Žižek : the threat of NEW MEDIA

[@jonteaches]

Wow, the algorithm did good. Liking and subscribing, but not because you said so.

[@Moircuus]

No share? 😢

[@jonteaches]

😂 Hm, I tend not to share as much. I need more philosophical friends.

[@zanakil]

I instantly like the candeur of your work. No BS intro, straight to the point, reading notes on paper, self-reflection about your perspective. Insta sub !

[@79Fbanana]

What a mythical algo pull. I need way more education to understand most of this but its such a great vibe in here regardless. Including your pauses to think is a fantastic video element.

[@VirtuallyOriginal]

One of the interesting implications of the last quote you discuss seems to be, not so much that one loses their own thoughts (or their "private experience"), but rather, that in being emptied of subjectivity, the phenomenal world becomes deprived of all content (by way of supplementing this lack that constitutes the subject - by subjecting it to content). This is kind of obvious but it is ironic to consider when taking into account how it is precisely the situation of "new media" that has configured itself as a massive content machine, that deals "content" in the abstract. It can succeed as an abstract form - which really signals the fungability and reducability of the whole anyway - precisely because of this stress upon the subject, which is (to use a phrase of Adorno's from his essay on the Schema of Mass Culture) a "stress upon the mere fact of being." A la Lacan though (afaik), to lose one's fantasy is just to recover another's - because fantasy is always interwined with that of the other. This implictation becomes even more interesting considering that the grammar of content is essentially imitative. This is why the response mechanisms unique to content all emphasize and prioritize "reaction" to a certain extent. To "react" is not only to participate and play a part, but to embody the role of subjectivity itself, to imitate it, and exhaust it in the process. What would "responsible use" mean in the face of content? How does thinking proceed under the sign of thought in this medium? In the spirit of disobedience to brevity, because I see "you" like Wittgenstein, and in the spirit of imitation, here's a picture I like looking at sometimes, however simple or naieve it is: 1. The relational structure of the internet mirrors the relational structure of the mind. 2. Hypertext is the grammar of the internet. 3. Social media represents the mass corporate branding of hypertext as "content" in the abstract. 4. This "content" represents the reduction of hypertext to imitative forms and to the forumalic structures of feedback algorithms whose primary mechanism is to commodify attention and reduce all creative forms to reaction forms. 5. A creative form expresses the possibility of free play between its formal structure and its content. 6. A reaction form reduces free play between its form and content to the mere reproduction of its form as "content." It is called a "reaction form" because its primary principle of action is "reaction." 7. The limits of content in any given medium (such as language), are the limits of thinking in that medium. 8. The plurality of content does not mirror then, the plurality of different modes of expression, only the plurality of reaction forms. 9. To make war on content - that is the goal.

[@elliefrench5819]

points 2-6 are really interesting to me. i will now on be paying much more careful to how much of the 'content' I view and share is simply an exact reproduction or hypertext of some other prexisting idea or creative project. We are at a difficult place with the internet because hypertext style content is often the primary mode of circulation for older ideas + discourses back into the current stream of relevant content for those who get the majority of their encounters with ideas, art, etc. from apps that use algorithms. Although mostly troubling, some content creators add more of their own critiques and take time to trace their ideas back to their sources and inspirations rather than simply regurgitating information. Sadly this is rather rare within the mass amount of content that is produced on a daily basis. It's hard for digital natives like myself to imagine a world before the internet and how the circulation of ideas must have been before the internet (especially concerning speed and turnover rate - how quickly do we dig something up or discover something new, obsess about it, and then forget about it?). I very much dislike the prevalence of imitative forms on the internet and how they is soooooo heavily rewarded. In the past I think I have previously likened it to "discussion", or the state of something being talked about and argued over by many people, but they are not necessarily the same.

[@anthony7960]

being emptied of your own subjectivity would lead to a disassociation with the self, leading you to identify with things outside of you and therefore losing control and leading to neuroticism, as well as taking on attributes of things around you. Done on a mass scale, you have ideas working against each other in human form, which could describe our culture wars.

[@woanologue]

cc 46:00

[@domovoi_0]

Great stuff. Thank you. Love and blessings!

