What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱毓賳賮: 鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 賮賷 賵噩賵賴賴 丕賱爻鬲丞
賷丨丕賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賳 亘毓囟 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞貙 賲孬賱: 賴賱 賷爻亘亘 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賵丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕乇鬲賮丕毓賸丕 賮賷 賵鬲賷乇丞 丕賱毓賳賮責 兀賲 賴賱 賷丨丿賾 賲賳賴責 賵賴賱 賷賰賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 賮賷 賮賰乇丞 丕賱鬲噩丕賵乇 毓賱賶 亘爻丕胤鬲賴丕責 賵賴賱 鬲賯鬲氐乇 乇丿丞 丕賱賮毓賱 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賷賵賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賾乇責 賵匕賱賰 賲賳 胤乇賷賯 爻亘乇 兀睾賵丕乇 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱鬲賵鬲丕賱賷鬲丕乇賷丞 丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 爻丕丿鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱賲丕囟賷貙 賵賲賯丕乇亘丞 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲爻賲賶 賲賯丿爻賸丕貙 賵乇爻賲 兀噩賳丿丞 噩丿賷丿丞 鬲丨丿丿 丕賱爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬賱賶 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 丨賱賵賱 賱賲卮賰賱丕鬲 賷爻亘賾亘賴丕貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 賲丨丕噩丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賱兀賷 毓賳賮 鬲賳鬲噩賴 丕賱毓賵賱賲丞 兀賵 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 兀賵 丕賱兀氐賵賱賷丞 兀賵 丕賱賱睾丞.
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐丕丿乇 丨丿賷孬賸丕 賮賷 爻賱爻賱丞 鬲乇噩賲丕賳 毓賳 丕賱賲乇賰夭 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賱賱兀亘丨丕孬 賵丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻丕鬲 (248 氐賮丨丞貙 賲賳 丕賱賯胤毓 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤貙 賲賵孬賯賸丕 賵賲賮賴乇爻賸丕)貙 賲丐賱賮 賲賳 賲賯丿賲丞 賵爻鬲丞 賮氐賵賱 賵禺丕鬲賲丞. 賮賷 賲賯丿賲鬲賴貙 "孬賵亘 丕賱胤丕睾賷丞 丕賱丿丕賲賷"貙 賷乇賶 噩賷噩賷賰 兀賳賴 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賴賳丕賰 賯丕爻賲 賲卮鬲乇賰 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 丕賱禺丕氐丞 亘丕賱毓賳賮貙 賮廿賳 賲賮丕乇賯丞 賲卮丕亘賴丞 鬲鬲胤丕亘賯 賲毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲貨 "廿匕 鬲亘賯賶 賮賷 毓賯賵賱賳丕貙 賵賯亘賱 賰賱 卮賷亍貙 賲丐卮乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱氐乇賷丨丞 丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱廿噩乇丕賲 賵丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 賵丕賱丕囟胤乇丕亘 丕賱兀賴賱賷貙 賵丕賱氐乇丕毓 丕賱丿賵賱賷". 賵賷囟賷賮 兀賳 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳鬲毓賱賲 賮賳 丕賱鬲乇丕噩毓貨 賮賳 賮賰 丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕賱廿睾乇丕亍 丕賱賲亘賴乇 賱賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 丕賱賲乇卅賷 賲亘丕卮乇丞貙 賮賲賳 卮兀賳 匕賱賰 兀賳 賷賲賰賳賳丕 賲賳 兀賳 賳胤賷丨 丕賱毓賳賮貙 "賲丕 賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 廿丿丕賲丞 噩賴丿賳丕 丕賱賮毓賱賷 丕賱賲賰乇賻賾爻 賱賲丨丕乇亘丞 丕賱毓賳賮 賵鬲毓夭賷夭 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨".
