Recommended For You

About the Author: Casper Børretzen


  1. The big antagonism is (with) the big universal Other. The big Other then is the static/synchronic virtual space that systematically operates as the logical reference. The way station like the intermediary steps in the process of solving the rubix cube- a mobile space that one uses to keep from painting oneself into a corner.

  2. This is the best zizek video I have seen in a long while, clear, concise and without him regurgitating the same jokes / points incessantly. Thanks for uploading it, interesting ideas.

  3. So what was the real real? I didn't quite catch it and then got lost after that. I think sadly to understand this essay one has to have profound knowledge of Hegel, Marx, Lacan, Deleuze… Or pretty much everything Zizek knows about. Which is to say, the blame is on him.

  4. hahahaha, he was so worried about being mad at the concept, that he kinda forgot that the pourpose of VR has way less incisive goals… hopefully it's only because he could not project the implications of it to a near future without being so dramatic

  5. Is that impossible,that we consciously avoid primordial REAL,with miss perception,but unconsciously we want to meet with him,in a way that we create the field,of cause to virtual effect(traumatic scene,some figure of antagonism)

    I apologize for my bad English.

  6. I swear that what Slavoj Zizek doesn't realise (possibly), and that I have also never realised, is that Slavoj Zizek is basically a mad man desperately trying to communicate his own raw experience while everyone else is only able to perceive a frequency of virtual, symbolic reality… But, is that not just all of us?

  7. For those who are desperately trying to catch up on what Zizek says, I recommend 'Zizek and Politics: A Critical Introduction', by Sharpe and Boucher. The authors advocate a break in Zizek's work: there are basically two (altough interwoven) Zizeks. The first Zizek goes from the publication of his first English book, The Sublime Object of Ideology, appeared in 1989. Up to mid 90s Zizek is a commited supporter of what is called 'radical democracy', which is strictly related to his view on the subject as subject of desire. Nonetheless, in some point of the 90s he radicalized his standpoint and all his theory became commited to a Marxist revolutionary project, which in this case is related to his novel view on the subject as a subject of the death drive and his re-reading of Schelling's work. I think it is clarifying to realize that the Zizek we are here listening to is the second Zizek, the revolutionary one, and not that moderate radical democratic Zizek.

  8. I wouldn't consider anything Zizek expounds on as "lucid". I can't understand the core of what he presents, whether it's about our perception of reality or about ideology and how it relates to the human condition. Nevertheless I still attempt to understand.

  9. Türkçe altyazı lazım :/
    kungfu panda nın altyazısı var böyle şeylerin yok. Biri yaparsa ya da zizek in alt yazılı videolarını paylaşırsa haber verirse minnettar olurum.

  10. Slavoj Zizek is just interesting to look at, uses animated expressions, and has an accent.  That seems to be the only attraction.  The words he uses just get lost in the background.  He has an ego complex and it is not clear what he actually contributes to human knowledge.

  11. At times he seems to come close to Manuel de Landa. or is it Delueze meets Lacan. How I would love a meeting of Zizek and Delanda and exploration of differences.

    Plus a few great jokes ; I bet.

  12. you'd be surprised at the political consciousness of the average criminal. in a way, a gang is sort of a rejection of society, a self-conscious rejection of the political realities of american life intermeshed with selfish and animal drives. All Black and All White gangs, like the Brotherhood, can be expected to conform to this model.

  13. What you're failing to grasp about militant groups is that while survival, i.e. profit is their ultimate goal and drive they arent fully aware of it nor are they capable of admitting it. Many (but not every) militant group needs a certain amount of complexity behind its reasons to justify its lifestyle. From my experience theres a certain ineffable quality to this rhetoric–which is to say its not always logically sound enough to make sense, but it always appeals to emotion

  14. Interested in making a profit. I won't argue against the notion that inclusiveness could potentially be a historical inevitability associated with human "progress." The point I was making was about political correctness specifically and it's underlying implications in general as well as within the "sex positive" ideology. As to your latter sentiment that mainstream American politics has become dogmatic, I fully agree. I would add that it's not just American politics but world wide politics…

  15. In your first comment you state that a possibility of the more inclusive nature regarding the Aryan Brotherhood can be concluded to be an intentional ploy to destroy minority communities. Just out of interest do you study cultural studies? It seems as if you are attributing a sort of complex theory to a phenomena which has quite a simple explanation. I.e they have simply come to the realization that any form of discrimination is bad for business and the members of the Brotherhood are simply…

  16. you also speak as if this were all planned from the perspective of facilitating consumerism, when in fact we have no way of knowing if consumerism is not in fact the socioeconomic product of a the historical trend towards greater inclusiveness. MY problem with this attitude, aside from its jumping the gun on any data born conclusion, is that its an example of the sort of oppositional and uncompromising approach to politics that characterizes the mainstream dogma of American politics

Leave a Reply