zizek, hegel, and lacan walk into a cafe. zizek orders his usual favorite, a coffee without cream. hegel says, "that sounds delicious. id like to order the opposite. " lacan says, "oh delightful. on second thought, i dont think i want anything at all."
Every zizek video: 1. Oscillate between 20 examples to say one thing 2. Shout out Freud 3. Announce before you tell a joke so everyone can laugh 4. Don't tell a joke, people laugh anyway 5. Forget your train of thought, give another example, maybe you remember it by the end 6. Conclude with shouting out Freud
That is problem with idealism, it denounce everything that goes from essence. Is not everything construct of mind. Unconscious is not just wires you don't see is base ingredient for any idea. Consciousness get ideas from unconscious realisation of reality. Dialectica is conscious realisation of reality through ideas. That just means that we are not ego gods but humble beings that are part of this ecosystem which gives us essence of meaning. Language, words as symbolic meaning that represents ideas is complex construct of unconscious emotional reactions to circumstances in reality. If conscious reality defer too much form unconscious reality you get crazy, because you distort essence of emotional meaning. Like as socrat said I know that I know nothing , and that is principle oh humble human being, everything else is chasing own tail.
@@Digifan001 language is formed through interpersonal communication and cultural construct which forms collective mind. Simbols in collective mind are represented in unconscious as archetypes because they reflect the stages, or mechanisms of formation of symbolic meaning. I believe he did not accept symbolic determination of unconscious mind even meaning is arranged as conscious meaning of language which enables language formation . There can't be pure form of experience by unconscious mind only conditional reactions by stimuli, to which mapping by senses gives simbolic presentation as language gives simbolic meaning, and all this is connected by archetypes of some universal human meanings or specific cultural constructed meanings which could also emerged by universal human or maybe even animal emotional meaning construction. That is why psychodynamic drugs bring ones with nature and all beings, which is delusion but gives insight how meaning is constructed. I don't think one needs drug to see connection with living world.
I was trying to put it in abstract terms, but maybe the point is that precisely that is not possible or makes it less clear. It is like a fantasy, a 'dream' or 'Ahnung', in the sense of 'intimation'. The other very interesting thing to me, is that the 'coffee without cream' example is actually intersubjective. That which is not visible when in focus becomes visible through the play / the interaction, but it does so for both parties, somehow. Like somehow saying more than you actually say (in the Schumann example).
I wish he would have explained why he thinks the unconscious is fragile. Because that’s the point where I think he is wrong. The unconscious by definition is that which we are not aware of but which exists. But I would argue the conscious part is the fragile part, not the other way around. And all you must do to know if this is true is speak with someone who s consciousness is fragmented or nonexistent
I think what is meant is the idea that the unconscious is a sort of an inseparable aspect of conscious.. at least thats how i understood without much of theory read. So, the unconscious is fragile because it's sort of a "scanner" / a first experience of the reality which then transfers to the conscious domain.
@@farrider3339 the unconscious is a fantasy, it exists if you believe it exists; much like the ego. freud was a fraud who loved telling ghost stories; "the ego uses borrowed forced to keep the id in check", frightening people into complacent idiocy with his myths. jung was exactly the same; he is the type of person to slip into a panic attack when strolling on the beach and seeing his shadow move with him. what do you think a shadow is?? it's you, dummy! just look at your hands. YOU'RE the one acting, not your ""unconscious"". i believe this is the point zizek is trying to make; he is not a psychoanalyst, but someone who uses the images and metaphors of psychoanalysis to reveal something; that is, if you're receptive to it
@@Twolliebollie agree to every single word. "Fuck psychology'' (S.Z.) and it's futile explanations and assumptions, is what I add. Just another fairy tale to calm the wondering 'persona' and consequently the entire collective. They'd better say , we don't know 'what' and 'how' and get real jobs. All that psychologists can achieve, is to refresh the hypnosis needed to be a well functional integral part of the mad and sick collective. And since this doesn't work properly by 🗣 only, they have to add💊 to change the chemistry of the entire body and create addicts to the pharmaceutical industrial complex. As a friend used to say : "As long u can get talked out of yourself , u deserve to be." People are simply not ready to accept , that This is all . . .no bliss , no immensity, no beatitude anywhere unless we want think of these mirages. That any attempt on ones own part to bring about a change is more energy consuming than just simply adapt to and deal with what is. Entire mankind has been hoaxed into the idea of something better to come when just invest enough effort , will and strive. The holy men perpetuate the spread of the viral disease from generation to generation and people fail to reject their suggestions by simple reality check 🤷♂️ Two branches of fear are the main driving forces to literally everything people do : 1 The fear of losing that which u were made to believe is yours . 2 The fear of not getting what They told u to want . All other detectable subsections of fear can be boiled down to one of these two branches . If there is such thing in operation like a subconscious , the syllable "sub" or "un" stands for itself when taken literally. No access possible. Same is true for the unknown . How can there be : Fear of The Unknown ? Psychology is just surrogate for the shaman telling absurd tales about 🌏°
Materialism is the epitome of man cut off from his unconscious. our society in America isn't built from slavery or "male chauvinism"-- it is built from recognizing the sacredness and importance of the individual, the ultimate minority, as Ayn Rand would say. A society that prioritizes the group over the individual= a society in which no individual is safe. Jung is the best source of knowledge to understand the unconscious.
W żarcie chodzi o to, że koleś prosząc o kawę z pozbytym się z niej mlekiem. Jeśli nie ma mleka to nie ma jak się go pozbyć, wiec nie można jej podać. Te przykłady wskazują na to, że cały niuans i piękno człowieczeństwa polega nie na nieświadomym podłożu a na codziennych decyzjach, tym co robimy z tym co mamy. Tak jak z tą nutą - jest zapisana nuta, której nie ma podczas grania, ale wpływa na granie, ale nie chodzi o te niezapisaną nutę tylko o wyłaniające się symfonie. Podświadomość, nieświadomość, kwantowowość to jest tylko tło, background, scena teatralna byśmy mogli przejawiać działanie jaźni. To nie jest coś co należy odkrywać, obnażać, majsterkować. To jest coś czym należy żyć.
unconscious: when you're thinking about your existence you're objectifing it but you cannot include the perspective point you ve chosen to objectifing it. If you try doing it, you're objectifing it from another point of view that's left from critic. There's always a missing point. A total self consciousness is impossible. What is important is not the ontological aspect of it (how much we can master our existence) but its consequence: we havent just needs, but desires (that project what we see as needs). What we perceive as a need is always bound to an outsider desire that tries to catch something of existential consistency: this compensates our structural ontological lack about ourselves. What we do has to give us back the feeling of being alive and be ourselves. The problem it's not to have consciousness of the inconscious (its impossible) but to let it work. For example, in the sociopaths, it doesn't work. We'll never evolve into Vulcanians like mr Spock
@@pedrogheventer2566 could appear in many ways: your evaluation of your place in the world, what's meaningful to you, everything that gives you an idea of being alive as a "soul", what is worth living, "my life". it's different from the image of self (that's always narcisistic and reflects an idea of what we think about what others desire from us). "your existence" is about the symbolic identity. If someone acts based only on self-image, ends with the feeling of living someone's else life
We complained when typewriters jammed. Microsoft Office doesn't jam so we complain when it freezes. Similarly, when flirting linguistically becomes cumbersome, we will instead flirt with the possibility of exchanging some kind of encryption keys that provide access to our neuroligcal processes that relate to sex or something.
