The nature of society as an imagined symbolic fantasy is to commandeer and distort for the sake of maintaing the known (real) universe.
Intersectionality, regardless of who puts forth the ‘original’ definition, is the indivisible remaider” where the imagined world coalesces around symbols.
All objects constitute points of origin and markings of relation to other objects. Intersectionality, as a reductionary descriptor for social relations, is a “weighted” object of social concern: It grants the symbol, as a point of deconstruction, or the fantasy, as a ‘vanishing point’ or ‘master signifier’ of the oppressing reality.
The True issue presented by this post is: Will we be permitted to see how our reckoning of change, itself is changed by the force of this argument that is imvolved in real social change?
Colonialization or Meme of Popular Cohesion
Colonization? Whiteness? These have become the vanishing mediators for the present existential motion. It is not necessarily that “white people” are commandeering what is otherwise authentic and particular to people of color; it is more that these terms have become the object around which reality presently or under certain circumstances manifests.
Recently there has been developing around race relations, critical race theory etc., the idea that there can be an ideology, for Black people, for example, that can be distinctly and totally separated from that of the white colonizer. Tommy Curry is one of these who tend to be idealistic about social relation and law.
While I definitely concur with the philosophical notion as it resonnates a similar notion that I have developed around the two routes, when applied in the social sphere, my question would be how are we even communicating this other ideological foundation if there isn’t an underlying ideological foundation through which the two cultures would be interacting?
I feel that Many critical and racial theorist and Philosopher’s are beginning to see through this kind of idealism. Yes, it’s a good discourse to get people to think about what’s actually occurring, but if you stand by that idealistic utopian version of the potential involved with being human, I hate to say it, what has happened is that you are trying to colonize social reality by saying that you know something more which arises outside of our ability to communicate. In this sense, Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, the issue of “whiteness” is not so much about the color of one’s skin, but how individual human beings show up within a framework, themselves intersected by symbols and semantic fantasies in this sense, and Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, As some critical race efforts will agree with, whiteness is some thing that we are all involved with in order to have any identity at all. 
Reality and the two routes
This really is the issue of the two routes that I talk about . With everything positioned in reality, there is some thing that withdraws from relation. but also, that content that withdraws arises in a condition through which communication does take place, perhaps in a different epistemological environment. This is to say, I might be drawing a polemic between ideology and epistemology. 
For, when we began to talk about what knowledge actually is, and if we agree that we are all human beings communicating with each other in some cents, then this idea that there is whiteness and blackness that are ultimately unreconcilable as a social feature, it’s really depending upon the same idealistic notion of a priori reason That realists, speculative or not, are pulling apart. If we want to call this “white Philosophy.” then that’s fine. However, I would offer the challenge of how one would communicate to anyone at all an alternative version of knowledge involved with the human being without at some point resorting to, again, some underlying “big reason”. And that’s my And other philosophers point; Namely, some thing with draws. Some thing tends to always be underneath, which Graham Harmon calls “undermining”, or something that is out of reach above us, what he calls “over mining”.  it seems that whiteness, blackness, and colonialization is an inherent part of being human in the modern world; and indeed, here we are dealing with it. It is not wrong, it is just the particular coordination of knowledge through which Real objects come into being an allow for idealized intersectionality. 
However, where I think my discussion of the two routes is significant, is the admitting that this is the case despite what we might want to argue. As I say, it is a true situation that doesn’t depend on what we argue about it. 
Zizek suggests the interface of struggle is between identity and universality.
This is interesting to me in as much as I propose a new basis of what is universal.
I always get from Zizek a sort of global version of racism which could be a little off from the formulation which has arisen in the Western Hemisphere. I sense that it is the universality of the Hegelian spirit mixed with the inherent failure of Lacanian linguistic analogy which is informing Zizek’s materiality. A good one, yes, but I think by his psychoanalysis and resultant centrality (universality) he makes the point of materialism, which is ultimately that there is no means to get to the universality of things in themselves. Everything is political to Zizek. Hence, he cannot see what is actually universal. Zizek’s phenomenal ontological parallax is historically pivotal.
