paul--- eeeuch, even worse) retreat into "oh but it comforts me in my extreme times of sorrow and tribulation-- being among the most privileged group in the world sure is soul-crushingly difficult!"

So what they've essentially done is "privatized" religious belief, as if religious belief only really affects individuals. If *I* were the one who suggested that faith is nothing more than an individual comfort...well, we all know the lambasting I'd have gotten for that.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 05:29 PM
On the "cismale" point... it's only really used in discussion when you're trying to convey the privilege that is being cis rather than trans... basically, in most normal/informal conversations, even academic ones, it's not used. It's mostly used in specific cases when privilege is the topic of discussion...

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 05:36 PM
i want to buy a non-theory friend a few theory books, and am considering Welcome to the Desert of the Real, just because it is short, grounded in current events, and relatively lite and accessible. which would you choose for this purpose?

also in the list is Virilio's Vision Machine, that one i am certain about. any other recommendations welcome cheers

Vision Machine is a really good choice, especially if your friend is a visual artist...

Foucault's History of Sex would probably be good...not that I agree 10% with that either, but still, 'important' and interesting.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 05:44 PM
On the "cismale" point... it's only really used in discussion when you're trying to convey the privilege that is being cis rather than trans...

In which case you might as well throw in "able-bodied" or whatever is the preferred indicator these days for not having a major disability - right? On the basis that it's another designation that would never come up other than in contrast to having a disability...

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 05:50 PM
In which case you might as well throw in "able-bodied" or whatever is the preferred indicator these days for not having a major disability - right? On the basis that it's another designation that would never come up other than in contrast to having a disability...

Sure, a lot of people would've thought of that. I didn't, although my personal experiences with disability have all been neurological. Watching my grandmother slowly die in a hospital bed for more than half of her life with MS, etc. Cousins with autism. So straight up classic "disability" (blindness, wheelchairs, etc.) doesn't usually jump out at me.

I know a lot of trannies, though. I've hung out with Amanda Lepore and suchlike.

Neurotypical is another good one.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 05:53 PM
We need a word describing people who don't have a potentially fatal peanut allergy. And for people who don't have a limb or digit they can bend at a weird angle to gross people out at parties.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 05:59 PM
We need a word describing people who don't have a potentially fatal peanut allergy. And for people who don't have a limb or digit they can bend at a weird angle to gross people out at parties.

Ah yes...the inclusion of those pesky "small" groups, that are actually millions large, in discourse.

What a draag, man.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 06:25 PM
Rather stigmatising use of 'drag', there... :(

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 09:03 PM
Catholicism as emo rock, all self hatred and the like.

I would think of minimal techno as Buddhism.

Something bright and psychedelic for Hinduism...

swears
13-04-2010, 09:36 PM
Neurotypical is another good one.

Ha! My friend has Aspergers and uses this all the time.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 11:10 PM
I would think of minimal techno as Buddhism.


Hmm, the austere Japanese kind maybe. The mad demon-infested Tibetan kind would be some sort of crazy fuzzed-out garage-psych shit. Or perhaps really gnarly, twisted d'n'b.

zhao
14-04-2010, 07:43 AM
the genre you are looking for is Doom Metal.

Mr. Tea
14-04-2010, 10:13 AM
the genre you are looking for is Doom Metal.

Uh, yeah, I can see that actually...

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/RL001549.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=EDF6F2F4F969CEBD006FC4E8600BDFE0B40CAA0B710CBC85 E9D0F3B0BB671B30

:eek:

Edit: the skulls with eyes still in them have an almost Mexican look to them, to my mind - perhaps a not dissimilar aesthetic?

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 11:26 PM
i just had a quick look at some of Chabert's comments at LENIN'S TOMB, she really goes to town on the Z-Man w some frequency, a bracing read...

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 01:06 PM
i just had a quick look at some of Chabert's comments at LENIN'S TOMB, she really goes to town on the Z-Man w some frequency, a bracing read...

Am not altogether with it today, and I thought you were talking about Zhao there for a seocnd - got very confused.

vimothy
28-11-2010, 06:11 PM
Can't believe I've only just noticed this:

http://www.thenation.com/article/uncomplicated

DM's review of "In Defence of Lost Causes".

blackpixie
05-12-2010, 05:07 PM
he breakdown reminds me of kanye's

vimothy
10-12-2010, 01:39 AM
Ha!

blackpixie
30-12-2010, 10:50 PM
"perverts guide to cinema" where he goes on about hitchcock and david lynch and all their lacanian tendencies is really really interesting. As a literary and film critic he is at his best.

When he is at his worst is when he starts idolising stalin just for the hell of it, and using comments his roma nanny made as a base for arguments that - despite whether or not they are worthwhile - can so easily be distorted by the slightest mis understanding. for instance @lenin's tomb (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/12/courageous-assault-on-hegemonic.html)

Most of his arguments must be defended in the "comments section" with sentences like "zizek is not advocating genocide just because he says that hitler was not violent enough"

Bettysnake
14-03-2011, 04:47 PM
Unusually non-spitty and understandable on Al Jazeera on the Egyptian uprisings. Great Tom and Jerry moment. Better than Mr Oldstyle Chomsky Chomsk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29NffzEh2b0

grizzleb
25-03-2011, 02:46 PM
Was cutting about outside my uni when I heard the unmistakable eastern european accent, looked up and he was talking to a couple of people gesticulating wildly and I overheard him saying 'No, but fuck them!' (etc). I caught his eye with a big grin as they walked past. Hahah. Nutcase. He clearly never turns off.