Para Žižek, este es el núcleo del problema ideológico contemporáneo. El sistema no necesita que no veas lo que pasa, necesita que verlo no te cueste nada, que la conciencia crÃtica sea una experiencia disponible, satisfactoria y sin consecuencias.
Y acá está el punto que cambia todo. Nombrar la trampa no es escapar de la trampa, y decir eso tampoco escapa de ella. Žižek no ofrece receta porque desconfÃa profundamente de las recetas. En "Viviendo en el fin de los tiempos" es explÃ...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
For Žižek, this is the core of the contemporary ideological problem. The system doesn't need you not to see what's happening — it needs seeing it to cost you nothing, for critical awareness to be an experience that's available, satisfying, and consequence-free.
And here's the point that changes everything: naming the trap isn't escaping the trap, and saying so doesn't escape it either. Žižek offers no recipe, because he deeply distrusts recipes.
In "Living in the End Times" he's explicit: the problem with utopian thinking isn't that it dreams too much, but that it dreams too precisely — that it designs the future before the subject capable of inhabiting it even exists.
What he does point to are concrete experiences where the logic we've described breaks down. Not movements that have the answer, but spaces where the question gets asked differently: Zapatismo, Occupy, cooperatives, local assemblies, grassroots economies. Not because they guarantee anything, or because they fully escape the surrounding system, but because in those spaces powerlessness stops being individual. Discontent isn't dissolved in irony — instead it meets other discontent and produces something different.
Žižek doesn't say organizing guarantees anything — he says staying isolated guarantees failure. And that asymmetry, small as it may seem, is the only thing left after tracing the mechanism all the way through.
Hay una confusión especÃfica que está en el centro de todo esto y que vale la pena nombrar con precisión: la confusión entre ver el mecanismo y estar fuera del mecanismo. Son dos cosas completamente distintas.
Puedes entender perfectamente cómo funciona una trampa y seguir dentro. Puedes describir con exactitud los resortes de un sistema y ser parte de su funcionamiento. Ver no es salir, nombrar no es transformar,pero la postura que South Park instaló durante 25 años opera exactament...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
There's a specific confusion at the center of all this that's worth naming precisely: the confusion between seeing the mechanism and standing outside the mechanism. These are two completely different things.
You can understand perfectly how a trap works and still be inside it. You can describe exactly how a system's springs move and still be part of its operation. Seeing isn't getting out; naming isn't transforming, but the posture South Park installed over 25 years operates exactly on that confusion: it produces the feeling that lucidity is a real form of freedom, that understanding something is equivalent to standing outside of it.
The perfect viewer South Park manufactured isn't passive or ignorant. He's cognitively very active, well informed, capable of sophisticated analysis, who experiences that sophistication as a form of freedom and who, for that very reason, feels no pressure toward anything further, because he's already done what needed doing: he already saw, already understood, already laughed at the right things.
What he doesn't notice, what the installed posture prevents him from noticing, is that this whole movement happened entirely within the space the system can tolerate without any problem, that in this case lucidity isn't the first step of something — it's the first step and also the last.
A more serious problem arose for Tolkien, especially with apparently wholly evil beings, especially Orcs, but it applies also to others such as Wargs and Trolls. Since in Catholic theology evil cannot make, only mock, Orcs cannot have an equal and opposite morality to that of Men; but since they can reason about their lives and have a moral sense (though they are unable to keep to it), they cannot be described as wholly evil.[2][10][T 14]
Medieval image of cosmology of higher and lower being...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly ...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
Myth, then, is the form in which I try to answer when children ask me those fundamental metaphysical questions which come so readily to their minds: 'Where did the world come from?' 'Why did God make the world?' 'Where was I before I was born?' 'Where do people go when they die?' Again and again I have found that they seem to be satisfied with a simple and very ancient story, which goes something like this:
'There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a ...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
Obviously, it takes discipline to make any radical change in one's own behavior patterns, and psychotherapy can drag on for years and years. But this is not my suggestion. Does it really take any considerable time or effort just to understand that you depend on enemies and outsiders to define yourself, and that without some opposition you would be lost? To see this is to acquire, almost instantly, the virtue of humor, and humor and self-righteousness are mutually exclusive. Humor is the twink...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
...in physiological textbooks, we speak of the brain, or the nervous system, as 'governing' the heart or the digestive tract, smuggling bad politics into science, as if the heart belonged to the brain rather than the brain to the heart or the stomach. Yet it is as true, or false, to say that the brain 'feeds itself' through the stomach as that the stomach 'evolves' a brain at its upper entrance to get more food.
As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
Yet the more surely and vividly you know the future, the more it makes sense to say that you've already had it. When the outcome of a game is certain, we call it quits and begin another. This is why many people object to having their fortunes told: not that fortunetelling is mere superstition or that the predictions would be horrible, but simply that the more surely the future is known, the less surprise and the less fun in living it.
[...]
The science-fiction in which we have just been ind...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
There are many other ways in which the game of Black-and-White is switched into the game of 'White must win,' and, like the battle for survival, they depend upon ignoring, or screening out of consciousness, the interdependence of the two sides. In a curious way this is, of course, part of the Game of Black-and-White itself, because forgetting or ignoring their interdependence is 'hide' in the game of hide-and-seek. Hide-and-seek is, in turn, the Game of Black-and-White!
By way of illustratio...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies:
WHEN WE were taught 1, 2, 3 and A, B, C, few of us were ever told about the Game of Black-and-White. It is quite as simple, but belongs to the hushed-up side of things. Consider, first, that all your five senses are differing forms of one basic sense—something like touch. Seeing is highly sensitive touching. The eyes touch, or feel, light waves and so enable us to touch things out of reach of our hands. Similarly, the ears touch sound waves in the air, and the nose tiny particles of dust an...
Folksonomies:
Folksonomies: