I did my grad work at NYU 1984 - 94 when poststructural theory was all the rage in my field, comparative literature. As I recounted in my memoir, What I Forgot...and Why I Remembered, it took me years to recover from that heavy-handed indoctrination into what I eventually came to recognize as elitist mental masturbation. I didn't realize that Zizek was anti-Buddhist, but it doesn't surprise me. Anything with depth & heart would be too "soft" for him. I am not a fan of "philosophizing with a hammer"; this was Nietzsche's response to his own profound trauma. I prefer philosophizing microrrhizally, which I appreciate in your work, Daniel. You are radically inclusive with so many different roots & shoots nosing out through the terrain. Always interesting to see what you'll turn up next.
enjoyable read my man, but couldn't help but wonder how many folks (still) possess the background in intellectual history to track half the references you're making? Our current hyper-presentism has erased the "generally educated in the liberal arts" middle ground of the New Yorker/Atlantic reader of the 90s. Erik Davis and I were just assessing this simple fact--anything that's intriguing enough to write about is generally a hop and a skip from consensus reality, but those stepping stones are now underwater in the deluge of AI Slime and Digital Drivel. So anything you'd want to say (like contrasting Zizek's materialist atheism with a more mystic Christic gnostic version) gets lost in translation. Better (I think for all of us of a certain GenX persuasion) to write more like Ryan Holliday resurrecting the Stoics--presume nothing, explain everything, popularize/simplify most things. Keep writing regardless, there's at least some of us following along ;)
Interesting to see Zizek making this argument which is exactly why we are doing our seminar, Embracing Our Emergency… I mean, exactly… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XND5q0ZcI
lol. I always laugh out loud when you bring up the argument that writing shouldn't be overly intellectual. I love your writing, but have you ever ran your writing through a program that tells you the grade-level of your writing?
I did that to your writing once, and let me tell you...the average Joe is typically reading at a 6th grade reading level...and your writing is way beyond that. It's not just about "writing more clear" that will attract an Average Joe. When have average Joe's ever really been big readers? I'm confused on this comparison. Has it ever worked like that? Don't you have to have a taste for reading and learning philosophy in the first place? By nature, philosophy is not really the cup of tea for the masses unless someone is preaching or teaching it to them. Maybe expand some more on your point about what Average Joe's read.
Was it intellectual elitism when I was reading at a high school level in the 5th grade? No one had to force me to enjoy reading. Some people are just nerds I guess! Astrology can explain this. And as someone who reads at a college level reading level at least, I personally would hate having to read at a 6th grade reading level like all the average Joe's. I mean it's good sometimes, but most modern writing feels degrading to me because it's such low quality and it's all DIY and "solving problems" and super basic. I think it's sort of silly to look down on the variety that we have in styles when it comes to writing. I don't see it as intellectual elitism...it's more like that writer's personal style.
My brain is complex and needs to digest complex things to be happy. Sometimes, the harder it is to decipher, the happier I am reading it. Not everyone needs that level of complexity...but it doesn't mean that the writing is elitist. Whatever happened to readers enjoying feeling challenged by what they are reading? It literally builds your thinking muscles and expands....your...mind. lol
It's like everyone is just so pissy this days and the standard is to hate anything they deem difficult. Or just hating because they need something to hate. Also the Bible is widely read, and everyone "claims" to read it from average Joes to academics. Is it because the Bible is an easy read? Hell no! People quote it without even understanding the meaning. Taking quotes out of context etc. Not studying the actual context of where the Bible came from. It seems like we have a bigger problem than writing being too elitist.
Keep stimulating our minds, DP!!! You couldn't write overly basic if you tried, because you have a personal style that is unmatched. :)
Thank you again, Daniel. I deeply admire your integrating impulse of grounded progressive politics, inclusive if the critical theory tradition from the first generation Frankfurt School to contemporaries like B C Han, AB multi dimensional view of the Real manifestation, and non dual Being-Consciousness as the groundless ground expressing each and all.
