I hate to go back to the now time-old argument about whether or not postmodernism is anything new or just some rearticulation of modernity, etc. but i struggled throughout this text with the lack of distinction that Agemben makes between the state of zoe and bios in present versus throughout history. I understand somewhat clearly the connection of their collapse to our present moment that he mentions (p.
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?
I thought Zizek's discussion of the relationship between the social effectivity and the commodity exchange was very characteristic of the postmodern. He describes this relationship by saying that "non-knowledge of the reality is part of its very essence: the social effectivity of the exchange process is a kind of reality which is possible only on condition that the individuals partaking in it are not aware of its proper logic."
This is partly in response to Bumpkins' initial post, but it warrants an autonomous blog entry insofar as many thinkers we will be reading this semester deal in Marxian (or Marxian informed) terminology.