Reminds me of Freud's argument in Civilization and its Discontents that our satisfaction over new technological developments actually lies in their correction of limitations imposed by previous technological developments. Thus, we love the telephone because it lets us talk to people when they are far away, but they are only far away because low-cost steam travel enabled people to move about frequently instead of staying near us.
@[spinel 2020] is right, you should check the concept of "determinate negation" or bestimmte Negation in Hegel the fundamental part of his famous dialectic. That will also open you the doors to understand Marx. Is the unconscious unmanifested potential? No. Or at least not in a meaningful way to the ego (meaningful in terms of understanding). Remember, for Zizek the unconscious is not an essence. It's not the tip of the iceberg with all the rest to be discovered (potential) 4:23. The unconscious is purely virtual. Cheers.
@[spinel 2020] Well he's right about it, don't really know the phylosophical backgrounds and directions/periods of philosophy and all but the bottomline/hypothesis is a very true one: The biggest nightmare of the passionate individual is to get exactly what he/she wanted and realize it wasn't what they needed at all Perhaps even vice-versa, the biggest nightmare of the ambitious individual is to get exactly he/she needed but realize it wasn't what they wanted at all It's that "sudden flip" from being in position of playful/curious/full-with-hope individual into becomming a 100% responsible one with only one way possible that is to "hold onto or lose what you got"
Anyone who has read his book: Why is subconscious "virtual"? What does he mean by that? I think I know what virtual means (not real?) but this statement of his would be very dumb in this case.
i think he means the virtual is real but not "substantial", and so existing as an emergent structure of subjectivity and the symbolic, rather than preceding and constituting it.
@@MrClockw3rk not nobody. It seems like you only mate. Did you complete your CS degree first ? Just procrastinating on youtube eh ? You aren't a philosopher but you aren't a technician too. Since you still havent mastered basic calculus and python buddy. First complete your Avenue of study. And let's see how you are going to be a slave of tech giants among the endless sea of computer science degree holders.
@@MrClockw3rk complete your education first. Even then with a full 4 year degree you will still struggle to find even a free landing jobs. Because the job market is filled with workers. But not necessarily talent. Which you seem to lack anyway. You will finally settle down into a 9 to 5 job at some tech firm. Sell your life to a soul sucking job. Run your rat race and earn just enough to live and maybe get a decsent home but NEVER enough to become a tech entrepreneur or so.
Don't expect to get him without background. To get this clip you should have heard his more lengthy definitions of subconscious (which he calls unconscious) and what he thinks we can attribute to subconscious thought based on a Hegelian understanding (of which he is a proponent). 1. The rejection of excusing behavior based on the assertion that they were unplanned, uncontrollable and therefore "subconscious". He rejects the idea that the active part of our brain is the conscious and the deeper, hidden, and somehow more substantial part is the "subconscious". 2. The adoption of the active role of the subconscious in forming our conscious understanding of life/behavior but not in the sense of it being some hidden inner thing, but precisely something that exists in the uncertainty of expectation. In the first example, Zizek talks about a movie that is awful but nevertheless creates an expectation for a better book (the subconscious expectation) and that this expectation of a good book shapes his experience of the movie. When reading the book one finds a different result, that the book was bad (the conscious reality). To further illustrate this point then talks about Schuman's music and the presence and absence of 3 notes in a melody as a precursor to another of his favorite points about the Hegelian view of the determinative negation and the subconscious. What he is saying about Schumann is that by introducing the 3 notes in the beginning prior to playing the melody in the third stanza in which the 3 notes were absent, the audience's perception of that third stanza were radically different (in registering the absence of the notes) than if the notes had never been introduced. It is precisely because they heard the first stanza with the 3 notes that they could understand the third stanza as an entity defined by the lack of those 3 notes, the negation of the notes therefore determining the percieved reality of that melody. Thus, Zizek makes the argument that despite there being no actual material difference between a piece starting with the 3 note introduction and one without such an introduction, there is a perceived difference based on the subconscious negation of 3 notes. Thus the subconscious takes a very active role in our world, in which is our perception is defined not only in terms of what things are consciously observed, but through negations/by what is not observed. He follows this with the example of the "coffee without cream" vs "coffee without milk" scenerio in which he makes the assertion that the subconscious understanding of what one is drinking is based on the negation of what one is not drinking (even though the actual material value of the two drinks is the same). 3. The use of this active role of the subconscious as a necessary part of our daily life as therefore endangered by the direct access which may be provided in a "wired brain." Zizek's criticism of inventions like the Neuralink which would give us ultimate access to each other's thoughts would erase all of our ability to have a subconscious and therefore would erase a big chunk of what it means to be human. He gives the example of dating. In dating there are a lot of rhetoricals in which the subconscious is the mediator. For example, if a man fumbles and is nervous, the subconscious tells the woman that he is attracted to her and this unspoken thing becomes the basis of romance. Without this element that lies between actual material observation of the conscious (the indirect back and forth before anyone admits they like each other) romance cannot exist. To access the conscious mind, therefore, would erase the use of the subconscious and radically change human behavior. 4. To summarize, the subconscious is active in the way perception is altered by expectations. Positive expectations, such as the subconscious expectation that behind a terrible movie is a great book alter the experience of our experience of reality in the same way as negative expectations, such as the use of the 3 note negation in Schumann's music shapes our experience of his music. Thus the subconscious isn't some dormant inner "true us" that is always repressed and under the conscious but an active member of our experience always shaping our perception of reality. Anyways, most of what Zizek says makes sense. It only sounds like ramblings if you don't follow what he has said or are otherwise unfamiliar with his arguments.
@@gunnarmuhlmann as a human with a subconscious, I do. As someone who is going to be a part of the technocratic future ahead, with people laying stakes to the machinery that will access my brain/consciousness I do. And you should too.
@@julieherz8909 This might be a dumb question but why exactly would it erase our subconscious and if it does, how would life even look? Isn't speculation part of our progressive immersive experience?
The fact that perception and consciousness are products of unconscious processes i.e. the unconscious rules for perceiving perceptual depth, the unconscious rules we use to generate unique sentences, the unconscious rules we use to understand interpersonal contexts etc. seems to escape this master dialectician That so many contemporary academics have put Zizek on a pedestal says more about the deterioration that has taken place in the humanities than about him.
Can you describe one simple experiment, that would demonstrate this existence of "unconscious"? No, there isn't such experiment. Because Freud and Jung wrote about their own ideas and its just stories. In reality none of it exists. No Id no unconscious, hmmmmm maybe ego.
Unconsciousness is a part of the mind like a recycle bin. Freud's unconscious counteracts the power of the will and constantly acts on all conscious proves and decisions. Is that so? Can the conscious will act independently? Are Freud and Lacan wrong? Are unconscious processes a relative thing as Jung suggested, and their effect on consciousness depends on energy events and the consistency of counterweights? Depending on which complex is activated, the shape of the whole personality and its action in the environment depends on it, external causes strongly determine unconscious events, but also sudden internal ones without the influence of consciousness. Freud thinks that castration fear is the strongest determinant of behavior and overcoming it by identifying with a symbolic or real castrator father, Lacan thinks the same but twists Freud by taking the mother as the greatest threat and castration for the development of spontaneity and adecvate organization of mental development. Mother as a crocodile with jaws (Lacan). Wasn’t Jung the first to mention that importance of a mother and his myth of hero freeing himself from that swallowing bond, strog relation with symbolic mother ? Zizek uses Lacan and Freud , possible wrong one-sided theories and the huge fact is that he has no talent for psychoanalysis and psychology of deept.
