I couldn't understand a thing you said, but the resulting confusion is so interesting that I can hope of some day grasping something from it while I parrot it for STYLE. Thank you very much.
0:01 Intro 2:55 Outline 3:56 What is freedom (Zizek vs Kant) 9:10 What is the "gap"? (Hegel vs Kant) 10:35 What is a parallax? 12:12 What is the parallax gap? (Zizek on Kant) 12:52 Lacan and anamorphosis (example: The Ambassadors painting) 15:50 The gaze (Lacan vs Sartre) 20:30 The uncanny (Freud) 22:25 The undead (Kant and indefinite judgements) 26:30 Psychotic Foreclosure 35:00 3 categories of uncanny (Lacan, Freud and Schelling) 49:45 Back to the Parallax Gap and how it relates to the uncanny and subjectivity 53:18 Preview of next lecture (How this relates to Hegel) 55:30 Recap of entire class (Useless Precaution) 1:00:00 Outro
Thanks! And I appreciate the deep dive into my older lectures. This one was part of the series that ended up in my current ebook. If you’re interested it’s available at: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
Alright Julian, let me humbly try to help people to make sense of your overly abstract presentation. If I misspeak (or write) please correct me so that I can learn that I am wrong. Here is a scenario: A fly fisherman and a fish (I am a self-taught angler after all.) From the perspective of the fish, the underwater is its phenomenal world. The world that it can observe. The fly fisherman is in the noumenon world of the fish that it will never experience. From the Kantian perspective, this parallax gap will never reconcile (or should I say produce a synthesis) because the subjectivity of the fish. The fish is not capable enough (or smart enough) to conceptually cross the gap. The fish is the obstacle. From Zizek's (or Lacan's) perspective it is very different. The gap is there, but only retroactively: Here is how: the fly fisherman ties a fly that imitates an underwater insect. The moment fish bites it, the fish experiences an uncanny situation and realizes that what it bit is more than food/non-food binary but something that preys on the fish (it hurts the fish after all.) The fish realized that the act of biting become the vanishing mediator, and the fish saw itself through the object (the fly) as the prey. In other words, the fish became a subject and its subjectivity created the parallax gap. Furthermore, (and more importantly) the subjectivity of the fisherman is also created by that bite too. That is, by the bite, the fisherman realized that he is not just a dude with a stick in the water but a fisherman that can catch a fish. Fisherman saw himself as an object through the subject of the fish. So, the noumenon absolute needs the subject of the particular.
4 4 parallax gap Spark of life comes from not knowing god exists, your purpose. If you know = follow or be a puppet (lose individuality). Freedom for kant = don’t know what god wants so i found out (subjectivity between phenomena and noumenal which leads to agency as want to get closer to god) True freedom = i know what you want from me and i will do the opposite Parallax gap = subject not overcoming phenomena, but the object of the phenomena is subjectivity itself. No fixed Kantian gap. The stance of the subject determines the phenomena and noumenal as seen from the subject. Holbein the ambassadors - stand outside the neutral gaze, askance, you will see the skeleton. Correct way of viewing paitning is to look at it in the wrong way. Gaze relational - Sartre - exchange of how we look and are looked. As if being watched. Like imagining seen by others. (thinks authetntic subjects see oother atuentic subjects and vice versa) Lacan anamorphic illusion = Gaze is gaze of the object looking at you. Only conceive of ourselves as subjects when objectify ourselves when the other sees us as pure objects by a pure authentic subject. We think others are real, and assume they are more real than we are, and then therefore retroactively create ourselves as a person. Subjectivity created anamorphically through another. Only way to look at other as authentic subject (which means looking at own subjectivity in the own way). Uncanny - third feature, undead = luminal third place. Affirmation of a non-predicate. Life is between knowing and not knowing god (being in and anot in god). Subjectivity as this third category. Excessive feature. (kant - subject as object to reaching noumena). Hegel /zizek - not as obastalce, but as solution, essence and appearance exist only in the subject. Love - if knew the one, it would be a puppet. Don’t know the one, you act as though they were the one and that allows foreclosure to take place. Neurosis - repeating the day as though you have found the one. Isn’t hte one, doesn’t exist, but act as though is or could be the one. Love as repetition (neurosis - not a bad thing because its repetition, you step into the gap and enact the freedom as if it were pre-determined, compared to divine foreclosure as identification with the absolute,). Zizek - freedom comes from being a slave in the way i want to be a slave. Metamorphosis kafka - neither human nor animal. Third space.
!["ซี - เอมี่ " ย้อนความรัก 19 ปี ที่ต้องทนกันและกัน... | แฉ 22 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ykv9ILzatHM/mqdefault.jpg)
I couldn't understand a thing you said, but the resulting confusion is so interesting that I can hope of some day grasping something from it while I parrot it for STYLE. Thank you very much.
better to be confused and keep learning than getting to 'know everything'
0:01 Intro
2:55 Outline
3:56 What is freedom (Zizek vs Kant)
9:10 What is the "gap"? (Hegel vs Kant)
10:35 What is a parallax?