Nevertheless, a good friend of mine who is actually African-American (not just a Black person) herself Says that American racism is just beneath her concern. That she doesn’t really view things through the lens of “Black Lives Matter” in such things that we have got going on over here. Well she excepts their validity, her own personal experience and opinion upon the matter is that anyone who would show her that taste but racism is just ignorant and not worth her attention.
I think that’s really what Zizek Is always indicating in every comment that he has on racism that I’ve heard of; namely, that people of color that he talks to feel as if there is a sort of an imposition of racial relations upon their local manifestation of politics, say on the African continent. And that indeed people of color reserve the right to be racist whoever they want to also, and always do, just like every other category of human being.
Nevertheless, my question to my friend, which I haven’t really asked her, is how she feels about indeed that the system of the United States already puts her in a place of compromise At all times. And the situation that might she may be walking away from because they’re beneath her attention, could be limiting her to a smaller or truncated freedom that she supposes to be activated.
Perhaps the history of the western hemisphere is so dichotomized between colonizer white people And oppressed dark people, that the more overt distinctions of various cultures on the western hemisphere, various nations, various groups in their own right, it’s clouded because of the presence of the white man is so symbolically hegemonic throughout the lands.
I don’t know. I’ve barely been out of my thousand mile radius from where I was born. And I’m white.
-
Two routes upon objects is instructive here. Since indeed I must humble myself in order to be able to encounter the other. But this does not mean that I “say that I am nothing…and you ate wrong because you are more than nothing”.
It is interesting that Zizek has a book called “less than nothing”. I don’t remember if that’s on my bookshelf, but he pretty much says the same thing over and over again in different contexts; it’s his analyses in these different contacts which are really amazing and I think why people go to him and listen to what he has to say.
But anyways, he begins this video clip with a joke about people who are fighting over who is more worth less, and the self righteousness that comes out of the feeling that I should be less than this other person because obviously this other person is not quite as nothing as I am. lol
We could see here though that Zack is not telling us about some incorrect way of being, rather, he’s telling us about how people behave, or how people understand that situation and then react to other things from it, and how this causes problems.
This shows is that people are not really comprehending what this “nothing” is. They are naturally having a righteous, a self-righteous, reaction to this concept of nothingness that is themselves as if somethings wrong with it. It is an inner conflict that I have indicated is inherently part of the modern human being. And indeed it is the psychological conflict which informs the basis of a move towards a view from an object orientation of counseling. As the paper a couple posts ago.x
And “whiteness” is the an ideological construct which functions off the sign of white skin, and is embedded in the politics of global identity.
Hence, white people, historically immune from race, can work to deconstruct the systemization of whiteness by racializing their bodies as political identities to thus bring into the light and speak about the experience that is their own racial identity that is white.
Thereby all people become empowered through the common recognition by speaking about that which regularly remains silent in the concept known as human. For it is the ideal of the common human being that presently perpetuates the global systemic oppression of whiteness by refusing to admit the biases embedded in the very concept and experience of skin color, as though ‘race’ does not exist simply because it has no biological bases of truth.
Of course it doesn’t; race is a social construct intensionally fabricated by people of light skin and institutionalized through ideological and technological instruments for the purpose of implementing and maintaining power for lighter skinned people.
By acknowledging my privilege as a white person, as well as acknowledging the experience that goes hand and hand with it, I thereby invite myself into the experience of oppression, instead of denying it through justification, and as well begin to be able to acknowledge and notice the experience of people of color, to thus work toward that reality which includes all humans equitably.
This does not mean I work to remove my identity as though it is ontologically wrong or improper. Rather; by recognizing what I am, I thereby help others to recognize what they are such that we all become more free to pursue our potential being a human being.
By recognizing the system which grants me privilege, I begin to destabilize that which is oppressing myself.
The ethical retort to Black Lives Matter, ie All Lives Matter, expresses an attitude that should be. It is an idealism. The issue is not that all lives do not matter. The issue is that when we look at what occurs through all social and economic sectors, black people, and people of color in general, are not mattering. Indeed, systemically, black lives are worth less than white lives. This is actuality.