Psychoanalysis is a hoax. An interpretation of an abstract painting at the museum. The model of archetypes put it just more adventurous . It is the attempt of attaching just different labels 🏷 on the man , which have an expire date of unforeseeable length. Be it minutes , days or years. Labels 🏷 are limitations placed upon the individual in order to keep him smoothly functioning within the frame societal rules .
…um, the “unconscious” is a purely semiotic product. This is clarified by Lacan…castration for instance is not bodily procedure but rather the “loss” of a “signifier”.
For all the Lacan and Freud he has read, he seems to have a very perverted understanding of the unconscious. None of what he says is consistent with any theory. Zizek has some important points to make in his books when he can think things through. However in his spoken presentations, he is nothing but entertainment with sprinkled academia.
@@nuckinfuts7502 I have never seen any clear assertions from him. I have only read his book Absolut Recoil, where he uses Hegel and Lacan to interpret a number of events. His thoughts there are cohesive, but it is an analysis not an original work. I have never seen him outline anything new in 1-3 statements. I invite people who listen to Zizek to pause after the clip is over and ask themselves, "what did he argue here?". The result is often disappointing.
@@nuckinfuts7502 Yeah - I read that. Was struck more than once by how banal and mainstream his cultural analyses are. Kafka = nightmare, Joyce = liberation of the signifier. He maybe aiming at a new project but, well... he hasn't hit it yet. He's best on movie crit., but um, that's a bit sad (mere) for a 'philosopher', don't you think?
The unconscious shud be unconscious said Bateson. FJ Varela went down to the most rudimentary level that beauty cud 'perform' on, thus, Bittorio (from "The Embodied Mind"). There is a mechanical issue. So, the question exists when referring to the unconscious, R there origins to contend with? Similarly, is sleep, like Rudolf Steiner addresses, part of a necessary communication as such, metaphorically and mechanically? Speaking in actual terminology that tends toward direction itself, an example, for the spirochetes versus undulipodia history lesson of which 'contains' subtler truth, perhaps, ignoring a whole CLASS of life forms, protoctista, and, while relativity goes out the door as it shud in the analysis (also in CLASSICAL PHYSICS, hydrino...), the second afterwards when you refer to F. Scott Gilbert about any uniQueness, very questionable (James MacAllister as well 4 where the rubber hits the road), but, for the fact that nothing ever changes eXcept to get U wrapped up in IT, don't you think we shud do something about the GLASS shield we think we R protected by? See Dane Wigington this past week.
I like to think of the unconscious as a set of defence mechanisms to protect us from unbearable emotion. It's not a hidden identity any more than a shield is the personality of a knight. The problem is that it shields us from parts of our own personality. Well, not really a problem; we evolved this capacity for a reason.
If the unconscious is just defense mechanisms shielding us then what is it shielding us from? arent those parts of your personality that you dont know also subconscious? its a more general word for the known unknowns of your mind, but defense mechanisms would be part of that
I always wonder why Zizek always regurgitate this joke of the coffee in literally any topic he is talking about always makes me confused, what this joke says about consciousness is not so clear to me!
The man expects the waitress to automatically put cream in his coffee so instead of just saying coffee he says coffee without cream which adds to his words to his request and is not the simplest form of communication
he's referring to the "subconscious" - no one experiences the 'unconscious'. the conscious mind is also purely virtual however and not a substantial, material object. this does not seem very deeply thought through.
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but he based his opinion on Freuds works. I read Freud a few years ago, before I new Zizek and he is talking about "unbewusste Anteile des Bewusstseins" (German) I'm not sure how to translate that correctly but to me it seems that your term "subconscious" and the "unconscious" would be the same thing from a different perspective. So maybe you are right about zizeks statement, but maybe he is right as well. (because you may be talking about a different thing at all)
@@vinniethepuuh7553 Presumably we may have a vague awareness of the subconscious aka subliminal (cf waking dream state) but none of the unconscious and full awareness of the conscious. If the subconscious and the unconscious are the same then we can know nothing of either by definition of unconscious. We are not aware of the process by which memories are brought into the conscious mind so presumably that's a function of the unconscious where memories are usually stored I guess because we are not always consciously aware of them when they are not in the conscious mind. The subconscious communicates with the conscious via intuition etc. We could consciously and subconsciously align with the unconscious which must be another word for god (ie love, wisdom, intelligence, peace, and ultimately unassailable power). By operating the three phases in harmony we unlock the holy trinity and can fire on all cylinders, presumably. How? by persistently thinking over months and years on that which is lovely and of good report because this is a conundrum that has occupied the greatest minds throughout history. czcams.com/video/I8R50nvv5gc/video.html (perhaps I have coined the 'three phase mind')
successful application of above described techniques would probably take practice or a very gentle touch in the same way a beginner violinist hacks at the strings with their bow whereas the experienced players bow glides smoothly or a beginner car driver keeps flooding the gas making the car lurch and stop again. Why else hasn't it been accepted by the mainstream yet? Jealousy ... trips up the mind and heart collectively and individually and prevents discovery. There are mental strategies for overcoming this such as learning to sincerely wish more of whatever it is for the other person however well endowed they appear in comparison to ourself. When we learn to overcome jealousy and vindictiveness we will automatically ie naturally transcend to new levels as a species ('e'v'n on 'rth). Also wrath funnily enough is a big hindrance because it focusses all ones attention onto another(s) and is therefore akin to jealousy and fear which shut down the unconscious communication route / channel. + it's simple yet complex, is maybe not always easy, and errors may be fatal. (nevertheless, world wide, countless people are inadvertently stepping out (of the picture) daily, due to such errors, which they are making unwittingly therefore foundational research understanding and world wide dissemination may be in order, unless the video of the elephant was fabricated.). + pride! (lol), people not equalising the pressure periodically, which leads to individual or collective social dissonance, explosion, and loss of reason, ie it is the fastest route to cloud cuckoo land, see conclusion below [czcams.com/video/klPZIGQcrHA/video.html ].
I never understand how Zizek can reach these wild, misunderstandings of such concepts whilst being touted as a philosopher. It's as though he's using a different set of definitions for things, so his sentences lack logical paths and instead leap in strange ways, resulting in erronous conclusions. His interpretaion of Jung's explorations of the unconscious as a method to alleviate responsibility for things is moronic and oversimplistic. If you read Jung's works, even casuall, you'd be aware that Jung believed that it was the individual's responibility to delve into the unconscious and actualise the self. It's the exact opposite of what Zizek is saying. It's almost as if Zizek doesn't really know what he's talking about.
I have a feeling you misunderstood him in the video. Zizek quoted Freud to say that, unlike in Christianity where you're only responsible for your wilful and conscious actions, in psychoanalysis you are held responsible even for your unconscious. I don't think ZIzek argued that the unconscious is "a method to alleviate responsibility for things" (your quote). Rather, he argued for the inverse, which happens to be the same argument that Jung has made, according to your comment. On a second and final note, as a philosopher Zizek is indeed "using a different set of definitions for things" than say a psychologist or sociologist would. So his conclusions may only seem "erroneous" (a highly loaded word) if you've yet to exit a psychological paradigm.
@@cammmoy1234567 " So his conclusions may only seem "erroneous" (a highly loaded word) if you've yet to exit a psychological paradigm." How are people supposed to leave the psychological paradigm when those outside of it are incoherent and can't form a simple and direct sentence to explain their thoughts?
