No problem. Just saying I like 'em both. That Lacanian idea of the real is fascinating. Lacan in general is fascinating, right on the line of total faker and sometime genius. I also like forgotten badboy Paul de Man, but he's a genius in his work and was only a faker in his life.

Debord argues that the history of social life can be understood as "the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing. — Wiki

I'd like Debord and Marshall McLuhan to come back and see the internet's role in this world.

But your quote spoke of an epistemic trauma and your own complaint is of an ontological trauma.

Shome category error shurely? — apokrisis

Not category error. Similar conclusions perhaps. There is something about human consciousness which is tragic. You are saying that the tragedy is a fiction brought on by Enlightenment (and then perhaps balked and thought perhaps civilization). I said that the tragedy is democratic and afforded to all people with deliberative, self-reflecting brains.

I'd like Debord and Marshall McLuhan to come back and see the internet's role in this world. — plaque flag

Eerie how their description fits the internet age so well.

The idea, I think, is that the protagonist of this tragedy is a social construction.

The idea, I think, is that the protagonist of this tragedy is a social construction. — plaque flag

Yes, but not a social fiction. There's a difference. It is at the least entailed in our species, not our culture.

I said that the tragedy is democratic and afforded to all people with deliberative, self-reflecting brains. — schopenhauer1

The tragedy is a real as anything, just to be clear. But this self experiencing itself in a matrix is a repetition of my favorite religious myth, the crucifixion. The cross is a mother is a matrix. Its perpendicular lines suggest a collision of opposites. It's only ever down here on our gliding prison planet that good can exist -- always in chains, dreaming a freedom that would be death, as if life's obstacle were its knowledge of itself.

Yes, but not a social fiction. There's a difference. It is at the least entailed in our species, not our culture. — schopenhauer1

To me the self (poor ghost held responsible for the operation of his machine) is perhaps our oldest piece of technology.

A member of the chorus steps forward and gets his own lines.

To me the self (poor ghost held responsible for the operation of his machine) is perhaps our oldest piece of technology. — plaque flag

I can agree with that. It is a necessary construct. Hunter-gatherers are more communal but they are not completely different minds. They are not the borg or hive mind, or whatever neo-Noble Savage we can put upon them to make the tragedy some sort of YOU thing problem not an US thing problem.

It is a necessary construct. — schopenhauer1

:up:

Guys, I truly appreciate your passion for Zizek, but this OP has a clear topic with clear questions.

:up:

So did Apo help you understand Zizek?

Rather made me understand that there isn't much to understand. He hints at ''strong emergence", maybe even consciousness being fundamental in a way. I posted something similar on Reddit and I was a bit more successful there. It seems that Zizek goes for an irreducible mind, and it can be fundamental in a way.
But in both Reddit and here, I understand that there is no clear view on this and that this type of philosophy is not analytical, it's fuzzy, unclear, confusing, contradictory, etc.

I had a quick scan of the article on him in the IEP and he seems to be more of a political philosopher, not so much concerned with consciousness particularly. But I could be wrong, I know nothing about him really.

Yes. Actually, the other guys were suggesting the same thing. When he's talking about consciousness, it is more in a sort of a political context.
To be honest, I don't understand that language. I can't make much sense of what people are talking even on this OP, and not because they're wrong, but because my language is limited to the classical model of debate.

If Socrates was to be embodied as a 21st century man then this Zizek guy would come close.