The problem is in the color blindness which accompanies human idealism. This idealism is, In fact and actually, whiteness.
It is the deliberate act of turning ones view away from what is actually occurring toward the way things should be.
This reliance upon what should be is a way of avoiding that things are not what they should be, and relying upon the status quo as the “common sense” way of getting us to where we should be. What this meansmost often is a return to what was.
In order for black lives to matter we have to stop repeating what wasas an ethical goal.
*
On a more philosophical note: Hegel (but Western Philosophy in general) is the philosophy of systemic whiteness Because he asserts reason as something that every human being should have.
But, in actuality, there is no traversal across a common category. In other words: not all human beings have an ability to reason as the manner Hegel assumes of the common human being.
It is not that all humans can reason sensibly; it is that as we proceed, we do not know which ones will be able to, so we act as though everyone can and does.
Typically, modern humans project our ideas upon the world and judge it by our intension, Instead of encountering the world for what it actually is and adjusting our view accordingly.
The ‘individual’ is an ideological construct which excuses the bias of those who hold the greater seat of power. In this case, it is the white woman. The Idea that Being White is more valuable is implemented as a system of privilege.
Racism should not define the woman in the vid entirely, but it is, indeed, defining how she perceives reality in times of stress. How she behaves, despite her sincere apology or intension, reifies that the ideology of whiteness is correct and indeed assumed to be operating.
Ala Paulo Freire, both the oppressor and the oppressed play the game of oppression. But it is the oppressed who hold the power for to interrupt the oppression. our current case as to race relations, The oppressor simply is not able, on her own, to interrupt her whiteness. 
We see the perfect example of this in this audio/video reported upon at NPR. It is the black man who is interrupting the privilege of the white woman, and the white woman resorts to her privilege in order to place the black man back into his role of oppressed; she is relying upon an intentional system which keeps white people at the top and places people of color at the bottom.
The next question is thus: When is she not stressed ? And when is her privilege enacted as an individual not in play?
The issue is responsibility.
The lesson for white people everywhere, including myself, as an example, as I try to model for my white brothers and sisters, that I am not exempt from my racist privilege Because I see it. But part of this systemic privilege is that I get to sit outside of race. I get to call us all “human”, all of us “individuals”. It is by this kind of ideological deflection that I am thus able to retain my whiteness, able to uphold the system of oppression that gives me the most power and privilege in the system.
In short, I maintain power by constantly reifying that race is something that I don’t have, the system of identification in which I do not participate except as designator and enforcer. I just get to pronounce upon everyone else how they should be because I exist outside of race. This is the reason why such statements as “I don’t see color”, or, I just treat everyone as an individual human being” Are inherently racist statements, because they propose to put everyone on a level playing field, a platform of a quality, we are indeed the reality of the matter is that we are not. more to the point, is that in doing so, and asserting that everyone exists on this level playing field, I am implicating that there’s nothing wrong with the system, she’s basically saying, as a white man, that you all need to fall into my categories of truth. 
The solution is to racialize my voice and say that I am indeed a white man and I am a product as well is involved in a system of oppression called racism of which I benefit the most. I just support my brothers and sisters of color so we all can become More actualysed to our being and thus more free together. In short, as a white man, I am racist.
I like Chomsky’s “charlatan” name calling. It makes perfect sense to me, viewing Chomsky and his apparent approach scholarship.
Interesting also that in my previous posts I have been pondering why certain ideas of Lacan should have anything to do with actual reality.
To me Lacan’s ideas have a great sense about them, but, as we know well now through the problems with Postmodernism, intellectual sense and intension are not sufficient for an basis for an actual responsible activity.
I am intrigued about this Jordan Peterson phenomenon and so I’m trying to at least invest a little time into finding out what he is really saying.
So above is a little clip of him on the Bill Maher show. I got to say that Bill Maher just clicked down a few notches on my intelligence scale. I definitely liked him back in the politically incorrect days, but it seems as much as these two white men are talking about thinking, they are really not thinking it through very well. It sounds like they’re just patting each other on the back for being rich and famous. Lol.
