LOST OCCASIONS (2) Schuster and Zizek

I wish to distinguish the dialectical and the ontological Zizek from the psychoanalytical Zizek. The psychoanalytical Zizek with his dogmatic Lacanianism constitutes a monstrous regression in thinking, back to pre-Deleuzian times. The dialectical and ontological Zizek contributes interesting ideas both to the contemporary debate and to our vision of recent philosophical history.

In this video Aaron Schuster gives an interesting analysis of the relation between Deleuze and Lacan, and shows some openness despite his declared preference for Lacan. However, in the discussion after with Zizek things begin to close down.

Zizek even goes so far as to declare “I will never pardon in Deleuze his defence of Jung”. In fact, he will not pardon Deleuze’s freedom of spirit.

How long will those interested in Continental philosophy go on imitating or repeating the closed-minded dogmatism of these thinkers along with their strong points?

Zizek does not even need Lacan as a source for his conceptual creations. He needs Lacan in a second time as a replacement for argument. Instead of arguing for his ideas and theses (and admitting sharing a lot with Deleuze) Zizek “finds” them in Lacan, QED. Those who differ are condemned tautologically as non-Lacanian.

Every time Zizek mentions Jung he turns him into a symbol of the closed and harmonious totality that he supposedly rejects. More deeply, Jung is a symbol of the openness, disunity and pluralism that Zizek flees, preferring the closed little unified world of retro-French Theory.

Zizek prefers to stay in his comfort zone, he does not speak in his own name, he proclaims anachronistically “we Lacanians” think this thing or that, at best pouring new wine into old bottles.

Schuster timidly replies to Zizek that although of course he rejects Jung there are some good points that he raises. But the moment of openness has been lost, and the discussion remains in the same closed circles.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to LOST OCCASIONS (2) Schuster and Zizek

  1. landzek says:

    I’d say this issue that you’re pointing out here is an issue of reality. Because it does not matter what Lacan meant or what Z means; Z is encapsulated in a theoretical world, he is caught in a linkage of term identity, such that whatever thought maybe he is situated upon them as essential determinators of how he may exist and act, all this confined by the definitional structures which balance and intertwined with each other in improvisational gestures. Z is a true believer: The situation he finds himself and is exactly what I call ‘of faith’; in fact I think I could make an argument that Zack is behaving in a manner of the knight at Faith Ala Kierkegaard.

    In fact I think even think I make this argument in the last chapter of my latest book.

    Hey Terrence I know that first book I sent you was a little maybe… I don’t know but it was really just an essay that I was using to learn the self publishing stuff. You never really gave me feedback on it so I’m not sure what you make of it.

    My second book is much more lengthy and involved. If you are interested and have time it would be great to get your feedback on it; I could somehow email you a PDF if you didn’t want to buy the $20 book. But if not that’s OK too.

    Like

  2. landzek says:

    … oh but it’s interesting ones Zack enters a discussion because he is always behaving within the confines of his theoretical constructions: he is the a pitta me of the postmodern agent I would say. You can’t bring up anything with him without already having a philosophically situated definition ready at hand. As he says in his book living in the end times: he is a practitioner of shu. Given the multitudinous laws of discourse and definitional structures he basically can take any real situation and apply the laws of the discursive arena in anyway he sees fit depending on the situation.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s