tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.comments2010-10-24T00:11:00.673+02:00Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-90938331290415073602010-10-24T00:11:00.673+02:002010-10-24T00:11:00.673+02:00You mean headbutting them into oblivion?<br /><br />I fear we are nearing a situation where the prophesy of Rosa Luxemburg that the future is either communism or barbarism will again come true (old Adolf proved her right the first time around). I will not choose violence. But as the economic crisis lingers on, as lives are lost, lived in desperation, hate is building up. As the bourgeoisie and their committees (the governments) have chosen not to back up even for an instant, I don&#39;t see much hope of a peaceful solution. And I refuse to reenact the fate of the communards. What else is there left for us but to prepare for violence?Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-743099634524473812010-10-23T23:49:30.266+02:002010-10-23T23:49:30.266+02:00How, oh wise one, shall we commense this task? As someone who shares your vision but with no inclination for weilding real weapons, I think we need to use our heads to defeat them, perhaps?Shakuntalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16729507915162759526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-80050252453787688022009-05-07T20:57:00.000+02:002009-05-07T20:57:00.000+02:00If it is the "phallocentric view of men on sexuality", why then does it make so much fun for some men (and women)to search and conquer it with their fingers?alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08386838018507379894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-63607783806922905892009-01-22T00:01:00.000+01:002009-01-22T00:01:00.000+01:00Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. Don't believe everything I write about Heidegger though, sometimes I think I might be just a bit too harsh on him.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-26984353848356787522009-01-21T23:41:00.000+01:002009-01-21T23:41:00.000+01:00hello mr. saso, i like your writing and i specially like what you write on heidegger.<BR/>thank you.airvolthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948977451247375132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-3133330352822263432008-12-23T22:52:00.000+01:002008-12-23T22:52:00.000+01:00Again, broadly I do agree with your premise and specifically I've learnt something about Žižek. I mostly know his stuff on cinema and games.Shakuntalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16729507915162759526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-51863008366734699762008-12-23T21:07:00.000+01:002008-12-23T21:07:00.000+01:00As a proper Marxist I must answer the question this way: no class (including it's intellectuals) can ever have a universally progressive character, but by acting on its own interests it can manifest a progressive moment. The French revolution was without a doubt a progressive force, but after 1848 the bourgeoisie quickly turned conservative (Lukacs does an interesting reading of Hölderlin's Hyperion interpreting it as a lament for the lost heroic days of the bourgeoisie: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1934/holderlin.htm )<BR/>So actually no person can ever be universally progressive - save the petit bourgeois with an "abstract humanism and democratism" (quote from a Yugoslav textbook on dialectical materialism) which is lacking all practical force.<BR/><BR/>But that aside, what Žižek is writing/saying is very consistently just plain silly. Whether he talks about how he enjoyed witnessing the tanks roll into Prague in 68 while eating a strawberry pie or whether he claims that German idealism is the pinnacle of philosophy, it is clear that no progressive thought can be expected from him.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-85801499562561129692008-12-22T21:51:00.000+01:002008-12-22T21:51:00.000+01:00I learnt something about Žižek from you today. I agree with you about these comments on the economy and the bailout. But don't you think that people can be progressive thinkers in some areas and spheres and not in others? Take Toni Morrison the novelist as an example. She's written some of the most moving and sophisticated analyses of race history and politics in the States. But her spoken commentaries on current politics are sometimes naive and rarely of the same calibre. Isn't it too absolutist to say that a thinker is either progressive or not? On the other hand, who am I to talk? I can almost not speak to or read people who supported the bombing of Iraq, however 'progressive' their thought in other areas...Shakuntalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16729507915162759526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-34685278819023161752008-11-27T11:58:00.000+01:002008-11-27T11:58:00.000+01:00Thank you very much for your comment, it is nice to hear I have managed to illuminate some new aspect for somebody.