Stiegler’s Faux-pas?

I have been chipping away very slowly at Stiegler’s Negathropocene.

And here is a paragraph from the end of Part 2 in the book that I thought encompasses, what we might call, a faux pas in reckoning.  Similar to Lacan’s mistake , i’m calling this author’s mistake a faux pas because it seems to me that his mistake he could not help because of his investment in the ubiquity of the social criterion, or so it appears.

In particular I bring out to relief his suggestion that what is required is a change in the theory of value.

what I am calling a faux pas in the context of his proposal is the same type of error that is indicated in Lyotard’s “The differend“, and elaborated on in “ThePost modern condition”.

So It is interesting to me that just prior to this posted paragraph the author comments how he attempts to show where Lyotard’s condition Is insufficient. My answer before I even read his piece is, “of course it’s insufficient because from your position you are required to argue a denial of the situation at hand”, which I have discussed in other posts of mine.

I submit, that if we understand what Zizek has described as “A change in how we reckon change” as an indication of the same requirement that Stiegler is talking about, then he (S) would have to first give us a disclaimer about how what he is writing about a change in the theory of value is not already invested in the very value that is attempting to change by the submission of this essay. Without it, That is called duplicity. Often we have an example of why these theoreticians who are so invested in the social equation and the phenomenological involvement of subjects actually serve to function the perpetuation of the theory of value that they would so hope to change through their use of discourse.


The question that haunts every modern philosophical text is whether it embodies and thus accounts for this odd incongruence. It is the incongruity that shows up in the lacuna between Hegel and Kierkegaard, As well as Kant and Wittgenstein.


When we get beyond the either/or of quick subjective assertion (I want to be heard! And seen! ) then the political realm garners a more appropriate response. Such reply then has little to do with value as an issue, for the adversary is understood as and inherent part of the struggle. It becomes less an effort of attempt to rid or dispel the adversary and more about changing the relationship. A theory of value is that which is inherently changed by virtue of the fact that the real relationship is changed.  Thus does not occur in politics (the ethical universe), and thus the political effort of argumentation does very little to change the theory of value (see Kierkegaard). But again, this is not an either/or statement (Kierkegaard was caught in his historical moment: hence his despair). It is not suggesting that a person somehow becomes or refrains or steps outside of the political sphere;!rather, the individual’s orientation upon that arena has changed implicitly.


This condition should be what Stiegler stands upon. In this sense, the “macro-economic” reorganization does hint at a recognition, but I think the either/or might have him by the bit, which then leads him in a circle, or maybe and ellipse.

So it seems that Stiegler is arguing the condition that must be brought about by his discussion, and so moves beyond Dasein in as much as he must argue history and society already in the motion of getting beyond: negentropy: which sounds suspiciously Similar to what he is arguing that he is stepping beyond, or that we have stepped beyond. He begins to sound startlingly similar to a child singing in the dark instead of flipping the light switch which she knows lay just in reach on the wall.

I am not sure his historical argument is quite sound beyond the mere words.

But I will read on, and i will report later upon my progress through his book, and I will reflect upon whether or not I was incorrect in this initial assessment of mine.

The Point of the Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson debate: An Assessment

Slavoj Zizek Vs Jordan Peterson: An Assessment
— Read on

Thanks Neotonos! I agree with much of his assessment.  He hits on some significant turns of the debate; Im glad, because I didn’t really want to assess a play be play.

I’ll use this repost to give my final comments on the Z/P debate.


It’s intresting to me that none of the commenters saw what I saw, which is, really saw any big picture. It really is, like Neotonos said “like a bunch of people reporting on a cricket match”. To my eyes and ears, it really is like people miss the debate for the spectacle. I think Noetanos gets a little more involved that the others I’ve read, though.

First off; yeah, I get it: people wanted a WWF slam-a-thon, of whatever that WWF thing is.  Zizekians wanted Zizek to take Peterson apart, and the Petersonians wanted him to show Zizek where he is stupid liberal, or something like that. These two celebrity philosophical figures represent a certain polemic in the philosophical world; people wanted a battle.

The thing is, if you have been listening to Zizek lately, and understand Peterson’s general effort (which he does use his point in the Z/P debate), both are actually more concerned with the world than they are just political voice boxes. Both actually care. They both advocate responsibility.
You can listen to and read my essay about the current state of philosophy HERE, the essay I wrote before the debate. One of the main reasons why one can tell they actually care is because they don’t give a shit about towing the political lines.

