The Left and the Right.

The “left and the right” is a “kind” way to speak about what is occurring. It is a way of not only catering to those who do not comprehend (whether is be the left or the right), But as well as a way to think existence, to be the enacting of thinking which views the world in a certain way. This way is thus kindly appropriated toward the psychologically religious maxim of offense, a way to speak without addressing the responsibility which is inherent to that way, or manner offense, as though to exist that way is the only way possible.

The way forward, then, is to elaborate these lines of offense responsibly, that is, in a manner which attempt to own what is inherently offensive.

16 Comments

  1. I wish we could edit comments once we post them. Lol.

    – There is no common reason why people might protest. Hence, the talk about what is occurring must reflect upon itself to thereby have responsibility to and for what it poses to be analyzing, which is the view itself: he called this view, the left.

    1. …in other words: we are necessarily universalizing a particular occurrence when we say “they are protesting Becuase of x”. That universal is not part of the particular instance, and so when we find ourselves in such a situation of viewing, such that it leads us to conclude “that” particular activation is “thus”, we are faced with the intervention that is indeed ourselves.

      The usual manner of going about this business is to assert our truth, the view, as though we have the power to bring that universal truth into the particular activity. I think Zizek is saying we should rather be responsible for what is actually occurring, what we are actually doing, and reconsider what the view actually is, instead of rushing into assert our injured subjective truth.

      And: most people (the common people) simply do not and are not able to have this kind of reflection upon thier existence. But likewise we can never know who will. Thus it is the duty of those who do have this view to reflect on how a placement of judgement can have large consequences, consequences over which we are totally unable to control without erecting an authoritarian regime.

      Thanks. Your interaction helps me learn. 🤘🏾

  2. Those categories are not clear anymore because of the misleading affirmations in the world today.. definitions given are no longer accurate and intellectual barriers between categories are blurry

    1. The way Zizek uses them I think he is communicating something very particular. I think he indicates what you are saying through “the common people”. I think it is really the blurriness through which people discount using those political type terms, the left and the right, that I think it is really the blurriness through which people discount using those political type terms, the left and the right, that due to that blurriness really describes a situation that I call “no communication across a category”. I don’t think that there is a common thing that we can identify called a human being. But indeed we do use the term, so something else is occurring. Z Poses to be able to approach what is actually occurring by excluding that Carmen wriggling mass of people that really have no reason to thereby be analyzed in a political manner, which is to say to mobilize some left or right group of around some common cause . I think his point in the video that you posted is that those uprisings really have nothing to do with what we are talking about in politics, That it is a kind of misunderstanding or a misappropriation of understanding that wants to say that “these people are protesting because of X”.

      He thus distinguishes a particular realm in which people are proposing to be able to mobilize or be able to connect with some sort of essence of any political group or activism.

      And by laying out this scheme, by projecting out, say, this particular manner, this particular scene, to isolate or locate a particular kind or a particular approach to the world that is political, he is saying that as we need to reflect upon ourselves, the left, and we need to be responsible for the world that we are creating through our categories of commonality. And this is to say because there is no common reason why these groups are protesting or being activated: if we try to find a reason and we find that the group is filled with a bunch of people with a bunch of different reasons and some even contradictory.

      1. I do like this concept the “no communication accross a category” since it says it all about our ill perception of the world and the way we categorize people in left/right, terrorists/innocent, East/West etc.. these inaccurate categories leads to inaccurate treatment with people.

      2. I agree, but as a condition of world. We must have such categories. And I am not sure if there is a way to be totally accurate. But we might be able to be responsible in
        Mind of the inherent inaccuracy. I think.

      3. Sure we need categories, otherwise we won’t be able to think or understand. But maybe we need to switch traditional categories or change them

      4. Need to think about it..
        I guess left and right don’t exist anymore like they used to.. I would prefer poor/rich or conservatives/liberals.. now for others I need to think more about it.. must change our perception so we can change actions

      5. I feel like expounding right now because it just, I thought just came to me right now so I hope it’s OK and maybe you might read it all😄

        One of the things I ponder is whether I am understanding something that is true for all human being, or whether it is only true for some?

        For example, “subjectivity”. What do I mean by subjectivity? Am I meaning some aspect of being human into which all human beings fall, which then are defined or otherwise activate within these philosophical theory is that I know so well? Such as individual “subjective phenomenal experience”?

        Or is subjectivity merely the condition that I’m inscribing through these philosophical tropes, that perhaps does not involve the rest of humanity but rather only involves the fact that I’m coming up with these ideas?

        I think it is interesting to ponder this oddity. Because often enough when I go out into the world and I try to talk about philosophical things or I try to situate, say, this person I’m talking to into a particular way of understanding, for example, suburban white Colorado person, and then move to discuss with them what it really means this category that I’m placing them in. And then we move to some sort of meta- discourse, maybe, because this person is a little bit more intelligent than your regular working person, and I start talking about how it relates to philosophy and subjectivity and postmodernism and Husserl and Heidegger and and the list goes on…

        At some point I notice that they not only don’t understand what the hell I’m talking about, but they don’t care.

        And they go about their business however they are doing it.

        The question I have to ask myself is if indeed this person is behaving in the manner or is otherwise existing in the manner by which I have philosophically situated her? .

        And what I mean by this is it seems that for everything else in the world we are allowed to segregate and say well that person knows something that I don’t know; for example computer programming. And I don’t assume that what they know of computer programming has anything to do with my life except that they do something that has to do with my computer. Indeed I use computers, but what they are doing in their programming world, the way they understand and interact with computers has nothing to do with my life whatsoever beyond this most basic connection.