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-59616309290704411192008-11-26T17:56:00.000+01:002008-11-26T17:56:00.000+01:00Definitely pointing me in a direction I have never given much thought to before....I am very pleased that I read this.Seán McGradyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08138774861378243607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-65525194357082654572008-11-04T00:06:00.000+01:002008-11-04T00:06:00.000+01:00I'm not completely convinced by the theoretical underpinnings of the article (I think there is some merit in criticisms of the labour theory of value), nonetheless I find the conclusions very sound, much more so than those proposed by many economically better informed authors.<BR/><BR/>What I find most intriguing about the reactions to the crisis is hearing all the Keynesians going "told you so" and the liberals throwing accusations of "socialism" all over the place, which triggers a bitter reminiscence of the opening lines of the Communist manifesto:<BR/><BR/>"Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?"<BR/><BR/>Why bitter? Because the political spectrum has narrowed to a stranglehold, we are left without a left - the most radical position being the one of a "soft, kind hearted, logical and good Capitalism". I think it was bad enough before the crisis, with destruction of the environment, imperialist exploitation of developing countries, rising class divisions, militarism, progressive reduction of politics to administration and generally poisoning every seed of a humane society.<BR/><BR/>About the failed attempts: I think we should remember all the sprouts of democratic socialism that were violently crushed during the 19. century. The fact that only the Bolshevik seed could hold its own among the sinister foliage of capitalism says more about capitalism than it does about socialism, wouldn't you say?Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-53732589594223324092008-11-02T09:45:00.000+01:002008-11-02T09:45:00.000+01:00Hmm, I think that although not viewing the current crisis as farce so much as the inevitable result of self-interest, greed and wrong-doing (uhum... that thing Good Social Democrats like to think of as Bad Capitalism (as opposed to soft, kind hearted, logical and good Capitalism) ... the writer in the article below would agree with your analysis. <BR/><BR/>http://www.creative-i.info/?p=1772<BR/><BR/>And here I am rubbishing neither the idea of shades of grey within Capitalism, nor of more and less illiberal versions of Social Democratic Economic, simply agreeing with you if they cannot consider ever getting out of the situation entirely (either because they think it has been done and FAILED (really???) or because they simply cannot imagine it, then the kind of happenings we see going on at the moment are inevitable.Shakuntalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16729507915162759526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-11096620964653192912008-11-01T23:44:00.000+01:002008-11-01T23:44:00.000+01:00The question how to read philosophy, that you touch upon here, is very important. I think Adorno would have completely agreed with you. In his metaphysics lectures he made much the same point: that his philosophy has often been misunderstood, because it was taken as statement of fact instead of a pursuing of general tendencies. I think the value of his philosophy is shedding light on social processes by analytically pursuing their extreme forms, which means that his writing can not be read as statement of fact. Rather, the distance to empirical reality functions as leverage for critical thought.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-56078973072075394282008-11-01T11:21:00.000+01:002008-11-01T11:21:00.000+01:00Sometimes when I read 'theorisations' - I guess like this one - I have to force myself not to nod along in a too easy association of particular situations, empirical examples with the theory. Too close an association of particular empirical instances with a general rule can belie the rule or divorce the instances from some of their other equally true meanings. I'm not being soft on capitalist recruitment practices - rather it's that age old thing about whether Hegemony really is as Hegemonic as this - wonderfully exemplary tale makes it seem or whether things are more complicated and hence difficult, problematic, tiring to tackle.Shakuntalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16729507915162759526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-33940343322356817112008-03-06T22:46:00.000+01:002008-03-06T22:46:00.000+01:00Heidegger can be very complex, but still he obviously makes other philosophers fall on their knees when speaking about him:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB8Nrru3D4Y<BR/><BR/>JanJan Orsichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04332128006286287469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-70471083745725643832008-03-05T10:43:00.000+01:002008-03-05T10:43:00.000+01:00Another interesting thing that I noticed while watching Zelda endings on YouTube: they all have an essentially unfinished character (which can be said for the majority of Japanese RPGs I guess). I noticed one comment, where the author complained about post-Zelda depression. Wonder if it is the lack of closure that is at the root of it. I always experience it after finishing a good Japanese RPG.<BR/><BR/>Damned, I need to get me a Gamecube!Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-22754557396780680512008-03-05T10:19:00.000+01:002008-03-05T10:19:00.000+01:00Fascinating watching this Zelda clip. Especially the love that cannot be, which is not problematised at all. Ever since the time of Romeo and Juliet we are rather used to the model, where romantic love is hierarchically put higher than other social obligations. In Zelda the realms of light and shadow are fixed and the individual must adapt. It is social obligations that come before individual needs and wants.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-31000253300360538032008-03-04T13:50:00.000+01:002008-03-04T13:50:00.000+01:00Despite the fact that Zelda series does not have the narrative you presented and that you do not include it into this group the last Zelda game on GameCube and Wii is very interesting throught the prism of romance. Especially the ending. Princess of Zelda is not the main female character - at least in Link's eyes. The female character Link has feelings toward is acctually his gender-less little partner character that helps link through the game. And Link falls in love with ... it or ... her. <BR/><BR/>Check it out for yourself:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP9Hg_g4vVE&feature=related<BR/><BR/>It plays with a typical myth of romantic love that cannot be realized and will never be. However, this sort of "sad" ending would probably have never happened in an American game. The question is what happens to Zelda and Link ...<BR/><BR/>Igor<BR/><BR/>P.S. Snes and its RPGs rules. Great fun.Igor Vobičhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17022018547446859579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-57263642949515388602008-03-04T13:47:00.000+01:002008-03-04T13:47:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Igor Vobičhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17022018547446859579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-20931270230146756672008-01-24T16:15:00.000+01:002008-01-24T16:15:00.000+01:00This is a tricky question: should hate speech be censored or not? I am inclined to say no. Dialogue is possible in the presence of hate speech if a discursive culture is established that knows how to deal with it. We can see on the other hand how extremist are using the fact that their hate speech is censored as an argument for their cause: they say that they are being wronged and that if their arguments were heard, they would prove them right. And since they are being censored there is no way of proving them wrong. Censorship pits power against power - but power is quite indifferent to moral right and wrong. Therefore censorship works as long as power happens to be on the right side, of which there can be no guarantee.<BR/><BR/>But the question I was addressing was another one: should the person, who is providing the platform, where hate speech happens, in the case that the platform does not inspire it or is hateful itself, be sanctioned for it. In the case of blogs I think not, because this would impose the model of newspapers on them. It would make sense to sanction a newspaper for printing hateful letter to the editor, since it willingly selected it. But authors of blogs do not select the comments that get posted and therefore I believe it is wrong to hold them responsible for them.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-64106743563658391592008-01-23T23:19:00.000+01:002008-01-23T23:19:00.000+01:00Does being responsible really implies censorship? Isn't responsiblity in the matter of hate-speech an expression of the right to communicate (in d'Arcy's terms for instance)? Is a dialogue possible (by definition) in the case of hate-speech? Waiting for your reply ...Igor Vobičhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17022018547446859579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-13507407459899451442008-01-20T00:47:00.000+01:002008-01-20T00:47:00.000+01:00I think responding to comments and being responsible for their content are two very different things. One implies dialogue, the other censorship. So I would not agree that the question of right and wrong is arbitrary at all.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-48162088198785243102008-01-13T16:49:00.000+01:002008-01-13T16:49:00.000+01:00Resposiblity for comments under a blog's post is blogger's. However the question what is "right" and "wrong" is quite arbitrary, web media ethics have not been consolidated yet ... <BR/><BR/>What is the point of having a blog if you do not check comments under your posts and respond to them?Igor Vobičhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17022018547446859579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-32096007307784100912007-12-28T18:30:00.000+01:002007-12-28T18:30:00.000+01:00such arrogance?!!?<BR/>yukalexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08386838018507379894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3380869991121584325.post-66273155588907720762007-12-09T10:34:00.000+01:002007-12-09T10:34:00.000+01:00I would appreciate to know whether the rest of the book is worth reading, Nick. I know Gauntlett wrote some good stuff in the past. I think Ten things wrong with the effects model is brilliant, so I was shocked when I read the introduction to Web.Studies.Sašohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13456395844653983485noreply@blogger.com