[@karelfrielink4300]

Philosophizing is an activity that has no end, at least not as long as there are people to philosophize. What is so beautiful about your videos is that you are on a journey of discovery and you take us along on this journey. And we can all see how you come up with ideas while philosophizing (and ordering thoughts) that you (probably) didn't have before the recording. You make philosophizing in this way very appealing. Keep up the good work!🙂

[@woanologue]

cc17:30

[@woanologue]

hi y'all! thank you for this humbling experience of a mini blow-up for a video i was soooOOoooooo close to abandoning at literally at every stage of its conception (writing, filming and editing). i'm prepping for my hegel bookclub so my time and energy is tied up there. BUT! if you were interested, i'm gonna do a LIVE this saturday 6:30pm CET commenting on your comments. it's both the most efficient and ironic choice :) again, i'm humbed by the response, wn x link : kzbin.infoNFKYB7G7o4Y?feature=share

[@alexandrusuteu9731]

"Leave a comment down below." Also the conclusion was just awesome and ambiguous. A lot to ponder upon for certain. Your video was a surprise that I didn't know I needed today.

[@elliefrench5819]

16:13 (commenting so i remember) - really where you kick off here! loved this section about the importance of dissonance in our experience of subjective + objective world(s) and loss of capacity for dissent once we loose our subjective lens (and thus all conviction that what is said about the world might differ from how we experience it).

[@woanologue]

🫶

[@Avidadepablo]

Just found out your channel and begun binge watching it. What a wonderful channel, you videos have being enlightening for me, and I hope you keep up with the good work, cause it really helps to have such an amazing philosophy channel at KZbin!

[@neilwoodman3560]

Your videos are getting better. Keep going :)

[@0FAS1]

Wonderful! Got this recommended to me so it seems the algorithm is somewhat reliable haha. Although I somewhat agree that it makes people lazy I think it's also simply taking advantage of the lazyness that people already have, whether it be books that think for us, other people on the internet (or even algorithms in the form of meta narratives) is not the main issue as I see it. Instead I find that oversaturation is inevitable unless we balance input and output and I think this is what you mean when you talked about oversaturation being exhaustive; that unless we process our input and make it real (in the sense of our being able to communicate it) we're merely take a bath in information that (more often than not) simply makes us realize how dirty it is. I sometimes feel as if I have to shake myself of like a wet dog when I've been lazy on the internet for too long. Thus it was all the more satisfying to stumble upon such a clear stream of thought as yours! A humble mountain brook if you will. Don't usually write these kinds of longform comments but it seemed on theme this time. Really refreshing with this personal and intimate form just keep on keeping on!

[@woanologue]

thanks for taking the time to write this!

[@marloonlemes]

Hii, greetings for Brazil! awesome vid

[@vblake530530]

Thinking back on my understanding of “Emptiness “ as “Clarity “ ( I know it’s a Westernized way of thinking about it, but work with me here) Being “Empty of Subjectivity “ suggests an opportunity. I’m gonna resist tryna unpack that last statement and see what you make of it.

[@vigdragon]

Very interesting video and topics you are taking on! So this is my *very personal* interpretation regarding the last points: As far as I understand for now: for Zizek the subject is empty, meaning there is no content (or inner life/world) "substantiating" subject. (Instead, subject is "self-relating negativity" - from "Less Than Nothing" by Zizek). I think it's *not* about the difference between the subjective experience of life vs how life is presenting itself. "You" do *not* have "your own thoughts" - that is exactly the point; that's what subject is (for Zizek). "Subject" is *not* the "you", that is having thoughts. Instead the "subject you" is empty (empty of thoughts, empty of fantasy, empty of experience). And this "subject you" (which is empty) has an "impossible relationship" with phenomena like fantasy, thoughts, experiences (of the world) which is what would constitute / substantiate the "you you" (colloquially). So subject (à la Zizek) is *not* you (à la colloquially); instead the relationship is a self-relating negativity (between it's form and it's content/substance) which is frustratingly hard to explain in a youtube comment. This is a subject (intended pun, I mean a "topic") for a conversation and long discussion to have irl. with lots of back and forth and immediate feedback loops - and even then it's hard to communicate. Sorry for the super ramble and if I don't make any sense. I'm not very good at explaining this topic admittedly (and the communication medium is a handicap too as mentioned). edit: formatting.