Freud got too obsessed with sex, probably because he lived through an age of repression. The unconscious now seems to play a far greater role in terms of ideology, politics and class. The way class interest operates under a shell of ideology. E.G. Liberal ideology and it's attitude to immigrants. On the surface, all very altruistic, but underneath, is it all about creating competition for jobs in order to push down wages? Or say the impossible utopianism of certain elements on the Left? Is such puritanism a guise whereby Middle Class Leftists don't actually want socialism, they really want to lose, under a guise of resistance? Or by the same token, the Right's white chauvinism, a way to exploit the working class under a guise of protecting the working class. A way of prizing the working class from its affinity to socialism. As in we love you so much, we want to take away your benefits, destroy your trade unions, bring back conscription etc. None of which seems to be done on any conscious level, at a conscious level most ideological positions seem to be held sincerely. The real motivations are for the most part submerged beneath an idealistic superstructure. E.G, we're too cynical about the likes of George Dubya or Trump, seeing them as arch manipulators, but they really haven't the intelligence to be so Machiavellian, not at a conscious level anyway. At a conscious level they probably believe they are doing god's work in spreading American influence around the world, probably believe they are helping the poor by slashing welfare, Wherein Adam Smith's hidden hand meets Freud's Id, Ego, Superego Like we need to develop psychoanalytic tools for suppressed class interest. Given class chauvinism is hiding more and more under an altruistic facade.
@@NoahsUniverse Yeah, and I think Freud was important, even though most his theories about the Oedipus comp;ex, penis envy, phallic symbology in dreams etc are for the most part speculative, and unhelpful he did seem to hit upon the fact that most human impulses lay submerged. It's just those submerged impulses are for the most part political, not sexual. And if they are sexual, it's far more to do with sex just being like any other means of production, a means that must be controlled in order to dominate and subjugate, His Id, Ego, Super Ego is his greatest contribution. Which you see manifest again again in the political realm. Both at the micro and the macro level. E.G. Trump Id, Biden Ego, Bernie Super Ego.
@@NoahsUniverse Many years ago, I found it interesting how he expanded the micro of the individual psych to the mythologies of entire civilizations. As in Christ was an oedipal figure. The father figure put to death etc. Like most of Freud, he's saying something seminal, but then over-complicates things. I mean civilizations don't develop because of suppressed oedipal urges, they develop because one class owns the means of production and the powerless become exploited. Then the extrapolation of the micro to the macro then comes into play - as in the nation is an extension of the family. The fatherland, the motherland etc. Evoking the family becomes a means of controlling the masses. But that the proletariat refuse to overthrow the paternal class because of some suppressed oedipal shame - seems a stretch. From a Marxist point of view its more simple, the paternal class, the bourgeois/ aristocracy - falsely evokes the family to better control and exploit the proletariat. The proletariat is the child class - suppressed sexually, kept in a state of ignorance with fairy stories - i.e. religion. That's where I think Freud and Marx can work together. But much of it is straight forward, no need for arcane allusions to mythology. Ruling elites evoke the family for straight forward reasons, and the child-like masses lap it up for obvious reasons too.
Here’s a challenge for people who think this guy isn’t a moron: try to describe one of his unique ideas here in a few sentences without reference to another philosopher or philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only.
BongoseroPersa you can dodge all you want, but the fact is you can’t meet the challenge and neither can anyone else. Zizek doesn’t actually say anything. Eventually all his ball lickers are going to have to admit it to themselves and move on.
Elon Musk says that the primordial cerebral cortex function is to make the limbic system happy. The limbic system would be the inconscient. It's not fragile, but determinant.
Elon Musk is 'clearly' a neuroscientist and not at all a rocket scientist... Not like he's bought and/or collaborating to push the agenda to shift into virtual reality or something
People get wrong and, of course, the greart nose cleanner get's it right and he's here to lay down the law and dictate it from the ivory tower to the masses of peasents. Of course. Of course. ( with a nice photo in the thumbnail and all... )
@@Dman9fp "..... XD" I do not know why even take time to put thought on Zizek; here the dribbler has to quote his own book and still he somehow sounds so uneloquent and what he says so insignificant, way he talks--he is speaking to his peers the sea. Dumbed down thinking makes me feel disgusting. "okay I did that but sorry guys it was my unconscious" "to me unconscious is something much more subtle" "i HavE iT iN tHe bOoK " and the stories..... me just saying: unconscious is an animal is more than he can manage in these 6 minutes
What on earth does he know about the study of psychology?? Nothing! It’s not his field and it’s not like Slovenia was ever the center of any related scholarly research!
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
Dude looks like his not even moving
He is projecting his toughts
“All our human creativity is based on radical limitations” ...
This got me thinking about the symbolic identity of boneless pizza.
Marmelad
Man CZcams auto subtitles go crazy when Zizek is talking englisj.
zizek, hegel, and lacan walk into a cafe. zizek orders his usual favorite, a coffee without cream. hegel says, "that sounds delicious. id like to order the opposite. " lacan says, "oh delightful. on second thought, i dont think i want anything at all."
As a German with a thick accent I can understand him very well (:
The Unterbewußtsein is helping in a hegelsche way
Im from Wisconsin USA. So I'm listening on ×2 speed
Wisconsinits have strong German orgins btw. So I suppose it makes sense that we can get his accent easily
@@brandtgill2601 but Zizek is Slovenian
@@BadgerOfTheSea Zizek also speaks german, as carinthian i can totally identify with his way of humor
Yay my Daily Dosis of Zizek
1 Zizek a day keeps the Dr in the autonomous collective
Every zizek video:
1. Oscillate between 20 examples to say one thing
2. Shout out Freud
3. Announce before you tell a joke so everyone can laugh
4. Don't tell a joke, people laugh anyway
5. Forget your train of thought, give another example, maybe you remember it by the end
6. Conclude with shouting out Freud
As Jordan Peterson would say: up yours.
That is problem with idealism, it denounce everything that goes from essence. Is not everything construct of mind. Unconscious is not just wires you don't see is base ingredient for any idea. Consciousness get ideas from unconscious realisation of reality. Dialectica is conscious realisation of reality through ideas. That just means that we are not ego gods but humble beings that are part of this ecosystem which gives us essence of meaning. Language, words as symbolic meaning that represents ideas is complex construct of unconscious emotional reactions to circumstances in reality. If conscious reality defer too much form unconscious reality you get crazy, because you distort essence of emotional meaning. Like as socrat said I know that I know nothing , and that is principle oh humble human being, everything else is chasing own tail.
So Lacan was right?
@@Digifan001 language is formed through interpersonal communication and cultural construct which forms collective mind. Simbols in collective mind are represented in unconscious as archetypes because they reflect the stages, or mechanisms of formation of symbolic meaning. I believe he did not accept symbolic determination of unconscious mind even meaning is arranged as conscious meaning of language which enables language formation . There can't be pure form of experience by unconscious mind only conditional reactions by stimuli, to which mapping by senses gives simbolic presentation as language gives simbolic meaning, and all this is connected by archetypes of some universal human meanings or specific cultural constructed meanings which could also emerged by universal human or maybe even animal emotional meaning construction. That is why psychodynamic drugs bring ones with nature and all beings, which is delusion but gives insight how meaning is constructed. I don't think one needs drug to see connection with living world.
@@svetlicam 'simbols' ,I see what you just did there .That is damn brilliant.
@@Digifan001 No - Lacan wasn't even nearly right. Where Freud is merely contentious, Lacan is looney toonz...
@@stueyapstuey4235 why
1:07 Good god who's laugh was that!!
This is where the ornately ‘prosed’ excerpts from psychology/psychoanalysis forums come to see light… like moles beneath the surface.
