title, the original work is available through publisher
return to more works by land here
observation 1:
synkar’s notes:
general first comments: i think you missed every point of constructive criticism, you're surprisingly bad this time around! however, your reactions at least signal what the generally uninitiated may raise, so at least helps me formulate pre-emptive answers to those groups 1. yeah i get the reason this dichotomy exists here and is invoked, thats my point, on top of it being invoked this way, it shows exactly how poetry moulds into just another form of language. im arguing philosophy itself needs not be descriptive at all. im saying poetry doesnt get a special argument for non-descriptivity whatsoever. im also saying adorno is saying poetry is impossible due to its ethical qualities, and zizek flipping it without understanding or at least explaining what adorno meant makes it this rookie jokey type of rendition of an otherwise great point, that if poetry is the way we expand on beauty, yet in a reactionary sentimental turn can no longer endulge in given we've relinquished it as a species symbolically (or have to do so) due to our terrifying symbolic rupture of terror (which zizek calls back through through his neolib critique) then we can no longer "express it." him saying no its the other way fails to grasp (or at least point out) how adorno is mystifying and essentializing the beauty of poetry, but yet structurally still does this by intuitively calling on poetry as the art of non descriptive tendencies (its naturally rendering anti-instrumentalized non contaminable beauty) which i call bs on and align with other such tendencies. 2. im saving this for later, but me saying "a common constructual division to be found in todays correlationist ethos" in combination with "starts with the profession of the contemporary common sense thing to do with violence nowadays" is supposed to essentially signal that i find it tiring, but will save it for the later pages lol. i find it tiring (and i explain why already if youre paying attention) by saying ive already thought of doing this in a book. me saying i already had the idea to write something means i think its already a beaten idea, because i believe only the act of writing produces creative originality and all manifested ideas are basically beaten auto-themes that are regurgitated through socially uninspired "contagion/reflectivity" in theory. hell maybe youd need to understand this is what i think to actually comprehend why i just said that in the way i did. 3. yeah, i'm aware of his ideology critique. its dumb and beaten to half death. nobody cares that corporations are trying to sell you ethics in theory anymore. even in 2009 or whenever this was already a dead point. yeah no shit theyre doing that, acting like we need to invent the term "hypercommodity" (probably already has been) to understand the general sense of the commodity since already two centuries of its existing. im joking, implying we just add hyper hauntologically to everything out of sheer redundancy. and no, his wait and think is just a shitty book intro, its not worthy of representative simulacrum associations. only his final point about lenin's mediation is worth this analogy, not his reading of neoliberal virtue signaling in general. 4. yeah im aware zizek is a lacanian-hegelian synthesis, do you think that by the looks of my review im ready to even remotely entertain that as anything interesting to me beyond trying to subvert it? lol
0: zizek's work starts with the profession of the contemporary common sense thing to do with violence nowadays giving his starting trajectory and all our starting trajectories of dichotomies between visibility, clarity, structurality, conditionality, causality, impact and so on, by the postulation of various forms of undiscovered chains of violence, each with their own coded logic, and beyond that point, the idea of a set standard of reproductive logics that permeate specific acceptances of what symbolic violence is in retrospect to mechanical causes that are off-set as a base standard, a common constructual division to be found in todays correlationist ethos. it begins with the criticism of neoliberalism through robspierre's revoltion about the standards of the tyrant or what is accepted as such, following through with his boomer admittance of a base level of pre-conducted violence that renders certain witness testimonies as subjectively contaminated by the trauma of a broader real, through which he flips adornos saying about poetry back on its head, that prose becomes unrendered, even though adorno was obviously codifiying poetry as a "lost beautiful" not as a shattering of linguistic norms. at no point in time to this day, has a single theorist failed to dissapoint with their rendering of poetry, always at once overly pretentious of its inessensialistic charms yet of its constructively political character, and yet of its own self-undermindedness as such, or vice-versa, of its shattering criterial relations. best to never mention that ugly term again, or at once for them to realize it doesn't exist apart from any derridian logic of contaminated architectures of language whatsoever. following that, the peak of boomerism is achieved when zizek tackles neoliberal logic through the concept of the ethical decision and empowerement, where he reaches a conclusion that violence must precisely be analyzed or rather learned in the face of virtue-signalling calls towards immediacy, in order to relinquish itself from the terror of its own exposed choices, or its inability to properly "consider its own subjectivity" (the current dilemma in post leftist discourse, that has been continuing since the book into the present age) but, truly, violence is not a thing at all, if it's the case that the alienation of the subject of ethical consideration and duty reaches the point where they themselves must self-asses and learn of the causes of the problem before they can even make a venture, or even worse be met with the contradiction of having a choice to a call to action, but abstracted by so many degrees that even the representation towards the call to action is an abstracted ideal that somehow frustrates both the announcing agent and those caught in the exposure of its imposition? 1-1: the world of society (you heard that right, the world, then that is painted by society, and yes, it is a society of world but nontheless takes a shape of "world" before that of society, although its causal agent is the social complex) may be blind to its own mechanisms now, where its own calls are constantly reflected and thrown back to it, thus its repressed representations return in this blinding cacophany that in fact return-signals various calls and transforms them on accident in the face of its acts, so the way the world of society constantly triggers itself into accidentally novel directions trying to chase that same direction, is what roughly happens when you consider that subjective violence truly is the most visible of the three, and [that] revolutions accelerate the rate of change of transformations that reccur as a result of sudden objective forms of violence (encoded under the logic of such) as well as a latent mechanism of trauma-adjacent replies concerning symbolic forms of violence yet, outside of the blinding, it may be that there is a secret spirit that returns abject forms of conflict that toggles between forms of violence and their faces, that essentially does in fact mediate between the unnoticed forms of violence in certain difficult to explain ways, what we may consider latent forms of social determinism, or the true field of the never-reachable political underlining, the reoccurance of base results unretrivable to us may actually return rates of violence into harmony unless of course, that blinding rhetoric from earlier causes build-ups that unleash not in fractures of violence (the example with the russian reactionaries suddenly met with the soviets, or icelandic pagans suddenly met with imposed christian moralism), but something far worse, that appears as a process of distortion and transmugalism, transmutilation, that bashes the social charicature to half-death using its own devices, that we may only recently truly be subjected to, something still developing (synkar, 2025)