postmodernism

Oh how time does pass...I meant to post after class on Monday about some things I had been pondering. Please chime in if you're still interested in chatting about Zizek, etc.

I have always been kind of skeptical of psychoanalysis in general and Freudian analysis specifically, but a couple of statements seemed to ring true to me in the reading.

The unholy triad of the subject’s existence, according to Butler: the relation of the law to one’s conscience to one’s guilt. The subject, or the individual, is placed within society with these three forces acting upon his/her every move. “Social existence, existence as subject, can be purchased only through guilty embrace of the law, where guilt guarantees the intervention of the law and, hence, the continuation of the subject’s existence.” (112) We rely on the power of the law to solidify our existence within society.

I don’t quite know what to make of this. A Dutch teenager has stolen 4,000 euros worth of virtual furniture from the virtual social networking site, Habbo Hotel . . . and he’s been arrested for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7094764.stm

I keep thinking of Baudrillard’s claim about how subversion in the simulacrum is more complicit than that in the real . . . where does this fall?

The intricacies and online infrastructure for Halo are absolutely astounding. A few guys in my suite pointed this out to me, and my thoughts immediately leapt to postmodernism, probably to simulacra and simulation in particular, but to overarching narratives (hmm "incidental commonalities" might be a less loaded phrase) of pm in general.

I saw this in the Pomona student Digester, and thought people might be interested:

Please join us this Thursday, Nov. 15th at 4:15 PM in the Founder's Room of Honnold/Mudd Library for a Claremont Discourse Lecture, sponsored by The Libraries of The Claremont Colleges.
New Politics - Mass Media
Henry Krips, Professor of Cultural Studies, Claremont Graduate University

The first section of the reading, which for my purposes will be the intro through chapter 2, deals extensively with the Subject and his relation to the social and to his subjection. The idea of a person as subject connotes a very negative meaning which springs from the definition of subjection that was laid out at the beginning of the intro. Combined with the ideas of bondage, being a subject awakens thoughts of slavery, servitude, and meaninglessness. However, the subject, especially in the context of The Psychic Life, has a much higher status, and if not status at least role.

Zizek talks about symbolic authority which is another essential characteristic that we have been discussing as part of the postmodern. In other discussions, we have talked about Baudrillard's simulacra, which parallels to Zizek.

Zizek provides an example of the coin and how this coin "is always sustained by the guarantee of some symbolic authority." He then presents a following quote that seems to be saying that its physical property is only good for providing the "mere carrier of its social function" (19).

Zizek wants to largely emphasize the significance of the form rather than the hidden meaning behind things. He talks about this within the topic of commodity and dreams.

This is an interesting manuever since minds like Freud have previously focused on hidden meanings rather than the purpose of the form that these meanings are presented. It makes me take a step back and see my environment in a more structured, set-up way which translates to the overall picture of how reality is manipulated and portrayed in a certain form.

When Zizek talks about the Symptom, he seems to be essentially speaking of the general ignorance of the individual to the reality of the world. He goes on to say that "the subject can 'enjoy his symptom' only in so far as its logic escapes him."

I translate this statement to the common phrase of "Ignorance is bliss." Is Zizek promoting this ignorance, or does he want to be the one who brings this enjoyment to its end by enlightening everybody with reality, or the logic? What exactly is his logic?