[@tudorscutariu1012]

Impossibility of any kind of relation between subject form and it's secondary person view form is only viewed as that when we choose to believe that fantasy is not subjectivity. If instead I choose to think of subjectivity as the undefinable which permeates all the subjective phenomena, then secondary person subjectivity aka fantasy is part of the undefinable because it can only be experienced through me. If I isolate the idea of subjectivity saying that it is pure and empty, then I lose the reality of it. But here I miss the idea of love. Love can only be experienced if we understand that our subjectivity is not just ours.

[@robes9947]

Maybe "empty" is not the proper concept here, since self-relating negativity does not really mean something "empty". It's a redoubled negativity, which implies much more, something closer to noise but negative, or smth.

[@kp6735]

Also interesting is the notion of interpassivity in the work of Robert Pfaller. Drawing from Lacan (and also Zizek, I believe) he writes that interpassivity is the delegation of jouissance to someone else, which in turn functions as an escape or relieve from the Big Other's dictum to "enjoy".

[@Kitobsimiruvchi]

I'm glad that I subscribed your channel. First when I see one of your long videos, I wasn't sure this is right content for me, but now you made me sure that I did a great decision) I like the structure and the way you talk. Keep it up)

[@brianbutton6346]

Man! You have great handwriting!!

[@ModernConversations]

At 14:30 you started to address something thats always been on my mind, but which nobody wants to unpack from my standpoint. Very refreshed to be honestly interested!

[@flowerboi9675]

When she says perceived value all I can think about is how everything is subject to perception and ones it perceived it becomes reality to one’s subjectiveness. Simply because it can be perceived in terms of reality and reality is personal perception.

[@vblake530530]

You’re my new Post-Post Modern friend. SUBSCRIBED

[@RT-hh3vl]

love all your vids!🌱

[@robes9947]

I loved how you were surprised at your own notes, a true philosophical experience :D To my understanding, for the Ljubljana school the problem is that the object --to which the subject is correlative to-- cannot appear on the same level as the subject since the falling off, "loss", of the object from the field of the subject is ontological. And this is elegantly shown in Lacan's formula of fantasy: $◊a. When the object (a) gets too "close", it threatens to oust the subject from the field of reality, leading to desubjectivization. So a fantasy is needed to make both appear in the same field (of the Other, w/e). This is also why anxiety (stemming from the proximity of the object) is a necessary side-effect in our honest struggles/desires; something like stage fright might be an example of this I feel like. So things like subjective objectivity or vice versa is not just possible but necessary, but also impossible.

[@Aokiyoa]

Yeah. I just subscribed. Love the video!

[@steresa]

lol oh dear you took the words right out of my mouth!

[@JibrikAldamov]

KZbin algorithms, thanks for this channel.

[@benjji6440]

not sure if this wont get drowned in the hype. i enjoyed it very much, mostly just you vibing for a great topic, follow up analysis needs to wait post exam phase but i feel like reading a little husserl might be a great fit for this topic, although maybe a little basic?

[@woanologue]

not basic, cartesian meditations is a good go, the idea of phenomenology is good too but hegel is so much more fundamental

[@vblake530530]

Your reaction to “Objectivity Subjective “ hilarious! WTFlaaa? Is RIGHT. If I’d never read Kierkegaard, I wouldn’t have a chance here. You’re clearly Brilliant so it makes us Non-Geniuses to not feel so bad if had to do some unpacking here.

[@woanologue]

i don’t see a true distinction between mu intellect as a potential as others

[@Issa-f7r]

thanks algorithm then, just in time. great channel

[@Bug-sg1li]

So Zizek wrote a book about Zen buddhism's overflowing cup story/proverb.

[@movimentodoscacos]

what a great video, seriously!!

[@movimentodoscacos]

thanks algorithm

[@DavidConnerCodeaholic]

You have good intuition about things.