Ok here’s what I really think.
For one, I don’t really like how they throw around the word “truth”. Now, I am appreciating what they are saying about offending someone or being disrespectful; I agree, this world has become a little bit too sensitive. But also I think it is very unthinking to go from people are just too sensitive – the universities are not holding up standards of truth – they are caught in postmodernism — etc..
Let us indeed be real here:
Who is actually the one who is being offended? Is it the Queers? Who is really being too sensitive? The Gays?
I think it is Peterson himself.
First of all, at risk of being immediately stuck into a category of postmodernist — as anyone who reads my blog knows I am critical of postmodernism — I will suggest that these two white men on this show are throwing around the word “Truth” like it is something that cannot be a problem. In the other videos I’ve watched of Peterson he likes to talk about “reality” also. In fact I think he relates “honesty” with being in tune with reality.
Now, the reason why I keep saying “these two white men” is because indeed this is what we are talking about that even the intellectualizing white men are not comprehending, it seems, or could give a damn about (hence the problem).
Really, ironically, what I’m saying is that this white man, Jordan Peterson, is offended down to his core; White men who are offended meet those who are disrespecting their rightful “reasonable” righteous whiteness with indignation. So to defend himself, he uses the quite post-modern method of twisting discourse so that no one can see that he is deeply offended; that deep offense of his whiteness he returns back to the discourse to keep what is offensive at the level of postmodern discourse. He is doing what he is arguing: exactly what he is saying he is arguing against the PoMos about. And this is to say, so he can argue against “postmodernism” as if it is this resolved and specific thing.
Further, It is interesting to me that he is a PhD in psychoanalysis, and yet he is totally blind to how he is repressing those aspects of reality that offend him, and that he is projecting the object of his offense out upon the world as if there’s nothing wrong. Reaction formation, I Think it’s really called. It is basic Freudian psychoanalysis. I think he needs to go back to his psychology school, take some classes, Maybe listen to some Zizek for a little bit. I think Perterson might need some counseling. 😀
And the thing is, if anyone were to call him out on this, he would use the very post-modern method and skill of manipulating the reality of the situation back to discursive definition to show that that is not what is occurring with him, but is indeed a defense mechanism of what is occurring for me, say . In short, he would be dishonest about what he is in countering in reality.
Shall I mention his short synopsis of Kierkegaard? (In the previous post, his little rambling long talk). Can we say “agenda-filled reading” of Kierkegaard? It is so incredibly off the mark of what Kierkegaard is really talking about, I think I’m about to cough up my pancreas.
And yet here he is in the spotlight, famous calming having a bunch of people enjoying his arguments and relating to what he has to say. Even being offered a fellowship at Cambridge. I mean, this is not just about a difference of opinion or free speech, it’s a literally about different levels of intelligence and education; it’s about different capacities of understanding what the issues are and how they are being addressed.
I mean, I think I have talked about elsewhere, somewhere in my other posts, that the issue of philosophy now is to be able to distinguish between types of philosophy. And I mean this in the sense of how philosophy is being used as though is it it is a unitive category. This to say that it is not merely epistemology or ontology or teleology or whatever sort of other ologies; wit is literally about how discourses are being used under the umbrella category of philosophy. I submit that philosophy is being used in two distinctly different ways.
Ok…anyways…
This is why you cannot prove that whiteness is real to people who are stuck within it, and this is why I say such subjectivity is really a religious tenet. In this case, the religion asserts the privilege of being white, that you do not have to admit when you are offended and you definitely don’t have to admit to something being true if you don’t agree with it. All you have to do is yell louder and present as a white man and you are above reproach, as you refer to the religious theological ground (truth;reality).
Keep in mind, I’m not saying that there is not a truth or that there is not a reality; Rather I am saying what we are presently involved with a religious effectuation; what in the past we have called ideology, we are finding now is really a manner of coming up on reality that really has nothing to do with whether or not my thoughts equate with a sensible object, or what that means.