He's speaking directly to me
Great subject, this idea is becoming more popular and so many people misunderstand it
He is also on the same list. But he has to right
I was trying to put it in abstract terms, but maybe the point is that precisely that is not possible or makes it less clear. It is like a fantasy, a 'dream' or 'Ahnung', in the sense of 'intimation'. The other very interesting thing to me, is that the 'coffee without cream' example is actually intersubjective. That which is not visible when in focus becomes visible through the play / the interaction, but it does so for both parties, somehow. Like somehow saying more than you actually say (in the Schumann example).
I wish he would have explained why he thinks the unconscious is fragile. Because that’s the point where I think he is wrong. The unconscious by definition is that which we are not aware of but which exists. But I would argue the conscious part is the fragile part, not the other way around. And all you must do to know if this is true is speak with someone who s consciousness is fragmented or nonexistent
I think what is meant is the idea that the unconscious is a sort of an inseparable aspect of conscious.. at least thats how i understood without much of theory read. So, the unconscious is fragile because it's sort of a "scanner" / a first experience of the reality which then transfers to the conscious domain.
The impression of fragility is induced due the volatile nature of the more hidden operations of thinking.
It isn't fragile but highly adaptive.
I think his use of the word implies that the unconscious is much more sensitive and operates with more subtlety than we realize.
@@farrider3339 the unconscious is a fantasy, it exists if you believe it exists; much like the ego. freud was a fraud who loved telling ghost stories; "the ego uses borrowed forced to keep the id in check", frightening people into complacent idiocy with his myths. jung was exactly the same; he is the type of person to slip into a panic attack when strolling on the beach and seeing his shadow move with him. what do you think a shadow is?? it's you, dummy! just look at your hands. YOU'RE the one acting, not your ""unconscious"". i believe this is the point zizek is trying to make; he is not a psychoanalyst, but someone who uses the images and metaphors of psychoanalysis to reveal something; that is, if you're receptive to it
@@Twolliebollie agree to every single word. "Fuck psychology'' (S.Z.) and it's futile explanations and assumptions, is what I add. Just another fairy tale to calm the wondering 'persona' and consequently the entire collective.
They'd better say , we don't know 'what' and 'how' and get real jobs.
All that psychologists can achieve, is to refresh the hypnosis needed to be a well functional integral part of the mad and sick collective.
And since this doesn't work properly by 🗣 only, they have to add💊 to change the chemistry of the entire body and create addicts to the pharmaceutical industrial complex.
As a friend used to say :
"As long u can get talked out of yourself , u deserve to be."
People are simply not ready to accept , that
This is all . . .no bliss , no immensity, no beatitude anywhere unless we want think of these mirages.
That any attempt on ones own part to bring about a change is more energy consuming than just simply adapt to and deal with what is.
Entire mankind has been hoaxed into the idea of something better to come when just invest enough effort , will and strive.
The holy men perpetuate the spread of the viral disease from generation to generation and people fail to reject their suggestions by simple reality check 🤷♂️
Two branches of fear are the main driving forces to literally everything people do :
1 The fear of losing that which u were made to believe is yours .
2 The fear of not getting what They told u to want .
All other detectable subsections of fear can be boiled down to one of these two branches .
If there is such thing in operation like a subconscious , the syllable "sub" or "un" stands for itself when taken literally.
No access possible.
Same is true for the unknown .
How can there be :
Fear of The Unknown ?
Psychology is just surrogate for the shaman telling absurd tales about 🌏°
Thanks for uploading, could you cite the source it’s from?
Materialism is the epitome of man cut off from his unconscious. our society in America isn't built from slavery or "male chauvinism"-- it is built from recognizing the sacredness and importance of the individual, the ultimate minority, as Ayn Rand would say.
A society that prioritizes the group over the individual= a society in which no individual is safe.
Jung is the best source of knowledge to understand the unconscious.
W żarcie chodzi o to, że koleś prosząc o kawę z pozbytym się z niej mlekiem. Jeśli nie ma mleka to nie ma jak się go pozbyć, wiec nie można jej podać.
Te przykłady wskazują na to, że cały niuans i piękno człowieczeństwa polega nie na nieświadomym podłożu a na codziennych decyzjach, tym co robimy z tym co mamy. Tak jak z tą nutą - jest zapisana nuta, której nie ma podczas grania, ale wpływa na granie, ale nie chodzi o te niezapisaną nutę tylko o wyłaniające się symfonie. Podświadomość, nieświadomość, kwantowowość to jest tylko tło, background, scena teatralna byśmy mogli przejawiać działanie jaźni. To nie jest coś co należy odkrywać, obnażać, majsterkować. To jest coś czym należy żyć.
If you're into Jungian Cognitive Functions you can see Zizek's Extraverted Intuition all over the place
@@nawll11 source?
@@rentic9854 be more specific
Coffee without gold is the most expensive one we have.
unconscious: when you're thinking about your existence you're objectifing it but you cannot include the perspective point you ve chosen to objectifing it. If you try doing it, you're objectifing it from another point of view that's left from critic. There's always a missing point. A total self consciousness is impossible. What is important is not the ontological aspect of it (how much we can master our existence) but its consequence: we havent just needs, but desires (that project what we see as needs). What we perceive as a need is always bound to an outsider desire that tries to catch something of existential consistency: this compensates our structural ontological lack about ourselves. What we do has to give us back the feeling of being alive and be ourselves. The problem it's not to have consciousness of the inconscious (its impossible) but to let it work. For example, in the sociopaths, it doesn't work. We'll never evolve into Vulcanians like mr Spock
Could you explain what you mean by "thinking about your existence"?
@@pedrogheventer2566 could appear in many ways: your evaluation of your place in the world, what's meaningful to you, everything that gives you an idea of being alive as a "soul", what is worth living, "my life". it's different from the image of self (that's always narcisistic and reflects an idea of what we think about what others desire from us). "your existence" is about the symbolic identity. If someone acts based only on self-image, ends with the feeling of living someone's else life
We complained when typewriters jammed. Microsoft Office doesn't jam so we complain when it freezes. Similarly, when flirting linguistically becomes cumbersome, we will instead flirt with the possibility of exchanging some kind of encryption keys that provide access to our neuroligcal processes that relate to sex or something.
Reminds me of Freud's argument in Civilization and its Discontents that our satisfaction over new technological developments actually lies in their correction of limitations imposed by previous technological developments. Thus, we love the telephone because it lets us talk to people when they are far away, but they are only far away because low-cost steam travel enabled people to move about frequently instead of staying near us.
“All our human creativity is based on radical limitations, what happens if this limitation will be abolished?” 6:08
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I didn't understand this, but i will say i love classical music too
So the unconscious is like...unmanifested potential? In all his examples he describes an empty space where things are projected onto it.
@[spinel 2020] is right, you should check the concept of "determinate negation" or bestimmte Negation in Hegel the fundamental part of his famous dialectic. That will also open you the doors to understand Marx.
Is the unconscious unmanifested potential? No. Or at least not in a meaningful way to the ego (meaningful in terms of understanding). Remember, for Zizek the unconscious is not an essence. It's not the tip of the iceberg with all the rest to be discovered (potential) 4:23. The unconscious is purely virtual.
Cheers.