[@calmryu9446]

Thanks for this video, i'll read the book. Especially the third part of video made me think of Cruising Utopia by Esteban Munoz, imaginination as a productive way of critiquing the current state of things, meanings, and imagining a better world (even, if only thought, not possible to achieve)

[@NOLNV1]

You made me feel gross about it but I did subscribe, which is a phenomenon all its own!

[@darthvegan3823]

Zizek, in the footsteps of Debord, carrying on the work of big daddy Karl! ❤

[@nuxxy_]

only took the algorithm 4 days to recomend me your video 😂

[@alexandergutierrez774]

Great video. I think you should read Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari. They talk about capitalism's deterritorializing behaviors, which seems relevant to your argument.

[@CGPOOP]

Loved this, lots to think about specially in regards to subjectivity made objective, i have been thinking along these lines to how this pertains to the reality of capitalism and its fabrication of its own objective subjectivism. Even in the sense of you trying to not have the algorithm dictate your content but inherently you need to participate to some degree in the system you want to be rid of in order to do that which you want to do, so even its detractors become incapable of fighting its reality distortion field without contributing to that same phenomena

[@Gothic_Monk]

In response to your last question. The thing I believe you were getting at is the semblance. Understanding that "reality" is a semblance of subjectivity and objectivity. By getting lost in either objectivity or subjectivity you are empty of the truth of it all. In the sense that there is no "I" in complete objectivity. Further, there is not concrete or "existence outside oneself" in complete subjectivity. The truth is in the emergence of both (i.e existentialism). This is because, semblance is how we literally perceive and interact with life.

[@nunyabiznizz4778]

I think you were bang on in part 2 and were getting at precisely what he means by being emptied of subjectivity. That dissonance being a feature and not a bug. This is very interesting. As someone who is not American I am inundated with American partisan rhetoric from all sides, and despite my distaste for the entire political climate I find myself consuming this media nonetheless and internally engaging with it. Inside, I pick a side and levy defenses and prepare attacks. I've noticed this is something our social media loves, anything that makes people feel attacked or makes people feel free to attack gets enormous engagement. It flicks that switch in the back of our brains from passive observers to active. I am trying at the very least to be mindful of the feelings that are drawn towards the surface by this media minefield, and not let any of my reactions go unexamined. I don't believe the political climate in the States is actually representative of reality, but as more and more people are exposed to this it begets more of itself and becomes reality. As soon as you feel attacked, or feel compelled to step up in defense of something against someone you see as an enemy the war story becomes real life.

[@woanologue]

cc 24:00

[@AnaticulaeIratae14]

Thank you

[@hilltotryon]

Great content! You should put the text on screen so we can read along!

[@woanologue]

cc:1:02:00

[@freddytackos]

as the philosopher Neil Peart once wrote, Living on a lighted stage Approaches the unreal For those who think and feel In touch with some reality beyond the gilded cage Cast in this unlikely role Ill-equipped to act With insufficient tact One must put up barriers to keep oneself intact

[@new_memeplex]

I think the algorithm recommended you to me because I was watching Mark Fisher Lectures. Make what you will of that data point.

[@AustinCasey-s6i]

Losing your subjectivity means becoming a hollow undead.

[@ruangeja6972]

you got a new subscriber!

[@fftrre3450]

Love the fancy mike

[@christophe7723]

Hi! The idea of angels with wings can be found in the bible itself, and the description of humanoid angels too... Shake a bit and ... But the point remains, in writing or not, that the wings are a way to represent a "celestial" being

[@HoboGardenerBen]

My initial thought of the notion of emptiness is about the buddhist notion of emptiness, of which I only have a shallow understanding. That leads to wondering about how the sense of significance is just an emotional response, not something inherent to or absent from the media. I bet that the most vapid stuff out there has catalyzed very deep feelings in some people. Even the notion of some feelings as deep vs shallow feels false to me but comparing stuff to each other is built into the way I see things.

[@flowerboi9675]

14:00 in the video gave me a thought about the digital age and how eventually it will all become dust. In this sense digital dust not the kind that lingers and is blown away. The kind that simply vanished and leaves no trace in any sense except a useless amalgamation of useless ones and zero which used to incapacitate one’s whole existence.

[@ahobimo732]

I think subjectivity is a prerequisite for consciousness. If perception is identical to reality, then there is no perception; only reality.

[@z0uLess]

I feel deprived of my own subjectivity when I interact with the world in terms of trying to get something done. This happens when things like gravity and the non-subjectivity of things work against what I had intended or fantasized to happen.

[@woanologue]

your deprived of actualizing your fantasy, your subjectivity acknowledges this, i believe

[@tudorscutariu1012]

I really like your point on judgment capacity. We live in a world in which we are products. Products have not subjectivity. The subjectivity part lies in he who sells them. But then are we supposed to judge? I think we are more complete beings than we want to acknowledge. Should we rely on the algorithm? I think is a very good idea to have an algorithm which proposes you food for your brain. Am I making a point here? Maybe the constant is our judgement capacity, the fact that we choose to make judgement about our point of view. The algorithm claims that the content is interesting but we have to define what interesting means. I sometimes want to accelerate time because I don't want to feel pain or loneliness, so I scroll. But when the loneliness feeling disappears I have to choose how to act. So what videos do I choose to see? Is the video I've choosen really helpful for my brain? How many videos shoud I watch? Most of the times one video is enough. We just have to think about what we've seen. I'm really grateful for finding this content because it made me give value again to the judgement capacity when using social media. We have to emphasize that constantly. So thank you

[@cherrymaxguns]

The 16 Chapel 😂

[@DelmaRaySmithJr]

a welcome relief from Zizek straight

[@kp6735]

Awesome! I didnt quite get the thing with the angels, because even if in the Bible the angels are not chubby cute babies but rather peculiar monstrosities, many of them do have wings (for ex Cherubim and Seraphim).

[@christianlesniak]

Right. Isaiah 6:2

[@BrghtScorpio]

Not all angels are portrayed that way, biblically they're rarely described outside of the Seraphim and Cherubim. Others are humanoid, others are just "spirit", other are monsters.... Eg. the angels visiting Lot in Genesis, the Destroying angel/spirit in Exodus, the angel killing the Ahab's sleeping army, the angel causing the destruction of Jerusalem as punishment from David's sin. And so on

[@woanologue]

this is interestingly intense

[@BrghtScorpio]

@@woanologue I'd recommend God's Monster by Esther J. Hamori, it's a short read (assuming you have a busy schedule) but it's fun and very informative. I think you'd enjoy it.

[@varhelyiadrian109]

I recommend Alexander Bard books.

[@shezad7165]

Awesome!'

[@joshuawilliams71]

💙

[@farragoprismproductions3337]

I think this may be what I recently figured out about my life. I started creating my own subjective reality in order to actually achieve the goals in life, sort of like taking the idea that a lot of thinga are just man-made constructs so I make some of my own constructs like affirming that every day's a new year because New Years Eve is 24 hours, so every day is 24 hours (therefore, every day's a new year). Now I've conquered my KZbin addiction, in otherwords I got a grip on life because of using objectivity to create subjectivity. I think this is what it's all about?

[@ucf8290]

Ça fait déjà quelques mois que je regarde tes vidéos et suis donc un de tes nombreux spectateurs (trop) discrets. Je voulais te dire qu’on ne ressort jamais de tes vidéos inchangé, et c’est une qualité extrêmement rare ici. Merci pour tout

[@woanologue]

merci à toi

[@Achrononmaster]

@13:00 "objectively subjective" is a redundancy, like a lot of continental "intellectual" babble. Every thought (not just fantasy) is objective to the mind of the thinker (call it mental qualia or whatever), it's just not objective to others, which is why it is simply subjective. Definition of 'subjective'.

[@Achrononmaster]

What I'm thinking Slavoj means is that with _pure indulgent fantasy,_ specifically, we are trying pretty hard to forget that it is not objective to others. In other pleasant forms of fantasy, non-indulgent, we are not even trying, we just do not realize for a bit, which can be fleetingly delicious.