賳丿丕亍 丕爻鬲睾丕孬丞
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱貙 "丕賱賳噩丿丞! 孬賲賻賾丞 毓賳賮!" 賷亘丨孬 噩賷噩賷賰 賮賷 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 賵丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷 賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵賮賷 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賱丕賲鬲賳丕睾賲貙 賵賮賷 丕賱卮賷賵毓賷賷賳 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷賷賳. 賷賯賵賱 廿賳 賲賵丕噩賴丞 兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱毓賳賮貙 亘丿亍賸丕 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲丕丿賷 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賰丕賱賯鬲賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 廿賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿賷 丕賱兀賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷 賰丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲丨乇賷囟 賵丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷 賴賷 卮睾賱 丕賱賲賵賯賮 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 丕賱賲鬲爻丕賲丨 丕賱卮丕睾賱. 賷爻兀賱: "兀賱賷爻 孬賲丞 卮賷亍 賲孬賷乇 賱賱乇賷亘丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 - 匕賱賰 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲賮賻毓賻賾賱 亘毓賳丕氐乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞: 兀賮乇丕丿 兀卮乇丕乇貙 賵兀噩賴夭丞 賯賲毓賷丞 賲丿乇賾亘丞貙 賵丨卮賵丿 兀毓賲丕賴丕 丕賱鬲毓氐購賾亘責 兀賱賷爻 賮賷 匕賱賰 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賷丕卅爻丞 賱氐乇賮 丕賱兀賳馗丕乇 毓賳 亘丐乇丞 丕賱卮乇 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 胤賲爻 丕賱兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰丞 賮賷 賲賲丕乇爻鬲賴丕責".
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賳賷貙 "禺賮賿 噩丕乇賻賰 賰賲丕 鬲禺丕賮購 賳賮爻賻賰!" 賷鬲氐丿賶 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱爻賷丕爻丞 丕賱禺賵賮貙 賵賲賯賵賱丞 丕賱噩賷乇丞 賵丕賱噩丕乇貙 賵賱毓賳賮 丕賱賱睾丞. 賵賮賷 乇兀賷賴貙 鬲噩丿 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷丞 兀賳賾 賲賳 丕賱兀爻賴賱 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賲毓 胤乇丕卅賯 丨賷丕丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 賲賳 賲賳胤賱賯 賲丕 賷丿兀亘 賳購賯賾丕丿賴丕 毓丕丿丞賸 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲亘乇丐 賲賳賴 賵丕爻鬲賳賰丕乇賴 亘賵氐賮賴 賲賰賲賳 囟毓賮賴丕 賵爻亘亘 廿禺賮丕賯賴丕貙 兀賷 丕睾鬲乇丕亘 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞貙 "賮兀丨丿 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓賳賷賴丕 丕賱丕睾鬲乇丕亘 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賲爻丕賮丞 丕賱賮丕氐賱丞 鬲丿禺賱 賮賷 丕賱賳爻賷噩 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞 亘丕賱匕丕鬲. 丨鬲賶 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 兀毓賷卮 噩賳亘賸丕 廿賱賶 噩賳亘 賲毓 丌禺乇賷賳貙 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲睾丕囟賶 毓賳賴賲 賮賷 丨丕賱鬲賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞. 賲爻賲賵丨 賱賷 兀賱賾丕 兀亘丕賱睾 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲乇丕亘 賲賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 賵兀賳 兀鬲丨乇賰 賮賷 賮囟丕亍 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賷賲賰賾賳賳賷 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 丌禺乇賷賳 賲乇丕毓賷賸丕 賯賵丕毓丿 賲賷賰丕賳賷賰賷丞 禺丕乇噩賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞貙 賲賳 丿賵賳 賲卮丕乇賰鬲賴賲 毓丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷". 賷囟賷賮: "賱毓賱 丕賱丿乇爻 丕賱匕賷 賷賳亘睾賷 鬲毓賱賲賴 賴賵 兀賳 噩乇毓丞 丕睾鬲乇丕亘 鬲賰賵賳 兀丨賷丕賳賸丕 賵爻賷賱丞 賷鬲毓匕乇 丕賱丕爻鬲睾賳丕亍 毓賳賴丕 賱賱鬲毓丕賷卮 丕賱爻賱賲賷. 兀丨賷丕賳賸丕 賱賷爻鬲 丕賱睾乇亘丞 賲卮賰賱丞貙 亘賱 賴賷 丨賱賾".