I confounded a co lead for two decades an international group of philosophers spanning Continental and Comparative Philosophy (mainly w Asia). It includes two Zen priests, and many meditators, so takes very seriously more than materialist paradigms - so this kind of twisting free is going on in groups to be sure.
I appreciate this piece on Zizek. I periodically dipped into Lacan and Zizek only to exit quickly each time. Something way off in each about the basics. I also like aspects of each. Lacan on the all / not-all epistemically logics, Zizek sometimes on political and more often on film.
Question. What do you make of West in this presentation? And what about his running for office. I was a big fan of his work all the way back in the 80s and my grad school days.
Also, that really the most abysmal take on the cross I've ever heard- almost like the MO is 'whatever is most depressing is the most real and therefore must be right'. The symbolism of the cross is endlessly deep and rich and to reduce it to what Zizek says exemplifies what to me looks to be a very sick worldview. Can he not see that giving up yourself through self-sacrificial love is the solution that we are all looking for? Also, without taking into account the resurrection, the fullness of the cross cannot be understood.
"Give, and it shall be given unto you"
I cannot understand how his Christian atheism presents any kind of solution and I cannot understand what that phrase even means- taking Christ(and his transcendent divinity) out of Christianity IS the problem. We think that we can have all that Christianity has given us without God and without suffering, but the branches will fall if we try to cut them off the trunk that they grew from.
Daniel, there are so many overlaps between your thinking and mine. I LOVED what you write here: "an exhilarating, mystified language to give some of the allure of cultic religiosity to an otherwise dreadfully nihilistic worldview which sees consciousness as a purely accidental byproduct of brain complexity and denies any possibility of soul, spirit, or any kind of consciousness existing after death."
I am an A+ theory student from Oxford whose teacher, Terry Eagleton, is ironically a Catholic Marxist, and whose favorite philosopher from that world, Jacques Derrida, was an Algerian Jew...at no point was there ever an explicit memo that we shouldn't talk about God (let alone spirituality) except in negative ways, but as you say about the vibe in New York City, a kind of default atheism was in the air. But more than that: it WAS (and is) a "cultic religiosity"--that's brilliant.
A religion that says it isn't one is really dangerous.
I've been trying to figure all this out recently, most recently in a book that's coming very soon called Hell: In Search of a Christian Ecology (May 28, Columbia UP). I would be honored if you would take a look.
It was when Irigaray started to talk about prana that my fellow humanities scholars decided she had gone mad and was no longer worth reading. Mindfulness is kind of okay now, but try talking about the subtle body in my world. Said a long time Vajrayana practitioner.
'Regressive partly because, I believe, materialism ( even, in a traditional sense, atheism) is an obsolete paradigm which we must discard. My hope for the future is a “resurrected” Leftism that is esoterically infused and mystically empowered – while fully integrating empiricism, science, and rational inquiry. Only such a resurrected Leftist movement (it may come too late, but it will come) has the potential to not only assimilate the traditional religious structures but, eventually, unify and elevate our human community. Such a movement could help us build a new, post-Capitalist infrastructure based on mutual aid, solidarity, trust, and transparency (what the Catholic visionary Teilhard de Chardin anticipated as the Noosphere), with a much lower expenditure of energy and resources....'
Honestly, fucking Amen to these words. This is where I am 100% and I thank you for expressing them. Materialism has gotten us so far but I think we can notice the downsides by now. If we don't learn nuance, balance and openness to the world as it truly is - with all of its 'unproven' (as in, outside the scope of Empiricism to be considered real) beauty then we're just going to keep stepping down.
Materialism can't describe humans, let alone the Universe and leads to domination, separation and ignorance of our purpose as a single people expressed in a rainbow of colours - just as light is.
Materialism is the dark that allowed incubation but is now suffocating.