@[spinel 2020] Well he's right about it, don't really know the phylosophical backgrounds and directions/periods of philosophy and all but the bottomline/hypothesis is a very true one:
The biggest nightmare of the passionate individual is to get exactly what he/she wanted and realize it wasn't what they needed at all
Perhaps even vice-versa, the biggest nightmare of the ambitious individual is to get exactly he/she needed but realize it wasn't what they wanted at all
It's that "sudden flip" from being in position of playful/curious/full-with-hope individual into becomming a 100% responsible one with only one way possible that is to "hold onto or lose what you got"
Talking about music and movies, Zizek looks Reb Teviah as fuck in this photo
Anyone who has read his book: Why is subconscious "virtual"? What does he mean by that? I think I know what virtual means (not real?) but this statement of his would be very dumb in this case.
i think he means the virtual is real but not "substantial", and so existing as an emergent structure of subjectivity and the symbolic, rather than preceding and constituting it.
@@darcyburgin1315 thankyou was trying to find a good explanation
So they video was simply cut when he was starting to get it going? Fuck... does anyone know where can I listen/watch the whole thing?
0:54
Legendary sniff. Feel honored, it’s rare.
is he talking of unconscious or expectations?
Nobody ever knows. They just keep upvoting.
@@MrClockw3rk not nobody. It seems like you only mate.
Did you complete your CS degree first ? Just procrastinating on youtube eh ? You aren't a philosopher but you aren't a technician too. Since you still havent mastered basic calculus and python buddy. First complete your Avenue of study.
And let's see how you are going to be a slave of tech giants among the endless sea of computer science degree holders.
@@observeoutofthebox7806 are you ok?
@@MrClockw3rk are you okay mate? Liking your own comments eh?
@@MrClockw3rk complete your education first.
Even then with a full 4 year degree you will still struggle to find even a free landing jobs. Because the job market is filled with workers. But not necessarily talent. Which you seem to lack anyway. You will finally settle down into a 9 to 5 job at some tech firm. Sell your life to a soul sucking job.
Run your rat race and earn just enough to live and maybe get a decsent home but NEVER enough to become a tech entrepreneur or so.
In Žižek's hands Hegel becomes the Lewis Carroll of philosophy.
Zizek is dribling and dribling and dribling in all directions on a football arena without goals. Only stand up value - at least in this clip.
Don't expect to get him without background. To get this clip you should have heard his more lengthy definitions of subconscious (which he calls unconscious) and what he thinks we can attribute to subconscious thought based on a Hegelian understanding (of which he is a proponent).
1. The rejection of excusing behavior based on the assertion that they were unplanned, uncontrollable and therefore "subconscious". He rejects the idea that the active part of our brain is the conscious and the deeper, hidden, and somehow more substantial part is the "subconscious".
2. The adoption of the active role of the subconscious in forming our conscious understanding of life/behavior but not in the sense of it being some hidden inner thing, but precisely something that exists in the uncertainty of expectation. In the first example, Zizek talks about a movie that is awful but nevertheless creates an expectation for a better book (the subconscious expectation) and that this expectation of a good book shapes his experience of the movie. When reading the book one finds a different result, that the book was bad (the conscious reality). To further illustrate this point then talks about Schuman's music and the presence and absence of 3 notes in a melody as a precursor to another of his favorite points about the Hegelian view of the determinative negation and the subconscious. What he is saying about Schumann is that by introducing the 3 notes in the beginning prior to playing the melody in the third stanza in which the 3 notes were absent, the audience's perception of that third stanza were radically different (in registering the absence of the notes) than if the notes had never been introduced. It is precisely because they heard the first stanza with the 3 notes that they could understand the third stanza as an entity defined by the lack of those 3 notes, the negation of the notes therefore determining the percieved reality of that melody. Thus, Zizek makes the argument that despite there being no actual material difference between a piece starting with the 3 note introduction and one without such an introduction, there is a perceived difference based on the subconscious negation of 3 notes. Thus the subconscious takes a very active role in our world, in which is our perception is defined not only in terms of what things are consciously observed, but through negations/by what is not observed. He follows this with the example of the "coffee without cream" vs "coffee without milk" scenerio in which he makes the assertion that the subconscious understanding of what one is drinking is based on the negation of what one is not drinking (even though the actual material value of the two drinks is the same).
3. The use of this active role of the subconscious as a necessary part of our daily life as therefore endangered by the direct access which may be provided in a "wired brain." Zizek's criticism of inventions like the Neuralink which would give us ultimate access to each other's thoughts would erase all of our ability to have a subconscious and therefore would erase a big chunk of what it means to be human. He gives the example of dating. In dating there are a lot of rhetoricals in which the subconscious is the mediator. For example, if a man fumbles and is nervous, the subconscious tells the woman that he is attracted to her and this unspoken thing becomes the basis of romance. Without this element that lies between actual material observation of the conscious (the indirect back and forth before anyone admits they like each other) romance cannot exist. To access the conscious mind, therefore, would erase the use of the subconscious and radically change human behavior.
4. To summarize, the subconscious is active in the way perception is altered by expectations. Positive expectations, such as the subconscious expectation that behind a terrible movie is a great book alter the experience of our experience of reality in the same way as negative expectations, such as the use of the 3 note negation in Schumann's music shapes our experience of his music. Thus the subconscious isn't some dormant inner "true us" that is always repressed and under the conscious but an active member of our experience always shaping our perception of reality.
Anyways, most of what Zizek says makes sense. It only sounds like ramblings if you don't follow what he has said or are otherwise unfamiliar with his arguments.
@@julieherz8909 Are you able to see yourself in the equation?
@@gunnarmuhlmann as a human with a subconscious, I do.
As someone who is going to be a part of the technocratic future ahead, with people laying stakes to the machinery that will access my brain/consciousness I do.
And you should too.
Sorry that your IQ isn't high enough to understand him.
Try watching some Rick and Morty to start raising your IQ.
@@julieherz8909 This might be a dumb question but why exactly would it erase our subconscious and if it does, how would life even look? Isn't speculation part of our progressive immersive experience?
The fact that perception and consciousness are products of unconscious processes i.e. the unconscious rules for perceiving perceptual depth, the unconscious rules we use to generate unique sentences, the unconscious rules we use to understand interpersonal contexts etc. seems to escape this master dialectician That so many contemporary academics have put Zizek on a pedestal says more about the deterioration that has taken place in the humanities than about him.
What talk is this from?
Can you describe one simple experiment, that would demonstrate this existence of "unconscious"? No, there isn't such experiment. Because Freud and Jung wrote about their own ideas and its just stories. In reality none of it exists. No Id no unconscious, hmmmmm maybe ego.
Lol where are dreams coming from if not from the unconscious?
Unconsciousness is a part of the mind like a recycle bin. Freud's unconscious counteracts the power of the will and constantly acts on all conscious proves and decisions. Is that so? Can the conscious will act independently? Are Freud and Lacan wrong? Are unconscious processes a relative thing as Jung suggested, and their effect on consciousness depends on energy events and the consistency of counterweights? Depending on which complex is activated, the shape of the whole personality and its action in the environment depends on it, external causes strongly determine unconscious events, but also sudden internal ones without the influence of consciousness. Freud thinks that castration fear is the strongest determinant of behavior and overcoming it by identifying with a symbolic or real castrator father, Lacan thinks the same but twists Freud by taking the mother as the greatest threat and castration for the development of spontaneity and adecvate organization of mental development. Mother as a crocodile with jaws (Lacan). Wasn’t Jung the first to mention that importance of a mother and his myth of hero freeing himself from that swallowing bond, strog relation with symbolic mother ? Zizek uses Lacan and Freud , possible wrong one-sided theories and the huge fact is that he has no talent for psychoanalysis and psychology of deept.
