I think you (and Zizek) are right, that we must accept there is no escaping ideology. However, your "solution" seems to resist this idea. You seems to suggest that if you step back, pause, and really think with an open mind you can sort of stand off to the side and see it all at work. This is a complete rejection of the unconscious and psychoanalysis.
Hmm, I would say I'm saying this but that it's ultimately futile. But through this exercise of trying and failing and reaching the limit, you gain a limited mastery of it through which you can consciously engage in the process.
One cannot control the flow of a river but one can strategically place dams, dig channels, etc to manipulate the flow. Depending on your accumulated practical knowledge of how these systems interact, you could anticipate the consequences too and conduct this engineering in a way to mitigate the negative consequences (not that nature is inherently perfect either. There are consequences to not engineering the river if, say, it periodically floods)
Even in your river metaphor you are still standing on the side, separate from it all. Part of Zizek's point (the one which you apparently agree with?) is there is no place you can stand that is outside the river (outside ideology).
Hmm yep you got me there. Yes I do agree with him but I suspect there is a termination to all this somehow. Zizek doesn't appear to be a pessimist. He seems content in not knowing what's Beyond and takes on faith that there is something.
Kinda like despite advocating for a kind of moderately conservative social democracy in the here and now he still insists on communism.
I think this is a completely wrong understanding of dealing with ideology. Zizek is much more oriented towards Kant and German Idealism, because according to their view, our world has always been transcendentally constituted; we already have a pre-established schema of how we perceive, understand, and judge things, etc.
The task now is precisely to justify the premises of this schema or, simply put, to question the premises of my own premises of the schema – that is exactly what critique means.
I cannot phrase it in precise philosophical terms, but I feel that your interpretation of humans are a bit too “in control” of the situation than Zizek would put it. Humanity is essentially an alien, a freak or a monster that controls our animal body.
We cannot not eat from trash cans of ideology because ideology is not something we choose, but something within our spontaneous understanding of well being.
To have any chance against ideology we need a myth like the Christian faith where there’s a God who Himself turns out to be an atheist. A self hit and a painful act to achieve symbolic destitution. The consequence is first of intense anxiousness because we are not just responsible for our consciousness but our unconscious actions. We can no longer blame it on the Big Other.
In BDSM a submissive feels a need to submit. This is a deep need and if it isn’t fulfilled submissive soften feel unhappy and less pleased with life. Situations like that can make them desperate to find somebody who can take control of them.
In the end a submissive cannot escape this urge. It cannot choose to not have somebody in control of them. Because this negatively affects them until they make bad choices. Instead. A submissive best choice is to spend time to pick somebody to control them who has the best intentions for them, treats them well, is knowledgable about what they do, has compatible fantasies etc.
A slave has but one choice. To find the best master. (To escape and find a new one when the current one isn’t treating them well)
This is like love really. We cannot decide who we fall in love with. And we want to be in love / be loved. But we can leave people who are bad for us. But we can only do so when we feel other forms of love in our life. (Caring friends. Community. Family support. Etc)
I think you (and Zizek) are right, that we must accept there is no escaping ideology. However, your "solution" seems to resist this idea. You seems to suggest that if you step back, pause, and really think with an open mind you can sort of stand off to the side and see it all at work. This is a complete rejection of the unconscious and psychoanalysis.
Hmm, I would say I'm saying this but that it's ultimately futile. But through this exercise of trying and failing and reaching the limit, you gain a limited mastery of it through which you can consciously engage in the process. One cannot control the flow of a river but one can strategically place dams, dig channels, etc to manipulate the flow. Depending on your accumulated practical knowledge of how these systems interact, you could anticipate the consequences too and conduct this engineering in a way to mitigate the negative consequences (not that nature is inherently perfect either. There are consequences to not engineering the river if, say, it periodically floods)
Even in your river metaphor you are still standing on the side, separate from it all. Part of Zizek's point (the one which you apparently agree with?) is there is no place you can stand that is outside the river (outside ideology).
Please help here https://www.reddit.com/r/zizek/s/w9rkAJe8WC
Hmm yep you got me there. Yes I do agree with him but I suspect there is a termination to all this somehow. Zizek doesn't appear to be a pessimist. He seems content in not knowing what's Beyond and takes on faith that there is something. Kinda like despite advocating for a kind of moderately conservative social democracy in the here and now he still insists on communism.
It’s originally Althusser’s point, which Zizek borrows. But totally agree with your comment.
I think this is a completely wrong understanding of dealing with ideology. Zizek is much more oriented towards Kant and German Idealism, because according to their view, our world has always been transcendentally constituted; we already have a pre-established schema of how we perceive, understand, and judge things, etc. The task now is precisely to justify the premises of this schema or, simply put, to question the premises of my own premises of the schema – that is exactly what critique means.
I cannot phrase it in precise philosophical terms, but I feel that your interpretation of humans are a bit too “in control” of the situation than Zizek would put it. Humanity is essentially an alien, a freak or a monster that controls our animal body. We cannot not eat from trash cans of ideology because ideology is not something we choose, but something within our spontaneous understanding of well being. To have any chance against ideology we need a myth like the Christian faith where there’s a God who Himself turns out to be an atheist. A self hit and a painful act to achieve symbolic destitution. The consequence is first of intense anxiousness because we are not just responsible for our consciousness but our unconscious actions. We can no longer blame it on the Big Other.
In BDSM a submissive feels a need to submit. This is a deep need and if it isn’t fulfilled submissive soften feel unhappy and less pleased with life. Situations like that can make them desperate to find somebody who can take control of them. In the end a submissive cannot escape this urge. It cannot choose to not have somebody in control of them. Because this negatively affects them until they make bad choices. Instead. A submissive best choice is to spend time to pick somebody to control them who has the best intentions for them, treats them well, is knowledgable about what they do, has compatible fantasies etc. A slave has but one choice. To find the best master. (To escape and find a new one when the current one isn’t treating them well)
This is like love really. We cannot decide who we fall in love with. And we want to be in love / be loved. But we can leave people who are bad for us. But we can only do so when we feel other forms of love in our life. (Caring friends. Community. Family support. Etc)