[@woanologue]

cc 59:00

[@Q-BOT]

About your ideas on algorithms: I agree that they make us lazy- decadent, really. But, as far as preventing us from opening up to new ideas to see the future, I think thats not true. Because the algorithma find us content based on our past, it shows fifferent takes on familiar topics. But due to the nature of content, we can find new side roads we never knew existed. This can lead inquisitive people to new ideas, no problem!

[@Broken_robot1986]

You gotta do the voice when you quote Zizek

[@AustinCasey-s6i]

The human imagination is far more powerful than anyone truly realizes.

[@woanologue]

cc 31:00

[@AustinCasey-s6i]

​@@woanologueDon't worry. The light will find you. ❤

[@VaidasJSP]

I write the "subscribe" notice as subtitle for some seconds for those who forget to consider. But in one Video I make a stunt with electric scooter, pressing brake and drifting with rear tire, so there I am saying "please subscribe". Also I am from smaller country so its hard to make new subs.

[@robert_nou]

I really liked the video, and I would like to give my opinion about the book, but I don't feel confident to do so without having read it :( However, about what you said at the beginning, about the creation of content, don't you think it is difficult that the philosophical activity, or its dissemination, is not affected, in general, not only in your case, by this process of new mediatization? I don't think, of course, that the solution is to criticize completely any content of this type, but I do think it is a complicated issue. On the other hand, I think it has been a common problem throughout the history of philosophy, although in different forms.

[@woanologue]

cc 1:18:00

[@alfredooviedo9410]

Fooking lit respectfuly

[@woanologue]

🫰🔥thanks bro

[@edrepard]

Yeah I gotta read some Lacan, what should I read first.

[@woanologue]

i don’t know let ask jeremy

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Very interesting! In my opinion, the concept of "objective" as opposed to "subjective" is just a convention that allows us to approximate the probability that the majority will see something in a certain way. "Objective" is not a qualifier that can be applied to something in reality. For me, it is also not true that there is a possibility of "seeing" the world. It is all a matter of probability and approximation. Among the chaos, one can distinguish patterns that have a greater chance of corresponding to reality. It is never a clean and uncontaminated pattern. And we are not in a position to discern what a clean conceptualization would be like. That is an impossible enterprise. One should be able to live in peace realizing that one can surf the chaos of conceptualizations. Destiny will always be an approximation. Just my opinion!

[@woanologue]

read Hegel

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@woanologue Your freedom is only as extensive as the protection your society is willing to give you, and there is nothing to support the idea of ​​free will. Why should I read Hegel?

[@oogabooga685]

I just like women

[@lilgrug69]

based

[@VaidasJSP]

The chaotic ing part?

[@u.sbanban]

you didnt say like share and subscribe but you put it in the title of the video. you did the angels with wings thing.

[@weezerdog3]

I wish I could study philosophy full time, do it for me! (Also, I am now inspired to reread A Plague of Fantasies because I only listened to it on Audible and my auditory comprehension is garbage) Edit: to include my own theory (hahaha I am an amateur).... There is no objective reality. What we think of as "objective reality" is just a conglomeration of humankind's collective individual subjective perceptions. We only agree on some concensus that asymptotically approaches an objective reality, and that "agreement" is largely dictated by people who have power, influence, and education. Double edit: The Buddhists (at least some sects) say everything is empty: phenomena, the self, objects... everything. We may lose our subjectivity if we stop experiencing things, because there arguably wasn't anything to begin with. If theres no object, how can there be a subject? Who is to percieve if there is nothing to be percieved?

[@env0x]

There is object but it's transient and empty object.

[@mahmoudshami2922]

interesting recommendation by the algorithm, but ur right shouldnt count on algo alone gotta unturn stones urself. The "i see vs i perceive" part u gave a good example, but i guess ill disagree for having a different point of view i guess. Influencers numbers do count (not bots) they are numerical pixels that represent other individuals. wat am trying to say its not perceived value for advertisers, cause we using the capitalist system parameters mainly, there are ofc other parameters. some stuff has value to u that others might not find valuable, like a pen u really like or something from ur childhood, cause having different value parameters at the same time is normal too. But hey i enjoyed ur vid and gave me alot to think about.