Psychoanalysis is a hoax.
An interpretation of an abstract painting at the museum.
The model of archetypes put it just more adventurous .
It is the attempt of attaching just different labels 🏷 on the man , which have an expire date of unforeseeable length.
Be it minutes , days or years.
Labels 🏷 are limitations placed upon the individual in order to keep him smoothly functioning within the frame societal rules .
…um, the “unconscious” is a purely semiotic product. This is clarified by Lacan…castration for instance is not bodily procedure but rather the “loss” of a “signifier”.
and tso on and tso on
Bravo, I mean you could never have a lake without water! ⭐🐟
And even more so imagine water without waves ~~
@@farrider3339 exactly! 🤩
3:40 virtualität bei Hegel = bestimmte Negation; all our human creativity is based on radical limitations: das Gesetz, name of the father, siehe 5:55
This is the first thing i see after waking up
Source
Rare quadruple erh at 2:38
It's painful to listen this guy but it's worth.
And now we got a Zizek face without the tics. Which is substantially different.
So what operates your liver, Zizek?
somebody, eventually, has to be logical and say that coffee w/out cream is not actually the same as coffee w/out milk
@@Barklord eh?
STOP STARING AT ME SLAVOJ
Slavoj, why don't you like Carl Jung? Are you saying that Carl Jung doesn't believe in responsibility?
Han har givetvis fel på den punkten.
For all the Lacan and Freud he has read, he seems to have a very perverted understanding of the unconscious. None of what he says is consistent with any theory.
Zizek has some important points to make in his books when he can think things through. However in his spoken presentations, he is nothing but entertainment with sprinkled academia.
Panth Mantheon I agree but I think he’s working on his own theory while drawing inspiration from various different thinkers. I could be wrong though.
@@nuckinfuts7502 I have never seen any clear assertions from him. I have only read his book Absolut Recoil, where he uses Hegel and Lacan to interpret a number of events. His thoughts there are cohesive, but it is an analysis not an original work. I have never seen him outline anything new in 1-3 statements.
I invite people who listen to Zizek to pause after the clip is over and ask themselves, "what did he argue here?". The result is often disappointing.
Panth Mantheon You should read The Parallax View. It might give you an idea as to what his project is about.
@@nuckinfuts7502 thank you for the recommendation
@@nuckinfuts7502 Yeah - I read that. Was struck more than once by how banal and mainstream his cultural analyses are. Kafka = nightmare, Joyce = liberation of the signifier. He maybe aiming at a new project but, well... he hasn't hit it yet. He's best on movie crit., but um, that's a bit sad (mere) for a 'philosopher', don't you think?
Can someone explain what he said?
The unconscious shud be unconscious said Bateson. FJ Varela went down to the most rudimentary level that beauty cud 'perform' on, thus, Bittorio (from "The Embodied Mind"). There is a mechanical issue.
So, the question exists when referring to the unconscious, R there origins to contend with? Similarly, is sleep, like Rudolf Steiner addresses, part of a necessary communication as such, metaphorically and mechanically?
Speaking in actual terminology that tends toward direction itself, an example, for the spirochetes versus undulipodia history lesson of which 'contains' subtler truth, perhaps, ignoring a whole CLASS of life forms, protoctista, and, while relativity goes out the door as it shud in the analysis (also in CLASSICAL PHYSICS, hydrino...), the second afterwards when you refer to F. Scott Gilbert about any uniQueness, very questionable (James MacAllister as well 4 where the rubber hits the road), but, for the fact that nothing ever changes eXcept to get U wrapped up in IT, don't you think we shud do something about the GLASS shield we think we R protected by? See Dane Wigington this past week.
hmm - and what medication is responsible for the sauce of word salads sans referent?
@@stueyapstuey4235 chop suey
This sounds like it's obviously generated by an AI
@@ApplepieFTW you r the subroutine, bud.
I like to think of the unconscious as a set of defence mechanisms to protect us from unbearable emotion. It's not a hidden identity any more than a shield is the personality of a knight. The problem is that it shields us from parts of our own personality. Well, not really a problem; we evolved this capacity for a reason.
If the unconscious is just defense mechanisms shielding us then what is it shielding us from? arent those parts of your personality that you dont know also subconscious? its a more general word for the known unknowns of your mind, but defense mechanisms would be part of that
I always wonder why Zizek always regurgitate this joke of the coffee in literally any topic he is talking about always makes me confused, what this joke says about consciousness is not so clear to me!
The man expects the waitress to automatically put cream in his coffee so instead of just saying coffee he says coffee without cream which adds to his words to his request and is not the simplest form of communication
And he got it right 😂😂😂 He is so dumb too much obsessed with being always right(in his own mind)
There is no such thing as conscious or unconscious etc...
so now we need to consult Zizek about what consciousness is too?
say it dont spray it brah
he's referring to the "subconscious" - no one experiences the 'unconscious'. the conscious mind is also purely virtual however and not a substantial, material object. this does not seem very deeply thought through.
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but he based his opinion on Freuds works. I read Freud a few years ago, before I new Zizek and he is talking about "unbewusste Anteile des Bewusstseins" (German) I'm not sure how to translate that correctly but to me it seems that your term "subconscious" and the "unconscious" would be the same thing from a different perspective.
So maybe you are right about zizeks statement, but maybe he is right as well. (because you may be talking about a different thing at all)
@@vinniethepuuh7553 Presumably we may have a vague awareness of the subconscious aka subliminal (cf waking dream state) but none of the unconscious and full awareness of the conscious. If the subconscious and the unconscious are the same then we can know nothing of either by definition of unconscious. We are not aware of the process by which memories are brought into the conscious mind so presumably that's a function of the unconscious where memories are usually stored I guess because we are not always consciously aware of them when they are not in the conscious mind. The subconscious communicates with the conscious via intuition etc. We could consciously and subconsciously align with the unconscious which must be another word for god (ie love, wisdom, intelligence, peace, and ultimately unassailable power). By operating the three phases in harmony we unlock the holy trinity and can fire on all cylinders, presumably. How? by persistently thinking over months and years on that which is lovely and of good report because this is a conundrum that has occupied the greatest minds throughout history. czcams.com/video/I8R50nvv5gc/video.html (perhaps I have coined the 'three phase mind')
successful application of above described techniques would probably take practice or a very gentle touch in the same way a beginner violinist hacks at the strings with their bow whereas the experienced players bow glides smoothly or a beginner car driver keeps flooding the gas making the car lurch and stop again.
Why else hasn't it been accepted by the mainstream yet?
Jealousy ... trips up the mind and heart collectively and individually and prevents discovery. There are mental strategies for overcoming this such as learning to sincerely wish more of whatever it is for the other person however well endowed they appear in comparison to ourself. When we learn to overcome jealousy and vindictiveness we will automatically ie naturally transcend to new levels as a species ('e'v'n on 'rth).
Also wrath funnily enough is a big hindrance because it focusses all ones attention onto another(s) and is therefore akin to jealousy and fear which shut down the unconscious communication route / channel.
+
it's simple yet complex, is maybe not always easy, and errors may be fatal. (nevertheless, world wide, countless people are inadvertently stepping out (of the picture) daily, due to such errors, which they are making unwittingly therefore foundational research understanding and world wide dissemination may be in order, unless the video of the elephant was fabricated.).
+ pride! (lol), people not equalising the pressure periodically, which leads to individual or collective social dissonance, explosion, and loss of reason, ie it is the fastest route to cloud cuckoo land, see conclusion below [czcams.com/video/klPZIGQcrHA/video.html ].
So there you have it.
(... an elephant having a 'biblical' experience, or "Mumbo Jumbo"?)
Chris Hedges for World Leader and Avi Loeb for Deputy!
... forevermore.
Wtf was this about?
Like a laptop, over rated, over priced and underpowered
I never understand how Zizek can reach these wild, misunderstandings of such concepts whilst being touted as a philosopher. It's as though he's using a different set of definitions for things, so his sentences lack logical paths and instead leap in strange ways, resulting in erronous conclusions. His interpretaion of Jung's explorations of the unconscious as a method to alleviate responsibility for things is moronic and oversimplistic. If you read Jung's works, even casuall, you'd be aware that Jung believed that it was the individual's responibility to delve into the unconscious and actualise the self.
It's the exact opposite of what Zizek is saying. It's almost as if Zizek doesn't really know what he's talking about.
I have a feeling you misunderstood him in the video. Zizek quoted Freud to say that, unlike in Christianity where you're only responsible for your wilful and conscious actions, in psychoanalysis you are held responsible even for your unconscious. I don't think ZIzek argued that the unconscious is "a method to alleviate responsibility for things" (your quote). Rather, he argued for the inverse, which happens to be the same argument that Jung has made, according to your comment.
On a second and final note, as a philosopher Zizek is indeed "using a different set of definitions for things" than say a psychologist or sociologist would. So his conclusions may only seem "erroneous" (a highly loaded word) if you've yet to exit a psychological paradigm.
@@cammmoy1234567 " So his conclusions may only seem "erroneous" (a highly loaded word) if you've yet to exit a psychological paradigm."
How are people supposed to leave the psychological paradigm when those outside of it are incoherent and can't form a simple and direct sentence to explain their thoughts?
@@Bluz1 "How am I supposed to learn French when it just sounds like a bunch of gibberish?"
@@adudzik Terrible comparison.
@@Bluz1 For any particular reason, or you just don't like it?
"what people get wrong." yeah, what he gets wrong.
Would you elaborate?
@@vinniethepuuh7553 dude i posted that comment 4 months ago. i cant remember what i meant.
Freud got too obsessed with sex, probably because he lived through an age of repression.
The unconscious now seems to play a far greater role in terms of ideology, politics and class. The way class interest operates under a shell of ideology.
E.G. Liberal ideology and it's attitude to immigrants. On the surface, all very altruistic, but underneath, is it all about creating competition for jobs in order to push down wages?
Or say the impossible utopianism of certain elements on the Left? Is such puritanism a guise whereby Middle Class Leftists don't actually want socialism, they really want to lose, under a guise of resistance?
Or by the same token, the Right's white chauvinism, a way to exploit the working class under a guise of protecting the working class. A way of prizing the working class from its affinity to socialism. As in we love you so much, we want to take away your benefits, destroy your trade unions, bring back conscription etc.
None of which seems to be done on any conscious level, at a conscious level most ideological positions seem to be held sincerely. The real motivations are for the most part submerged beneath an idealistic superstructure.
E.G, we're too cynical about the likes of George Dubya or Trump, seeing them as arch manipulators, but they really haven't the intelligence to be so Machiavellian, not at a conscious level anyway. At a conscious level they probably believe they are doing god's work in spreading American influence around the world, probably believe they are helping the poor by slashing welfare,
Wherein Adam Smith's hidden hand meets Freud's Id, Ego, Superego
Like we need to develop psychoanalytic tools for suppressed class interest. Given class chauvinism is hiding more and more under an altruistic facade.
Bread and [media] circuses.
Have you ever read Freud?
@@NoahsUniverse Yeah, and I think Freud was important, even though most his theories about the Oedipus comp;ex, penis envy, phallic symbology in dreams etc are for the most part speculative, and unhelpful he did seem to hit upon the fact that most human impulses lay submerged. It's just those
submerged impulses are for the most part political, not sexual. And if they are sexual, it's far more to do with sex just being like any other means of production, a means that must be controlled in order to dominate and subjugate,
His Id, Ego, Super Ego is his greatest contribution. Which you see manifest again again in the political realm.
Both at the micro and the macro level.
E.G. Trump Id, Biden Ego, Bernie Super Ego.
@@JAMAICADOCK I think you should read "civilization and its discontents" by freud.
@@NoahsUniverse Many years ago, I found it interesting how he expanded the micro of the individual psych to the mythologies of entire civilizations.
As in Christ was an oedipal figure. The father figure put to death etc.
Like most of Freud, he's saying something seminal, but then over-complicates things.
I mean civilizations don't develop because of suppressed oedipal urges, they develop because one class owns the means of production and the powerless become exploited.
Then the extrapolation of the micro to the macro then comes into play - as in the nation is an extension of the family. The fatherland, the motherland etc. Evoking the family becomes a means of controlling the masses.
But that the proletariat refuse to overthrow the paternal class because of some suppressed oedipal shame - seems a stretch.
From a Marxist point of view its more simple, the paternal class, the bourgeois/ aristocracy - falsely evokes the family to better control and exploit the proletariat. The proletariat is the child class - suppressed sexually, kept in a state of ignorance with fairy stories - i.e. religion.
That's where I think Freud and Marx can work together. But much of it is straight forward, no need for arcane allusions to mythology.
Ruling elites evoke the family for straight forward reasons, and the child-like masses lap it up for obvious reasons too.
Here’s a challenge for people who think this guy isn’t a moron: try to describe one of his unique ideas here in a few sentences without reference to another philosopher or philosophical concept, and without saying what he’s against. Plain language only.
Heres a challenge for you, go color a coloring book
BongoseroPersa you can’t do it
@@MrClockw3rk im pretty sure i can color a coloring book
BongoseroPersa you can dodge all you want, but the fact is you can’t meet the challenge and neither can anyone else. Zizek doesn’t actually say anything. Eventually all his ball lickers are going to have to admit it to themselves and move on.
@@MrClockw3rk Stick to Anime paul, be happy dont worry
Elon Musk says that the primordial cerebral cortex function is to make the limbic system happy. The limbic system would be the inconscient. It's not fragile, but determinant.
Elon Musk is 'clearly' a neuroscientist and not at all a rocket scientist... Not like he's bought and/or collaborating to push the agenda to shift into virtual reality or something
People get wrong and, of course, the greart nose cleanner get's it right and he's here to lay down the law and dictate it from the ivory tower to the masses of peasents. Of course.
Of course.
( with a nice photo in the thumbnail and all... )
This is a very bad explanation
Yep, to lacanian.
He sounds like Donald Duck.
S N I F F
I dont think this face can talk about what anybody gets wrong!
I've heard this man talk twice now and twice have my
emotional horns faltered in displeasure. Seems like this man has no intuition at all
And what would intution add to the conversation
Because CZcams commentors always have perfect intuitions... XD
@@Dman9fp "..... XD" I do not know why even take time to put thought on Zizek; here the dribbler has to quote his own book and still he somehow sounds so uneloquent and what he says so insignificant, way he talks--he is speaking to his peers the sea. Dumbed down thinking makes me feel disgusting.
"okay I did that but sorry guys it was my unconscious" "to me unconscious is something much more subtle" "i HavE iT iN tHe bOoK " and the stories.....
me just saying:
unconscious is an animal
is more than he can manage in these 6 minutes
What on earth does he know about the study of psychology?? Nothing!
It’s not his field and it’s not like Slovenia was ever the center of any related scholarly research!
Where is Jordan Peterson to educate this man when you need it?