for the layperson (sheeple) wrote:

One of the problems in outlining Žižek's work and ideas is that for the layperson he seems to change his theoretical position (for instance, on the question of whether Lacan is a structuralist or poststructuralist) between books and sometimes even within the pages of one book. ... Indeed, Žižek himself defends Jacques Lacan for constantly updating his theories, arguing that it is not the task of the philosopher to act as the Big Other who tells us about the world but rather to challenge our own ideological presuppositions.

I really believe Slavoj's copy will grow sku saturation amongst Gamma Delts, tenth graders over the upcoming three quarters wrote:


Recently, Žižek wrote text to accompany Bruce Weber photos in a catalogue for Abercrombie & Fitch. An example from this catalogue: 'Duds, duds, get 'em while they're hot. I wouldn't wear that shirt except for maybe on laundry day. This past week, I went through three more dress shirts than usual; one I spilled coffee on, one got really sweaty in the metro. I hate the metro sometimes, but, hey, you got to get around. The other one got stuck in the back of my dresser drawer. As usual, it's all about ergonomics. I didn't much like that shirt anyways, but I should really stop putting them in my dresser. Iron, iron, ion, oiron. Repetitive motion. Getting bloody calluses, and maybe carpal tunnel. My teeth have been hurting lately, too.'"

now they are just fucking with us wrote:

While criticizing Žižek's style in general, David Bordwell criticizes his humor as an "academic humor" and in Bordwell's words academic humor is to humor what "military intelligence is to intelligence." However by using academic humor itself as argumentative means to argue against its usage by Žižek, the Bordwell's criticism which can be categorized as meta academic humor, that is an academic humor about the academic humor (similar to meta-cognition or meta-emotion) is also logically self-contradicting which makes it even more humorous since his use of it as argumentative method contradicts Bordwell's conscious belief about both the usage of humor as argumentative method and academic humor as non-humor, making it a beautiful example of petit a, a contradictive leftover that was not consciously intended to be either of what it is, both the argumentative means and humorous at the same time. In turn, this counter-argument is undermined by the rather obvious fact that the quip "[insitutional adjective] [noun A] is to [noun A] what military [noun B] is to [noun B]" isn't really "academic humor" so much as a hackneyed and demotic one-off employed in casual conversation, and would thus serve more in opening Bordwell to accusations of simple laziness, rather than providing opportunities for oh-so-frightfully-witty juggling of concepts like "leftover" and "contradiction" that have become so thoroughly reified by their appropriation in the milieu of academic hipsterism that they are more evacuated of any signification than is the word "penis" during the nice, long comedown from the blue-flare orgone/jouissance upsurge of the orgasm, synchronic Heidegerrianly "thrown" culmination of the jouissance-laden joy-juice character-armor panoply guy's attempt to spill all the great ineffable Being-kernel jouissance juice onto the rocky desert of the Real, but you only get a situation where "penis" doesn't mean anything."