[@Vitry2023]

Hello thank you for the video! i think you might be really interested in the work of Baudrillard but maybe you have allready read him? There is an amazing conference on youtube called "la violence faite aux images" wich is really close to the subject of your video. He also describes a very precise practice of photography that could be a gateway to what he calls the "murder of reality".

[@woanologue]

interesting, will watch

[@musiqtee]

Questions you ask are the fuzzy entrance to whatever is already replacing modernity. Just like we never were “in control” of what modernity shaped into, some 350-250 years ago - neither can we “control” a future of being. We can, and ought to, imagine it though. Else, we’d be stuck in what resembles a broken delusion of a bygone past-present - with little imaginable future wellbeing. That’s what I sense you’re doing so well - but I’m not the one to give answers on anyone’s behalf. My (global north) generation - and several before mine - have messed modernism up, and should leave the future to those who will and can experience it. To you, who ask questions most of my peers stopped formulating a while back. 👍

[@woanologue]

seems like i missed the notification on this. thank you for this comment. it gave me a few new questions

[@christianlesniak]

You think in Michelangelo's headcanon, the angels were maglev?

[@nbime21]

IMO, lacking subjectivity would be like lacking nuance. The state of being objective or subjective isn’t necessarily a state of knowledge or gnosis but rather how we interpret the world as either. Someone who lacks *personal* subjectivity would “know” everything objectively which would lead to brick wall behavior and the inevitable repetition of their actions; where as someone lacking objectivity would “believe” everything subjectivity which leads to floppy morals and sporadic behavior.

[@woanologue]

cc 49:00

[@guillermozapata9167]

Cool video. Clearly not as well read as you, but here's a shot in the dark. Maybe being emptied of our fantasy (or emptied by our subjectivity) is about how this constant activity disconnects us from a felt sense of our "selves." Like, I may know what my self is as an object within the objective space, but it remains a symbol or phenomena that is experienced or observed within the objective space? The subjectivity then goes beyond a lack of capacity for our own thought, but also a lack of capacity for a personal, felt world that is deemed ultimately important or true? Like, if objectivity is only a form of agreed upon intersubjectivity, we begin to forget that our own subjective experience is actually primary, so primary that it can go unnoticed or be reflexive, in the sense that our interpretations of the world happen without thought. The new media then would alienate us from this reflexivity, which I suppose could alienate people from contact with the real that makes up portions of one's primary experience. What do you think? I'm not sure I understood everything you said! I'll have to rewatch.

[@joshuashields1326]

Think I’m gonna stay

[@Gromp]

谢谢你没有告诉我你最后一点的答案。 谢谢你的停顿。 此刻被剥夺的是自己的创伤。 伪造我们的痛苦，而不仅仅是我们的思想

[@gilbertgonzales915]

Maintain

[@urooj09]

Well thry don't shoe you everything based on your past there is a randomness favtor applied as well plus if we subscribe to something it will also show connected graphs which are not ysually the same thing .

[@OzoTenzing]

Zizek says a lot of stuff and much of it is a revelation. But he is not the final word. And he's kinda crazy.

[@woanologue]

he’s not the final word, but i reckon not crazy

[@anuk1311]

u speak german? U are kinda similar to alice chapelle u should do more videos in her style :DD but ofc do whatever ya feel like

[@tugbacnarl6060]

İ like you!

[@jo3_the_artbot791]

Only if you happen to care, there’s a KZbinr literally called Lectures on Lacan. If you want a no bullshit explanation about what Lacan was talking about. I don’t think you were far off though(if I understand Lacan at all) I think it’s definitely very similar to how Wittgenstein thinks about language games but on a social level. If you don’t play the social “game” of the Big Other by its RULES you then don’t get to belong. But those rules are like you said subjectively objective.

[@jo3_the_artbot791]

It’s a push and pull relationship between hard line rules you don’t get to cross and soft rules you can bend a little more. But they’re unwritten much like language sentence structures so good luck figuring out the boundary lines other than looking at the extremes (example: murder, arson and so on and so on)

[@joshmastiff1128]

Can you please dive deep into the meaning of fantasy itself???