You’ve done it again Daniel…offering poignant insights against the backdrop of these two atheistic/materialists—Žižek and Lacan— who are unknown to me…which is immaterial. Haha! However, I am intrigued by tricksters and your reference to Zizek as a “philosophical comedian”, but, as a professed ‘spiritual anarchist…Taobudan (Taoist, (default) Buddhist, pagan)’, I am not interested in delving deeper into either of their ideas. I am most interested in your thoughts, observances and questions as well as your ideas about what a more soulful paradigm shift could look like. So, thank you! I am intrigued by ‘analytic/monistic idealism’, a new premise for me. As the world teeters at the precipice, I would certainly like to see the long-held, Nature-depleting, excess Yang, materialist mindset shift into a softer Yin, Soul-nourishing change…from head to heart…and merging of right and left hemispheres! I am looking forward to joining the upcoming Embracing the Emergency webinar series!
Had the chance to dine with Zizek once upon an Alp and all I can see is his heavy lisp and breakneck cadence are generally far more entertaining than the actual content of his philosophy.
Interesting to hear about how awful a therapist Lacan actually was. Hadn’t heard that but zooming out on his writing it’s not particularly surprising.
Loved this. I totally went through a Lacan phase as well in college, and became obsessed with l’ecriture feminine. Perhaps a right of passage for those with intellectual curiosity.
You’re a writer who has become more than a writer but you’re still caught in the anxious in between state feverishly ruminating and not wanting to commit, dangerously close to slipping into the non duel crowd. Don’t do that. Non dualist are like string theorists- interesting and infused with hope at first but ultimately lead to a meth like burn out, in other words, no where, or worse, behind where you started.
I’ve never read Zizek, just watched a short youtube video where he’s speaking on Kant and Radical Responsibility, but this cool guy I know Russell Sbrigila is his kind of like his protegé/friend, so I always assumed he was good. Also, I still think the NYTimes believes 🙃
Ernst Bloch's "Atheism in Christianity" was for me one of the most important books for deeper reflection on ethics, rebellion, utopian thinking and resistance in the context of Judeo-Christian religious history and the impact for our time. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2084-atheism-in-christianity
I recommend reading it and suppose it's more productive than slogging through Zizek's "Christian Atheism".
I did my grad work at NYU 1984 - 94 when poststructural theory was all the rage in my field, comparative literature. As I recounted in my memoir, What I Forgot...and Why I Remembered, it took me years to recover from that heavy-handed indoctrination into what I eventually came to recognize as elitist mental masturbation. I didn't realize that Zizek was anti-Buddhist, but it doesn't surprise me. Anything with depth & heart would be too "soft" for him. I am not a fan of "philosophizing with a hammer"; this was Nietzsche's response to his own profound trauma. I prefer philosophizing microrrhizally, which I appreciate in your work, Daniel. You are radically inclusive with so many different roots & shoots nosing out through the terrain. Always interesting to see what you'll turn up next.
enjoyable read my man, but couldn't help but wonder how many folks (still) possess the background in intellectual history to track half the references you're making? Our current hyper-presentism has erased the "generally educated in the liberal arts" middle ground of the New Yorker/Atlantic reader of the 90s. Erik Davis and I were just assessing this simple fact--anything that's intriguing enough to write about is generally a hop and a skip from consensus reality, but those stepping stones are now underwater in the deluge of AI Slime and Digital Drivel. So anything you'd want to say (like contrasting Zizek's materialist atheism with a more mystic Christic gnostic version) gets lost in translation. Better (I think for all of us of a certain GenX persuasion) to write more like Ryan Holliday resurrecting the Stoics--presume nothing, explain everything, popularize/simplify most things. Keep writing regardless, there's at least some of us following along ;)
Interesting to see Zizek making this argument which is exactly why we are doing our seminar, Embracing Our Emergency… I mean, exactly… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XND5q0ZcI
lol. I always laugh out loud when you bring up the argument that writing shouldn't be overly intellectual. I love your writing, but have you ever ran your writing through a program that tells you the grade-level of your writing?
I did that to your writing once, and let me tell you...the average Joe is typically reading at a 6th grade reading level...and your writing is way beyond that. It's not just about "writing more clear" that will attract an Average Joe. When have average Joe's ever really been big readers? I'm confused on this comparison. Has it ever worked like that? Don't you have to have a taste for reading and learning philosophy in the first place? By nature, philosophy is not really the cup of tea for the masses unless someone is preaching or teaching it to them. Maybe expand some more on your point about what Average Joe's read.
