This is from Winnipeg in April 2019, but somebody just sent it to me this morning. I always have time for Žižek. People who merely have the “jester” …
—– Slavoj Zizek and Graham Harman. Two of my top five.
For me, ina way, they fill out the parameters Of the universe. Whereas modernity and post modernity grant for us the limits of our current paradigm for understanding, Z and H fill out how that is possible.
Of course, they are career members of a generalized effort of philosophy, so they are bound to certain mechanisms and conventions of interaction in that way.
For example, Where they would see differences, points of contention between them, i, on the other hand￼, see no conflict between Zizek (Lacan) Master signifier, a sort of vanishing horizon, and Graham Harmons “vacuum” which exists at the heart of every object.
In my eyes, to argue the difference is entirely incidental and contained within a particular rules of order of philosophical discussion.￼￼￼ ￼It is if each of these philosophers are required to find themselves within discourses Which necessarily differentiate themselves from other discourses.
And yet, I could argue that the mechanisms of each philosophy are functioning the same way with respect to each of their particular systems of philosophy. This is to say that I could reduce Graham Harmons object oriented ontology to Zizek’s Whatever you wanna call it, Marxist Hegelian materialism whatever, But likewise, it would be no difficult task to reduce Zizek’s systemization to Harmons.
What this tells me is that something is going on which neither of them are noticing due to the fact of their localizing themselves within particular, not only discourses, but fundamental attitudes upon what discourse is in itself.
And so I suppose my work is located in showing this type of interaction for what it actually is, which is to say what is actually occurring through both systems. ￼￼￼￼ ￼