12:12 What is the parallax gap? (Zizek on Kant)
12:52 Lacan and anamorphosis (example: The Ambassadors painting)
15:50 The gaze (Lacan vs Sartre)
20:30 The uncanny (Freud)
22:25 The undead (Kant and indefinite judgements)
26:30 Psychotic Foreclosure
35:00 3 categories of uncanny (Lacan, Freud and Schelling)
49:45 Back to the Parallax Gap and how it relates to the uncanny and subjectivity
53:18 Preview of next lecture (How this relates to Hegel)
55:30 Recap of entire class (Useless Precaution)
1:00:00 Outro
The content is awesome.. like I’m in awe
Love this channel
This was a very classy lecture. Great.
Thanks! And I appreciate the deep dive into my older lectures. This one was part of the series that ended up in my current ebook. If you’re interested it’s available at: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
10:10 17:20 19:29, siehe und ab 20:40!!! 25:15 Expl. Kritik der reinen Vernunft 27:10 ab48:30 53:50 57:40
Will you be coming to vienna? Also a live lecture?
do you give a live lecture in Berlin in the next two weeks? i would be pleased to join
Alright Julian, let me humbly try to help people to make sense of your overly abstract presentation. If I misspeak (or write) please correct me so that I can learn that I am wrong.
Here is a scenario: A fly fisherman and a fish (I am a self-taught angler after all.)
From the perspective of the fish, the underwater is its phenomenal world. The world that it can observe. The fly fisherman is in the noumenon world of the fish that it will never experience. From the Kantian perspective, this parallax gap will never reconcile (or should I say produce a synthesis) because the subjectivity of the fish. The fish is not capable enough (or smart enough) to conceptually cross the gap. The fish is the obstacle.
From Zizek's (or Lacan's) perspective it is very different. The gap is there, but only retroactively: Here is how: the fly fisherman ties a fly that imitates an underwater insect. The moment fish bites it, the fish experiences an uncanny situation and realizes that what it bit is more than food/non-food binary but something that preys on the fish (it hurts the fish after all.) The fish realized that the act of biting become the vanishing mediator, and the fish saw itself through the object (the fly) as the prey. In other words, the fish became a subject and its subjectivity created the parallax gap. Furthermore, (and more importantly) the subjectivity of the fisherman is also created by that bite too. That is, by the bite, the fisherman realized that he is not just a dude with a stick in the water but a fisherman that can catch a fish. Fisherman saw himself as an object through the subject of the fish. So, the noumenon absolute needs the subject of the particular.
44:14 this is me when i see Margot Robbie
What is confusing me, is that heimisch means familiar, and not heimlich. Is this some old German?
I think after listening to your lecture I may hereon identify as a zombie.
4 4 parallax gap
Spark of life comes from not knowing god exists, your purpose. If you know = follow or be a puppet (lose individuality).
Freedom for kant = don’t know what god wants so i found out (subjectivity between phenomena and noumenal which leads to agency as want to get closer to god)
True freedom = i know what you want from me and i will do the opposite
Parallax gap = subject not overcoming phenomena, but the object of the phenomena is subjectivity itself. No fixed Kantian gap. The stance of the subject determines the phenomena and noumenal as seen from the subject.
Holbein the ambassadors - stand outside the neutral gaze, askance, you will see the skeleton. Correct way of viewing paitning is to look at it in the wrong way.
Gaze relational - Sartre - exchange of how we look and are looked. As if being watched. Like imagining seen by others. (thinks authetntic subjects see oother atuentic subjects and vice versa)
Lacan anamorphic illusion = Gaze is gaze of the object looking at you. Only conceive of ourselves as subjects when objectify ourselves when the other sees us as pure objects by a pure authentic subject. We think others are real, and assume they are more real than we are, and then therefore retroactively create ourselves as a person. Subjectivity created anamorphically through another. Only way to look at other as authentic subject (which means looking at own subjectivity in the own way).
Uncanny - third feature, undead = luminal third place. Affirmation of a non-predicate.
Life is between knowing and not knowing god (being in and anot in god).
Subjectivity as this third category. Excessive feature. (kant - subject as object to reaching noumena).
Hegel /zizek - not as obastalce, but as solution, essence and appearance exist only in the subject.
Love - if knew the one, it would be a puppet. Don’t know the one, you act as though they were the one and that allows foreclosure to take place. Neurosis - repeating the day as though you have found the one. Isn’t hte one, doesn’t exist, but act as though is or could be the one. Love as repetition (neurosis - not a bad thing because its repetition, you step into the gap and enact the freedom as if it were pre-determined, compared to divine foreclosure as identification with the absolute,).
Zizek - freedom comes from being a slave in the way i want to be a slave.
Metamorphosis kafka - neither human nor animal. Third space.