        Because, I think to myself, am I really deciding whether I want spaghetti or rice based upon my ignorance of what the actual world of computer programming is?

        And so, when One ponders these kind of questions in this manner, and we assume that there’s some sort of big enjoining world or universe in which we are all apart and we are all linked in someway, One might be curious as to what that knowledge of computer programming Hass to do with whether or not I’m cooking rice or spaghetti tonight.

        Because if I want to think up on those lines I’m going to make myself insane and I’m basically not ever going to do any sort of activity whatsoever due to the consequences of linking all these little bits and pieces that I am unaware of in my specific field of cooking tonight to that of computer programming. Or, I take responsibility for the decision that I am making between spaghetti and rice and I do not impose upon computer programmers how whether or not I put a teaspoon of salt in with the water or not affects whether or not they’re going to program that website in a certain way.

        I think Zizek is talking along these lines. That generally speaking, we as philosophers, we as the Liberals thinking everyone should have their identity and be able to define themselves in whatever way they want and they should be able to have sex and marry people whoever they want, we the left liberal intelligent educated minded people, need to take responsibility for the fact that when we spread our philosophy over the world as if it applies to everyone that exists, we confuse people because they really are not understanding the basic nature of the philosophy that we are expounding. Often one looks around and sees people using all sorts of philosophical ideas to justify themselves in whatever way because they think they are so intelligent, but the fact of the matter is they are really not understanding what philosophy is saying about these philosophical issues. What happened is a mass of confusion contradiction and conflict, and this is aggravated the more one wants to try to explain or impose the “great philosophical truth” upon these “ignorant people”.

        And so I really think that he saying that I need to take ownership of what I know and use it responsibly in the world despite what I think the truth of the matter is. Which is a very similar point to Alain Badiou’s “being and event”

      6. I totally agree with u. Philosophy creats universal concepts in order to analyse in a logical scheme. But logic can not embrace details and nuances. And the demon lies in details (i am translating a proverb here) which make all the difference in understanding. Yes we have to claim ownership and responsibility of what we think and say. An accusation that socialists were Nazis? That’s a historical mistake,they stood against the Nazis. Btw, in a previous blog about books, I mentioned Ken Follet’s trilogy in which he describes the battle of socialists against the Nazis! So when a president of a big country says something that wrong, we all need to stop and think about where we are heading to in this ocean of dangerous stupidities

      7. One of the things I ponder is whether I am understanding something that is true for all human being, or whether it is only true for some?

        For example, “subjectivity”. What do I mean by subjectivity? Am I meaning some aspect of being human into which all human beings fall, which then are defined or otherwise activate within these philosophical theory is that I know so well?

        Or is subjectivity merely the condition that I’m describing through these philosophical tropes, that really did not involve the rest of humanity but indeed only involve the fact that I’m coming up with these ideas?

        I think it is interesting to ponder this oddity. Because often enough when I go out into the world and I try to talk about philosophical things or I try to situate, say, this person I’m talking to into a particular way of understanding, for example, suburban white Colorado person, and then move to discuss with them what it really means this category that I’m placing them in. And then we move to some sort of meta- discourse, maybe, because these person is a little bit more intelligent than your regular working person, and I start talking about how it relates to philosophy and subjectivity and postmodernism and her surreal and Heidegger and and the list goes on…

        At some point I noticed that they not only don’t understand what the hell I’m talking about, but they don’t care.

        And they go about their business however they are doing it.

        The question I have to ask myself is if indeed this person is behaving in the manner or is otherwise existing in the manner by which I have philosophically situated these people.

        And what I mean by this is it seems that for everything else in the world we are allowed to segregate and say well that person knows something that I don’t know, for example computer programming. And I don’t assume that what they know of computer programming has anything to do with my life. Indeed I use computers, but what they are doing in their programming world, the way they understand and interact with computers has nothing to do with my life whatsoever. Because, I think to myself, am I really deciding whether I want spaghetti or rice based upon my ignorance of what the actual world of computer programming is?

        And so, when One ponders these kind of questions in this manner, and we assume that there’s some sort of big in joining world or universe in which we are all apart and we are all linked in someway, One might be curious as to what that knowledge of computer programming Hass to do with whether or not I’m cooking rice or spaghetti tonight.

        Because if I want to think up on those lines I’m going to make myself insane and I’m basically not ever going to do any sort of activity whatsoever due to the consequences of linking all these little bits and pieces that I am on aware of in my specific field of cooking tonight to that of computer programming. Or, I take responsibility for the decision that I am making between spaghetti and rice and I do not impose upon computer programmers how whether or not I put a teaspoon of salt in with the water or not affects whether or not they’re going to program that website in a certain way.

        I think Zizek is talking along these lines. That generally speaking, we as philosophers, we as the Liberals thinking everyone should have their identity and be able to define themselves in whatever way they want and they should be able to have sex and marry people whoever they want, we the left liberal intelligent educated minded people, need to take responsibility for the fact that when we spread our philosophy over the world as if it applies to everyone that exists, we confuse people because they really are not understanding the basic nature of the philosophy that we are expounding. We look around and we see people using all sorts of philosophical ideas to justify themselves in whatever way because they think they are so intelligent, but the fact of the matter is they are really not understanding what we are saying when we talk about these philosophical issues. What happened is a mass of confusion contradiction and conflict.

        And so I really think that he saying that I need to take ownership of what I know and use it responsibly in the world despite what I think the truth of the matter is. Which is a very similar point to Alain Badiou’s “being and event”

      8. …oh. But I’m not saying that people are not intelligent. I am saying there are different types of intelligence, And perhaps the idea that there is this standard thing that crosses all human beings is another instance of applying a universal into something which is a relief for into it, namely what is practical .

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s