[@woanologue]

taken into account tyvm

[@joshmastiff1128]

@@woanologue now that's something I'm waiting on my hinges for. It's been so bothersome, to make a distinction between imagination and fantasy as both overlap and terribly lack lucidity in being 'objectively subjective'. Where do we draw the line or is the use of these terms distinctly redundant? Does it have to do with the information of each that seperates the two or is it in one's perception that a distinction is to be found? Or perhaps they're synonymous and interchangeable, but if that's so, they're currently not apparent as such, at least linguistically. Your dive into the subject would be hugely insightful! Because it's been bothersome, I'm getting a headache thinking about it and it's stolen a few good night dreams. Make it easy for me please lol

[@jdub98d]

hell yeah- similar to the wings, iirc dante's realization of hell is another piece of media that has inculcated itself entirely in popular understanding of christian theology, despite owing arguably more to classical mythology than biblical text- narrative design in games is a particular fascination of mine that I haven't really brought up in the discussion group, and I think there's a really resonant tension between a focus on player choice as "self expression" and the telling of a coherent, purposive narrative. (I think this needle can be threaded in interesting ways, but it remains a constant dialectal struggle in the medium)

[@dariazavatska2767]

cc 100:28

[@A_Me_Amy]

There are certain living beings with wings in the bible. Those beings are in visions. And there are wheels with eyes. And other things. But angels directly were wrestling in human like bodies and such. The algorythm showed me you. (I think for reason I don't think about). I like how Knateint kant... can't he int... cant you think? All people are subjective thus you being empty of such is being them. ??? Possession. Of your self of everything as one thing as empty with no ego. There is only subjectivity but it is empty thus objectivity and other subjective beings can exist. I dunno if this is relevant to you but it is my thought at the moment.

[@z74d-oy2uj]

yes - there is even too many zizek videos - I'm oversaturated.

[@Slothreadersclub]

Poststructuralism is the death of this society.

[@woanologue]

cc 39:00

[@milinmilan]

牛逼

[@AI-Hallucination]

Forget him content is not art I will reply more in a few hours I am busy tending my ganja plants you missing a key point here

[@Kelanaa11]

Kamu kenapa duduknya nyengsol??

[@borgore54]

unfortunately im here for female on the thumbnail, and zizek in the title

[@svecphoto_com]

Luci Liu has competition

[@exlauslegale8534]

I wonder who does more damage to your pretty little head, new media overcoded by capital or Žižek with his contradictions, negation and emptiness which are all symptoms of dialectician's ressentiment and bad consciousness?

[@woanologue]

define bad consciousness

[@exlauslegale8534]

@@woanologue The sorcerer is the bad consciousness, the "counterfeiter", the "penitent of the spirit", the "demon of melancholy" who fabricates his suffering in order to excite pity, in order to spread the contagion (of ressentiment). "You would deck out even your disease if you showed yourself naked to your physician". the sorcerer fakes pain, he invents a new sense for it, he betrays Dionysus, he seizes hold of Ariadne's song, he, the falsely tragic one (Zarathustra, IV, "The Sorcerer").

[@addammadd]

personal notes, not interesting to others.

[@addammadd]

4:20 this echoes Heidegger

[@addammadd]

4:45 wondering if she has read Bernard Suits’, the Grasshopper, which (in the words of the introduction to the 2nd edition, puts a firm boot in Wittgenstein’s balls with respect to his shallow take on the indefinability of games.)

[@addammadd]

8:20 Mark Fischer here, the stagnation of (post) modernity

[@addammadd]

9:37 Marcuse’s “very democratic unfreedom” of the grocery store.

[@addammadd]

16:39 this notion of ‘fantasy as perversion’ is, i think strictly speaking, itself a perversion in the Žižekian sense of being a overemphasis on the externally derived mandate of the Big Other. It’s an agential surrender and the rendering of oneself as an automaton beholden to external logic. Fantasy would be the short-circuit Ž used to reference a lot as a means of transcending the stultifying effects of ideological capture.