It is interesting to me that people seem perplexed about Zizek’s apparent shift from what they understand as his usually Marxism, and his basic support for capitalism. But if one is familiar with Zizek’s philosophy, he has not changed his view; rather, he had elaborated more upon the situation given the condition at hand.

In the debate Zizek even alludes to his earlier work about Marxism, of which he says he’s not going to take the debate that way; it is obvious to Zizek that Peterson has not read Zizek enough to be able to address the subtleties involved with Z’s “Marxism”. He highlights his Hegelianism. But the reason for this, I think, is because Zizek was not concerned with showing how Peterson is a ignorant fool (like many of us were hoping). Zizek’s point has always been Marxist in that the subject is a state of being which is involved with a dialectical reality which shows up in the Lacanian manner at all times. That is; through the symbolic order mediated by what is ‘imagined’, or what is the real fantasy. This fantasy is manifested in the (further) dialectic between what appears should occur due to the symbolic presentation. But there is a problem (as we understand the “barred S”). When the subject attempts to speak about what the symbolic world is presenting, a transformation takes place: similar to Derridean issues of subjectivity, what was once the true meaning of reality is noticed as a fantasy. The issue within this world, though, Is that one has to be able to notice it (clean house; think).

It is in this dialectic that Zizek locates his Marxism, because it indeed functions to supply all the multiplicity of material for and by which the subject is able to act in reality. There appears to be an element or aspect which oppresses the subject’s ability to appear in the world. This is why Lacan’s “Real” is impossible; because reality presents that which appears to not exhibit a contradiction in its terms for existing as such. It indeed shows aspects of its operation everywhere as contradiction in the, what i call conventional and what Zizek calls naive, sense, but because the withdraw that this ‘Real’ enacts occurs in the dialectical relationship with the symbolic-imaginary domain, as I just said, manifesting an appearance of real truth. As Cedric Nathaniel discusses in his book The Philosophical Hack, it is this ‘real-truth’ that is the political world.

There is no “actual” reduction to the usual traditional-conventional rhetoric or some “actual” political state where the “pure” Marxists or the “pure” capitalists exist because these supposed entities, states, or situations are –yes — already occurring in the discussion, as Nathaniel discusses, of term-object identities. The idea of ‘identity politics’ is a mistaken or distorted use of the the concept of the Term-object Identity in the same way that reality is a ‘mistaken’ apprehension of what is Real. They are dialectical mechanisms.

Now, the situation that I described above is the real political situation. It accounts for why we are having such huge discrepancy in political ideals and ability to get things done in government across the globe. It is the situation of what I call “no communication”. This situation of no communication is what Zizek refers to when he says that he does not see a way out of our capitalistic situation of inequality and exploitation, because it is exactly the ‘equality’ which is posed in the politically real estimation which is able to skim profit off of the ‘excess’ which occurs in the dialectic between what is true and what is real, between what is ‘equal’ in the dialectic of relation of what is Real, and what is ‘unequal’ in the dialectic of what is real politically. This current process of existing in which humanity finds itself now, seems inescapable because it is indeed how we function ethically, which is to say, in remaining fidelitous to what we know as true (Soren Kierkegaard defines this space, and Alain Badiou describes our activity within it).

OK. Peterson, on the other hand, sees a ways out. Both philosophers (Z and P) do not see any constructive point in continuing with the regular status quo situation which they both see in their ways. They both do not simply give up and be naive nor inauthentic (in the Kiekegaardian sense).

In another lecture, Peterson gives us a similar description of Capitalistic nihilism, of the situation that Zizek cannot see a way out of: Peterson describes the situation of larger projects losing their ability to be effective. His idea is thus that we must begin with the smallest or more local project. As he says, we must clean our own house first. We must begin with ourselves, put our own houses in order. He thus extends this manner of being able to get honest with oneself and associates it with a Christian kind of theme.

Both of these philosophers thus pose the same question, have a similar manner of understanding it, and also see that the only way through is, indeed, Capitalism; we must use what we have, and stop attempting to escape the problematic situation through all sorts of fantastic psychic mechanisms (for those kinds of ways of denial enforce the philosophical correlation). Hence, Peterson’s “see how apparently antagonistic positions can work to communicate”, and Zizek’s “think!” as their closing statements, respectively.