What we are involved with now is getting out of these limiting, correlational structures, and the opening of oneself to the possibility of other. It is not postmodernism; postmodernism is the description of the typical religious activity of thought. (I admit, there is a certain faction in the university that calls itself “postmodernism”, but this is not a religion in the sense that Peterson calls it, rather it is a misunderstanding of discourse in the Lacanian sense).
Just because you have a PhD does not mean you comprehend this aspect; in fact, all it really means is that you can use language in a particular way. What is at issue is the person that is using these methods.
There is a much deeper rebuttal to his whole presentation, but I am just voice dictating here while I’m walking my dog and so it’s hard to edit and write a whole dissertation on how Jordan Peterson philosophical position is skewed. He is unable to see the reality in front of him; what he sees is his own justification for what appears to him self reflexively as truth and reality.
To ask what this truth is that they keep throwing around as if it’s well known, is not a postmodern tactic. Of course Peterson might say it is a postmodern tactic, but that is because he is inherently caught in the postmodern manner of appropriating reality. In my previous post, in the video where he’s talking about stuff, he even pointed this out: namely, that there is some sort of dichotomy in history, some sort of polemic through which human beings are able to behave. His ground summary and resolution to this historical polemic is that in order for a person to be honest with themselves they have to say things that are offensive to other people. And then he uses the trope “postmodernism” as a Patsy to lump people who are “sensitive” into a group of people who are not being “honest”. Jordan Peterson might be being honest by being offensive, but he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to truth because for him truth is based in some sort of common ground of our existence I guess. All one needs to do is listen to his analysis of history to understand his orientation upon the world; he has no problem with his thinking. In fact everyone should think like him because if you’re a white Man, then you know everything there is to know about identity, biology, sex, ideology, philosophy, truth, reality… how convenient for him.
He does not see his complicity with a particular ideology of power no matter how much he wants to talk about domination pyramids. In short, he is using the post modern method of coming upon reality and being in reality as an excuse for his own ignorance. He is being manipulative and he is not being honest simply because he is not able to confront what might be some sort of truth upon his truth operating. He is utterly an example of postmodern subjectivity in the same way that Zizek has indicated Donald Trump. The only truth he sees is that which is self-evident to him. He has no conception of what correlationalism might mean, nor would any of the discussions of the speculative realist folk are talking about over in France, or even LA, have any substance for him.
In short, we can see that he is involved with a particular post- modern religious manner of coming upon the world (there is no common thing called “postmodernism”; postmodernism defines a particular paradigm of knowing and a particular paradigm of being able to come up on world) and asserting that intuitive sense as if it obviously and should be and is supposed to be everyone else’s reality. This particular manner of approaching reality is called “colonialism”. And it seems he doesn’t even know that, Or at least, in the way that he has talked about it in other places, again, He completely exclude himself from the effort of colonialism in the progress of this universal history through which reality and truth only a come about through a persons being honest with themselves he completely exclude himself from the effort of colonialism in the progress of this universal history through which reality and truth only a come about through a persons being honest with themselves. I wonder if his definition of honesty means that everyone else needs to be fucked up in the head and only people like them are allowed to be rational (wat?) .
He is caught in a confusion created by his own presence of being offended by what reality presents to him. He uses ideas and tropes that go unanalyzed and unchallenged – Indeed he uses these troops in a manner that suggests that analyzing them or challenging them is part of the fantasy or a part of not being honest– for the purpose of reestablishing the status quo, which is basically the reality And supremacy Of the white thinking man.
It is not that truth is obvious, nor is it that there is no truth. It is not even some “spiritual” truth. It is that the truth of it is not yet viewable through those routes.
The problem is not what lay at the end of Perterson’s pointing finger, as much as he likes to point at things. The problem is that the subject of this pointing finger is not being questioned; it is as if to him some sort of “spiritual – historical mandate” is being communicated from God.
Again, there is a much deeper critique of Peterson which may come out one day but, honestly, I don’t know if it’s really worth the effort because demagogues have their place too. Hence, the discussion about what humanity is by what it does by the Philosophical Hack.
xf
x
You must be logged in to post a comment.