Was it intellectual elitism when I was reading at a high school level in the 5th grade? No one had to force me to enjoy reading. Some people are just nerds I guess! Astrology can explain this. And as someone who reads at a college level reading level at least, I personally would hate having to read at a 6th grade reading level like all the average Joe's. I mean it's good sometimes, but most modern writing feels degrading to me because it's such low quality and it's all DIY and "solving problems" and super basic. I think it's sort of silly to look down on the variety that we have in styles when it comes to writing. I don't see it as intellectual elitism...it's more like that writer's personal style.
My brain is complex and needs to digest complex things to be happy. Sometimes, the harder it is to decipher, the happier I am reading it. Not everyone needs that level of complexity...but it doesn't mean that the writing is elitist. Whatever happened to readers enjoying feeling challenged by what they are reading? It literally builds your thinking muscles and expands....your...mind. lol
It's like everyone is just so pissy this days and the standard is to hate anything they deem difficult. Or just hating because they need something to hate. Also the Bible is widely read, and everyone "claims" to read it from average Joes to academics. Is it because the Bible is an easy read? Hell no! People quote it without even understanding the meaning. Taking quotes out of context etc. Not studying the actual context of where the Bible came from. It seems like we have a bigger problem than writing being too elitist.
Keep stimulating our minds, DP!!! You couldn't write overly basic if you tried, because you have a personal style that is unmatched. :)
Thank you again, Daniel. I deeply admire your integrating impulse of grounded progressive politics, inclusive if the critical theory tradition from the first generation Frankfurt School to contemporaries like B C Han, AB multi dimensional view of the Real manifestation, and non dual Being-Consciousness as the groundless ground expressing each and all.
I confounded a co lead for two decades an international group of philosophers spanning Continental and Comparative Philosophy (mainly w Asia). It includes two Zen priests, and many meditators, so takes very seriously more than materialist paradigms - so this kind of twisting free is going on in groups to be sure.
I appreciate this piece on Zizek. I periodically dipped into Lacan and Zizek only to exit quickly each time. Something way off in each about the basics. I also like aspects of each. Lacan on the all / not-all epistemically logics, Zizek sometimes on political and more often on film.
Question. What do you make of West in this presentation? And what about his running for office. I was a big fan of his work all the way back in the 80s and my grad school days.
Thank you.
Zizek with his predecessors and contemporaries certainly fit into this idea put forth by Bernardo Kastrup in this brilliant article:
The Physicalist Worldview as Neurotic Ego-Defense Mechanism
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244016674515
Also, that really the most abysmal take on the cross I've ever heard- almost like the MO is 'whatever is most depressing is the most real and therefore must be right'. The symbolism of the cross is endlessly deep and rich and to reduce it to what Zizek says exemplifies what to me looks to be a very sick worldview. Can he not see that giving up yourself through self-sacrificial love is the solution that we are all looking for? Also, without taking into account the resurrection, the fullness of the cross cannot be understood.
"Give, and it shall be given unto you"
I cannot understand how his Christian atheism presents any kind of solution and I cannot understand what that phrase even means- taking Christ(and his transcendent divinity) out of Christianity IS the problem. We think that we can have all that Christianity has given us without God and without suffering, but the branches will fall if we try to cut them off the trunk that they grew from.
Daniel, there are so many overlaps between your thinking and mine. I LOVED what you write here: "an exhilarating, mystified language to give some of the allure of cultic religiosity to an otherwise dreadfully nihilistic worldview which sees consciousness as a purely accidental byproduct of brain complexity and denies any possibility of soul, spirit, or any kind of consciousness existing after death."
I am an A+ theory student from Oxford whose teacher, Terry Eagleton, is ironically a Catholic Marxist, and whose favorite philosopher from that world, Jacques Derrida, was an Algerian Jew...at no point was there ever an explicit memo that we shouldn't talk about God (let alone spirituality) except in negative ways, but as you say about the vibe in New York City, a kind of default atheism was in the air. But more than that: it WAS (and is) a "cultic religiosity"--that's brilliant.
A religion that says it isn't one is really dangerous.