Yet, to focus on the small, segregated, details of the debate is exactly a capitalist manner of approaching discourse, even if one says they are Marxist. The hard Marxist activists are indeed perpetuating the capitalist agenda by constantly reifying routes of control for the capitalist congregant (all of us). It does not matter what kind of revolutionary (or fundamentalist) state would do or say to assert a proper manner to have reality because reality itself is being informed by the ontological exploitation of subjective excess. Hence, political-reality is that inescapable condition where philosophers find themselves. And yet, the move seems to be to stop attempting to be Gramsci-esque proponents for the masses, because so long as this kind of philosophically ‘enlightened’ manner attempts to alleviate the struggle of the disenfranchised, the activist has only asserted that those she would help are indeed lost, as they both become as now a positive historical cause.

Yet I am skeptical that siding with the super-wealthy (as some have already decided is best) will be any more effective, for they, as a general class, are “large scalers”, abusers of excess, exploiters of the world, creators of chaos and confusion.

Ok. I could go on, but I think Ive made my point. And if you ae really interested, you can always read mine and Nathaniel’s books.

Very suspicious: ‘The Voice’ finale: The season 15 winner is… – CNN

‘The Voice’ finale: The season 15 winner is… – CNN
— Read on

Oh me hella forked spoon.

OK. So I watch the Voice sometimes. There’s nothing wrong with talented people or enjoying talented people, or shows that showcase talent.

But I watched the most of the finale of the season- I couldn’t watch the whole thing it was like two hours long. But I watched the first two performances of all four of the final contestants.

And the results of the competition is what I’m commenting on here.

I don’t remember all their names, so I’m just going to refer to them by what appears to me as “black female”, “white female”, “black male”, “white male”.

Wait … what?

Do you mean to tell me that the final four contestants of the Voice represented not only a pair from both sexes (we won’t get into the fact that there are no trans people who won or gender neutral), But also representative members of the usual parameters of racial discussion, at least in the US, that is, black and white people?

Now, where my mind goes while I was watching this show is I was wondering if it is rigged in as much as the judges are briefed by the music industry as to what is selling, what could sell, holes in the marketplace, etc..

But now that we found the winners, I’m wondering if it’s actually rig in an even larger sense..

Now, before I get to who the winners are if you don’t already know, I got to say that three of these contestants were fucking amazing. And one of the contestants just kind of fit into a particular musical genre style and wasn’t particularly amazing in my ears.

There is no doubt that at least three these people have lifetime career in going forth.

I’m just commenting on the results and how this seems suspiciously obviously made to order for the viewing public.

The two women contestants, one white and one black, are both 14 years old. And they both had incredible voices, their singing performances were spot on, immaculate, it was astounding to realize that the yearsare 14-year-old young women that are being able to sing at such an incredible level of quality.

What I observed of the performances between the Black and the white young women, how they presented themselves on stage, which is to say their stage presence, what is that the black girl was flawless. She is already performing at or above professional level. And the white girl stage presence which was much more stiff and it look like she wasn’t totally relaxed.

(there is a sort of cultural analysis in there also, based on the kind a stereotype that white people have a stick up their ass and black people just more naturally move as the spirit arises)

So my opinion was that one of these two young women should have won, and, but, I think it is interesting that the young white girl actually won.

Now what surprises me the most is that the black girl came in fourth, which is to say last place. I wonder if it is because the voting audience thought that she was just so incredible that she didn’t need to win it, that she is already got a career made even without winning this competition. But still…

And here is what really locks it in for me that either the show is rigged or we have a great example of how the voting Audience is mind controlled. Lol

The white dude came in second. Now, I’m sorry, but this guy is just a really good Americana singer. There is nothing special about his voice, where his ability to sing really except that he sounds exactly like the genre hes already in. So perhaps people were voting more about how well each contestant fit for that particular genre that they’re singing in.

But overall I think it is damn indicting of the audience of the Voice, that the two white people won and the two black people got in second.

In my mind it should’ve been one of the two women who got in first and second, and then the black dude, and then the white dude.

But hey, who the fuck am I?

There’s a lot of Americana music lovers out there. So, I guess it’s just a big HS talent show.