In Zizek's latest book "Living in the End Times" the author or asshole as he is commonly referred to by less successful academics, emphasizes the flawed nature of seeing issues in every aspect of the world around us. The Slovenian intellectual argues that human beings can not fall into the trap of viewing everything as inherently evil. To convey his point he offers the example of the 'fanatic fundamentalist extremist' he notes destroys the perceived evil of the West, through acts of terror, to promote the greater good according to his view. However, what is generated is instead a cycle of continual pain, anger and resentment fueled by emotion and envy. Zizek believes that if a terrorist really dis-liked the ways of West they would simply rise above the West and the problems and conditions of their corruption. Instead by attacking the perceived evil of the US for example blowing up the twin towers they want what they do not have. The old tale of Confucius about "The Fox and the Grapes" seems appropriate to mention, for if like the Fox one can not get at the sweet looking grapes high up on the vine, after trying with all their might to get the grapes they declare them sour not worth eating and abstain, extremist's are like the Fox they see evil where there is none and in a fit of rage try to rip out the vines of the grapes.
Although it seems all to easy to become a converted cynic of modern society typified by Badiou and his 'worldless' modern world view , we can not forget or take for granted the reality that meaningful social relations persevere and survive in the face of 'digital degradation'. The later being a problem of the commons, for once the land is taken and the rivers and the trees what is next but controlling people in their last place of resistance, their homes by attacking the mind. The rapid change occurring in-relation to social interaction introduced by new 'psuedo realities'created by Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms is increasingly hindering our grip on the physical construct of reality, the outside world. The later is becoming a more abstract thing travelling further and further into the horizon. Take for instance how many of us venture out into the world to socialize, in contrast to staying at home behind a computer comfortable watching game of thrones.
It's clear that our lives are transforming. The very interaction and physical place of conversations between two people is now mitigated by computers and expensive internet connections, our meaningful dialogues reduced to pointless chatter and arguments in online digital boxes and forums. We are also now under complete surveillance by the state. The physical environment taken from us long ago has acted as a buffer preventing our conscious activity, thinking from being removed from us. Like the lobotomies dished out in Ken Kenseys' "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" the act of thinking will be the sight of the real historic fight for survival. The confiscations of neo-liberal rule are destroying and harming our connection and sense of belonging in our own cities, farms, houses and work places. This has occurred through the abuse of power, politics and money. But this will matter for naught when we are faced with a brutal siege against the abstract frontier of our own free thought.
If Rosseau thought we were enslaved when were forced off our ancestral lands, that was nothing, the worst is yet to come. If the freedom of speech is a basic human right, then how fundamental is the right of the freedom to think. The new rulers in the form of corporations have commenced the final battle and thrown the first spear. They seek to divorce ourselves from our own bodies, by shackling us in mental chains. By throwing us into the classical capitalist machine which they configure and control we are consequentially being turned into automatons, we are becoming inhuman unthinking things, in our bid to stay alive we are live a half like not unlike a Zombie. Denied our sanity by being worked to death our productive nature has turned into our private road to death. In a denaturalized non-physical environment we are facing the real possibility of being placed in box with no means to self-determination, again.
All apocalyptic negativity aside! one might go out on a limb and hypothesize that capitalism is in truth a destructive veil, like a thin cooking plastic wrap, cutting off the oxygen to the vast multiplicity and truly exponential creative potential of humanity. Karl Marx emphasized how human beings are innately creative makers of things at the core of our being and nature, but our primal skill is curtailed by the capitalist order that seeks to deny and ownership over the things we create. Music, painting, films almost all the most famous and commercially successful instances are now owned by finance companies or rich families fueled by capital and money. In their false kindness a nominal ownership is then granted to the creator under strict legal conditions, amounting to a '9 for me 1 for you' mentality of remuneration from the work, or else.
Following from the creative argument that capital interferes with creativity the same is also true for our social conditioning. Zizek believes that the world and the way we are socially conditioned reduces all the colours of the rainbow down to the dull beaurcratic grey of modern times. Indeed in our first years of primary school we lose the joy and freedom of expression offered by 'colouring in', as we learn to conform to rigid societal norms as young as five years old, but is this really a postive occurence?
Well after thinking about the reduction of colour the famous image of Pink Floyd's "Darkside of the Moon" sprang to my mind, on one side there is single white line but after hitting the light prism the one is fragmented into red, purple, yellow dance across the rock poster in subversive defiance. The noted counter example created in the UK seems to argue the reverse of Zizek's thought from his own standpoint, true grey or white light is good, but it only exists for one reason to be converted into colour. The meaning drawn out form this reading is possibly that the singularity associated with capitalism i.e the pursuit of the money of which everything stems from is needed only in order to later collapse into the creative multitude of a world without money were artistic expression reigns supreme.
Going back to my original point to which we have arrived in a roundabout way; Is the hatred of the world in reality a Freudian dissimulation of what is truly hated, namely ourselves. It seems there is a fundamental desire to bypass the issues of the self by mediating them through the lens of the outside world. The reason why millions flock to Disneyland even if they are unhappy is because one and all can go on all the rides, children smile and you get artificial happiness for a day. Maybe the secret to dissimulation and hatred of the world is that there is no big overhanging issue, even the issue of self-hatred is empty and if you forget there is a problem even if there is one, and carry on with your existence like business as usually.
But is Life more like a fast-food meal, we are conscious of the immediate joy that it will bring us, but once eaten its gone.The moment prior to consumption, the parlay before attacking our deep fried chips is were our deepest enjoyment bursts forth from. Especially the sinful chips we eat on the the way to our cheap plastic seat, made even sweeter if they are a friends. Picture this if you will its pointless but do it anyway, someone is drunk and needs to sober up in order to drive home.The apparent link between partying and sobriety demands by necessity a quick, greasy fast-food meal in the city. Is happiness then transformed into a relative sublime object e.g a hamburger that needs instantaneous consumption that should only be accessed under certain strict conditions of drunkenness. Well it is if it makes you happy, and if happiness is in part relative so might hatred be also, irrelevant of scale e.g hating the world.
Finally to live a life devoid of enjoyment is synonymous with the unfeeling character of modern neo-liberalism. Zizek states that we live in a time oppostive of feudalism were relations between individuals are not fetishisized. Instead only individuals and objects are fetishisized like a drunk eating a transnational hamburger, objects alone take on the full capacity and projections of our desires, do you want more chips? Furthermore, our freedom to act autonomously wih subjects allows us to attain what we think we want; object accumulation, in a harsh fixed hierarchical society. Which is wrong because in truth we live in an overtly pre-ordained society shrouded in a blurred mysticism of confusion. To be born a slave or to slowly realize one is are very simmilar propositions. However the later seems to be the greater of two evils, as it places uneccessary blame on the slave person as they slowly come to realize they were duped into thinking they were free when they weren't. The pain of a slaves false hope only grows more bitter over the passing of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment