Carnality in improvisation

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Why are we so easily baited into discussions when someone does something sloppy like this piece? It reminds me of something Zizek (sorry, I like him) said about memes:

A "meme" spreads neither because of its actual beneficial effects upon its bearers (say, those who adopt it are more successful in life and thus gain an upper hand in the struggle for survival) nor because of its characteristics that make it subjectively attractive to its bearers (one would naturally tend to give privilege to the idea that promises happiness over the idea that promises nothing but misery and renunciation). Like a computer virus, the meme proliferates simply by programming its own retransmission.... What is so unsettling about this notion is that we, humans endowed with mind, will, and an experience of meaning, are nonetheless unwitting victims of a "thought contagion" that operates blindly, spreading itself like a computer virus.

"the meme proliferates simply by programming its own retransmission...." How would that work? What is actually meant by this? And especially, what makes a good, successful meme, and what not - "apart from its characteristics", that is?


imo, the mechanism of baiting is simple in this case, and doesn't need a meme-metaphore: someone writes something dismissive & illinformed about something we care about in a magazine that is respected by lots of people (hipsters or not, doesn't matter) who because of that writing might get a wrong impression of the thing we like, so we jump to its defense, trying to put into words why it is sloppy, and trying to determine if there are some valid points in it, so that we might learn as well. while doing so, we hope there are some Wire-readers lurking here, and Keenan as well.

something like that. don't see any problem with it, on the contrary.

[flies]

guitar not feminine?



very few guitars are more phallic (in shape) than the one Rowe currently uses.

here's one of them:

[Jesse]

What is so unsettling about this notion is that we, humans endowed with mind, will, and an experience of meaning, are nonetheless unwitting victims of a "thought contagion" that operates blindly, spreading itself like a computer virus.

(from Organs without Bodies)

[/quote]

This is good, and, gradually, this principle is limiting my posting to threads owning a thin veneer of *controversy*, or heat.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Zizek is just saying, in a fancy pomo-way, (and as such obscuring things rather than illuminating them) that our minds are influenced by other people, and that there is no such thing as a free will or independent thought. It's hardly an insight imo.

Jesse, I don't really get why this leads you to limiting your posting in heated threads - if you are afraid about the purity of your own mind, you should even stop reading those threads? Or is it something else?

[Jesse]

*Purity of my mind*-you have to be kidding?

A meme has no merit outside of a self-perpetuated, manufactured one, like the network news/political sound-bytes, et al. Research has shown that sheeple eventually believe, and regurgitate those beliefs, almost anything that echoes/circulates long enough.

[rainey]

"the meme proliferates simply by programming its own retransmission...." How would that work?

Don't you answer this question yourself, below?

the mechanism of baiting is simple in this case...: someone writes something dismissive & illinformed about something we care about in a magazine that is respected by lots of people (hipsters or not, doesn't matter) who because of that writing might get a wrong impression of the thing we like, so we jump to its defense...

Do we really need to be such easy targets? What would a cost/benefit analysis of what is "learned" in this process look like?

By the way, I don't think that David Keenan is ill-informed. He has a certain taste, which includes liking this: http://vimeo.com/11890418 He also has a writing style that continually brings up discussions like these because, to put the meme concept in a more concise phrase, he's good at pushing people's buttons. I would like to see people's buttons get smaller and less clearly labeled.

[rainey]

Zizek is just saying, in a fancy pomo-way, (and as such obscuring things rather than illuminating them) that our minds are influenced by other people, and that there is no such thing as a free will or independent thought.

Well, no, in fact. He's saying that our minds are influenced by things not necessarily (or strictly) human at all, and he is struggling to show where free will or independent thought actually exists.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

*Purity of my mind*-you have to be kidding?

A meme has no merit outside of a self-perpetuated, manufactured one, like the network news/political sound-bytes, et al. Research has shown that sheeple eventually believe, and regurgitate those beliefs, almost anything that echoes/circulates long enough.

yeah I was laughing too when I wrote it, but still, I can't see your reasons for not posting.

[mudd]

I would like to see people's buttons get smaller and less clearly labeled.

excellent.

m

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Zizek is just saying, in a fancy pomo-way, (and as such obscuring things rather than illuminating them) that our minds are influenced by other people, and that there is no such thing as a free will or independent thought.

Well, no, in fact. He's saying that our minds are influenced by things not necessarily (or strictly) human at all, and he is struggling to show where free will or independent thought actually exists.

Of course our minds are influenced by stuff not (strictly) human. Again, a no-brainer that doesn't need his pomo-babble. However you take it, the "meme" is a product of humans. it only self-perpetuates because it is perpetuated by humans.

Of course he's struggling to show where free will or independent thought exists, because they don't. De facto. He says himself we are unwitting victims of a blind thought contagion, so... He might be struggling to find whose thoughts are less dependent, ok, but independent?

So again, in the part you quoted, Zizek is obscuring stuff rather than adding insight. What is even more ironic is that the notion of the "meme" isn't even his.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

"the meme proliferates simply by programming its own retransmission...." How would that work?

Don't you answer this question yourself, below?

No. The way Zizek describes this process seems wrong on its own terms: 'programming' is an active verb, implying the meme has a kind of conscious or plan, but at the same time it is dubbed blind. An idea/soundbite/meme/whatever doesn't "program its own retransmission" - instead of such fancy words, I'd simply say it is picked up by humans or not, and in that way proliferated, or not. Also my other question still remains: what makes a meme to be picked up or not, "apart from its characteristics"?

Do we really need to be such easy targets? What would a cost/benefit analysis of what is "learned" in this process look like?

I don't think we are targets. I think we try to do justice to what we like/believe, and exchange thoughts about it while doing so. I do not see why you feel we are "baited". I don't see the need for these hunter/hunted-metaphores.

Cost/benefit analysis: cost = the time to read this, time to think/type replies, maybe electricity and a fraction of what your computer has costed. Maybe some peoples blood pressure rises. Benefits = some time killed, probably enjoyed it while doing so, and maybe, if we're lucky (and apt readers), some insights gained.
Balance: no harm done, some pleasure gained.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Btw, the major button here seems to be SEX. Keenan knows which metaphors sell.

Lets bring in Lacan, shall we?

[rainey]

It seems to me that your arguments against this Zizek quote are "dismissive and ill-informed". It's not particularly po-mo or jargon-y. It's actually quite straightforward. Fantastically so for any "modern thinker". And, of course, there is a context that surrounds it that you are probably pleased to be ignoring.

I'm not trying to flaunt some academic prowess, here (I don't have any. I like reading stuff, and that's about it). I had read the passage recently and found it appropriate. I get the sense that there is a little chest-puffing when "big" authors get mentioned (it's another button that's easy to push - just mention Debord for instant post generation). Dismissing something out-of-hand by claiming it's really all very simple seems to run counter to the very process you claim is at work, here.

Btw, the major button here seems to be SEX. Keenan knows which metaphors sell.

More specifically, I think the button is impotence.

[diederich]

More specifically, I think the button is impotence.

Also excellent.

[leroysghost]

between Bhob and Joe, we have the greatest peanut gallery anyone could ever hope for.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

It seems to me that your arguments against this Zizek quote are "dismissive and ill-informed". It's not particularly po-mo or jargon-y. It's actually quite straightforward. Fantastically so for any "modern thinker". And, of course, there is a context that surrounds it that you are probably pleased to be ignoring.

You really believe what you are writing? You do not feel the quote you provided is obscurantist? You do not feel there are easier ways to phrase such an observation? Why is there the need for a metaphor like "meme"? What context would there be that makes it such an interesting, good metaphor.

Dismissing something out-of-hand by claiming it's really all very simple seems to run counter to the very process you claim is at work, here.

I didn't claim anything out-of-hand, I tried to give arguments, mainly by rephrases of his thinking. You've responded to only one of those and left some other questions unanswered. My posts are the one being dismissed here, now that I think of it. I've never dismissed the processes he hints as simple, I only said it can be said/described in a much simpler way.

[washline]

Do we need Zizek to save us now?

Actually, I think I know exactly what Zizek would say to the Keenan essay. He would do as any good Lacanian would and attend to the final sentence. That's the one where K's desire becomes fully explicit.

OTOH, the notion that Zizek is a "pomo" philosopher is utter nonsense. He's trying to resuscitate Hegel via Lacan, but like Lovecraft's "Reanimator," the corpse simply isn't fresh enough.

Why are people so easily baited into such discussions? Probably because most of the other topics have already been covered ad nauseum. It's what keeps the "hate" going on I Hate Music.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Admittedly, pomo was a too easy shorthand. I meant it generally, more as a time-indication. Something like "a trendy obscurantist writer that is held in high regard by late 20th century (European?) people who have somekind of Master in Arts and think he is a revolutionary, just as Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan and the likes."

Do not get me wrong, I learned a lot from Zizek in my early twenties, but I think he is a writer to digest and spit out afterwards.

[washline]

Schik, it's never fair to gauge a philosopher on the basis of a few graduate students who adore him/her. I think Derrida is the most significant of the poststructuralists and to this day the impact of his work has still to be completely understood and appreciated. Zizek is still very interesting to me even if I have problems with him. I read Organs Without Bodies with Hong Chulki a few years back, and while I'm always amused and enchanted by Zizek's riffs and hyperboles, I find his statements posed as queries (i.e. "Is it not the case that...") a bit unsatisfying because the arguments are never really supported in that kind of rhetoric. Still, Zizek is a monster intellect, and I think you're wrong to glibly dismiss him. In fact, glib dismissals of things understood in a mediocre way is the modus operandi of the graduate student. Having been one myself, I know all too well.

"Obscurantism" is the facile critique thrown at the French and Germans. It's not very impressive. There's a lot, lot more going on with this stuff such that we can ever be satisfied with quick dismissals and overly casual reductions.

OK, back to Keenan.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

(For those not interested in this discussion, this'll be my last sidetrack post in this thread.)

"Obscurantism" is the facile critique thrown at the French and Germans. It's not very impressive. There's a lot, lot more going on with this stuff such that we can ever be satisfied with quick dismissals and overly casual reductions.

OK, back to Keenan.

True of course, all those thinkers are interesting. I still am a massive Foucault fan. And admittedly, I don't really get Derrida. Obscurantist is not really meant as a critique, more as a description of their style, which is, as you, in a way, admit yourself in the quote below, often problematic, and sometimes even generates their philosophy (semantic & etymological linking, etc.). The riffs, metaphores and hyperboles are often just that, rethoric, as I tried to indicate with my rephrasings of the initial quote about "memes". It looks intellectual, difficult words and all, but in the end that quote is simply a huge open door. I feel it is often the case like that with Zizek. I don't like that, and I think it complicates things, instead of illuminating things. That's all.

I read Organs Without Bodies with Hong Chulki a few years back, and while I'm always amused and enchanted by Zizek's riffs and hyperboles, I find his statements posed as queries (i.e. "Is it not the case that...") a bit unsatisfying because the arguments are never really supported in that kind of rhetoric.