I've been trying to figure all this out recently, most recently in a book that's coming very soon called Hell: In Search of a Christian Ecology (May 28, Columbia UP). I would be honored if you would take a look.
It was when Irigaray started to talk about prana that my fellow humanities scholars decided she had gone mad and was no longer worth reading. Mindfulness is kind of okay now, but try talking about the subtle body in my world. Said a long time Vajrayana practitioner.
'Regressive partly because, I believe, materialism ( even, in a traditional sense, atheism) is an obsolete paradigm which we must discard. My hope for the future is a “resurrected” Leftism that is esoterically infused and mystically empowered – while fully integrating empiricism, science, and rational inquiry. Only such a resurrected Leftist movement (it may come too late, but it will come) has the potential to not only assimilate the traditional religious structures but, eventually, unify and elevate our human community. Such a movement could help us build a new, post-Capitalist infrastructure based on mutual aid, solidarity, trust, and transparency (what the Catholic visionary Teilhard de Chardin anticipated as the Noosphere), with a much lower expenditure of energy and resources....'
Honestly, fucking Amen to these words. This is where I am 100% and I thank you for expressing them. Materialism has gotten us so far but I think we can notice the downsides by now. If we don't learn nuance, balance and openness to the world as it truly is - with all of its 'unproven' (as in, outside the scope of Empiricism to be considered real) beauty then we're just going to keep stepping down.
Materialism can't describe humans, let alone the Universe and leads to domination, separation and ignorance of our purpose as a single people expressed in a rainbow of colours - just as light is.
Materialism is the dark that allowed incubation but is now suffocating.
You’ve done it again Daniel…offering poignant insights against the backdrop of these two atheistic/materialists—Žižek and Lacan— who are unknown to me…which is immaterial. Haha! However, I am intrigued by tricksters and your reference to Zizek as a “philosophical comedian”, but, as a professed ‘spiritual anarchist…Taobudan (Taoist, (default) Buddhist, pagan)’, I am not interested in delving deeper into either of their ideas. I am most interested in your thoughts, observances and questions as well as your ideas about what a more soulful paradigm shift could look like. So, thank you! I am intrigued by ‘analytic/monistic idealism’, a new premise for me. As the world teeters at the precipice, I would certainly like to see the long-held, Nature-depleting, excess Yang, materialist mindset shift into a softer Yin, Soul-nourishing change…from head to heart…and merging of right and left hemispheres! I am looking forward to joining the upcoming Embracing the Emergency webinar series!
Had the chance to dine with Zizek once upon an Alp and all I can see is his heavy lisp and breakneck cadence are generally far more entertaining than the actual content of his philosophy.
Interesting to hear about how awful a therapist Lacan actually was. Hadn’t heard that but zooming out on his writing it’s not particularly surprising.
Loved this. I totally went through a Lacan phase as well in college, and became obsessed with l’ecriture feminine. Perhaps a right of passage for those with intellectual curiosity.
Did you have any luck in the main sale?
You’re a writer who has become more than a writer but you’re still caught in the anxious in between state feverishly ruminating and not wanting to commit, dangerously close to slipping into the non duel crowd. Don’t do that. Non dualist are like string theorists- interesting and infused with hope at first but ultimately lead to a meth like burn out, in other words, no where, or worse, behind where you started.
Keep going. We need you pal…..
I’ve never read Zizek, just watched a short youtube video where he’s speaking on Kant and Radical Responsibility, but this cool guy I know Russell Sbrigila is his kind of like his protegé/friend, so I always assumed he was good. Also, I still think the NYTimes believes 🙃
Ernst Bloch's "Atheism in Christianity" was for me one of the most important books for deeper reflection on ethics, rebellion, utopian thinking and resistance in the context of Judeo-Christian religious history and the impact for our time. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2084-atheism-in-christianity
I recommend reading it and suppose it's more productive than slogging through Zizek's "Christian Atheism".
“I believe, materialism ( even, in a traditional sense, atheism) is an obsolete paradigm which we must discard.”
Yes and we love those cards so far. You achieve clarity with heft every time, whether I agree or not.