賴丿賲 丕賱噩丿丕乇
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬貙 "賲賻丿賹賾 丿賻賲賻賵賷 賲賳賮賱鬲"貙 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 噩賷噩賷賰 卮乇賷胤賸丕 胤賵賷賱賸丕 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱丿賲賵賷 丕賱匕賷 鬲鬲禺賱賱賴 丨丕賱丕鬲 睾乇賷亘丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 丕賱賲噩丕賲賱 賵丕賱爻禺胤 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘賷貙 賵丌禺乇賴 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷 囟丿 丕賱賱丕噩卅賷賳貙 賵禺氐賵氐賸丕 丕賱兀賮丕乇賯丞 賲賳賴賲貙 賲爻賱胤賸丕 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 賲丨丿賵丿賷丞 丕賱賲賯丕乇亘丞 丕賱賲鬲爻丕賲丨丞 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 毓賱賶 賯丕毓丿丞 鬲毓丿丿賷丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賱丕 鬲賰賮 毓賳 廿賱賯丕亍 丕賱賲賵丕毓馗 丕賱丿丕毓賷丞 廿賱賶 賮鬲丨 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賵賯亘賵賱 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 "賮賱賵 賮購鬲丨鬲 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賱賰丕賳鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱毓丕賲賱丞 丕賱賲丨賱賷丞 賴賷 胤賱賷毓丞 丕賱鬲賲乇丿 囟丿 賴匕丕 丕賱廿噩乇丕亍. 賵賴賰匕丕 賷睾丿賵 賵丕囟丨賸丕 兀賳 丕賱丨賱 賱丕 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 賴丿賲 丕賱噩丿乇丕賳 賵丕賱爻賲丕丨 亘丿禺賵賱 丕賱噩賲賷毓貙 賵賴賵 丕賱賲胤賱亘 丕賱爻賴賱 丕賱賮丕乇睾 丕賱氐丕丿乇 毓賳 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷賷賳 丕賱乇丕丿賷賰丕賱賷賷賳 匕賵賷 丕賱賯賱賵亘 丕賱乇賯賷賯丞貨 賮賲賳 丕賱賲丐賰丿 兀賳 丕賱丨賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賴賵 賴丿賲 丕賱噩丿丕乇 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷貙 賱丕 噩丿丕乇 賵夭丕乇丞 丕賱賴噩乇丞貙 亘賱 丕賱噩丿丕乇 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 - 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷. 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱丨賱 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 鬲睾賷賷乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 噩毓賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賷賰購賮賾賵賳 毓賳 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲賴賲 丕賱賷丕卅爻丞 賱賱賴乇賵亘 賲賳 毓賵丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱禺丕氐丞".
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱乇丕亘毓貙 "鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲鬲爻丕賲丨"貙 賷丿賵乇 賳氐 噩賷噩賷賰 丨賵賱 爻丐丕賱: 賱賷亘乇丕賱賷丞 兀賲 兀氐賵賱賷丞責 賯丕卅賱賸丕 廿賳 孬賲丞 胤丕毓賵賳賸丕 賮賷 賴丕鬲賷賳 丕賱丿丕乇賻賷賿賳. 賰賲丕 賷爻兀賱: 賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨賳 兀賰孬乇 丨爻丕爻賷丞 丨賷丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賷賵賲責 賷噩賷亘: "鬲丨丿賷丿賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱爻賷丕丿賷丞貙 賮賷 賰賵賳賺 毓丕賱賲賷 賷卮乇毓賳 賳賮爻賴 亘兀禺賱丕賯 毓丕賱賲賷丞貙 賲丕 毓丕丿鬲 賲爻鬲孬賳丕丞 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 亘賱 鬲購毓丕賲賱 亘賵氐賮賴丕 賰賷丕賳賸丕 賷噩亘 賲毓丕賯亘鬲賴 毓賱賶 噩乇丕卅賲賴貙 賲賴賲丕 亘賱睾鬲 丨丿丞 丕賱爻噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丿丕卅乇丞 賮賷 卮兀賳 賴賵賷丞 賲賳 賷胤亘賽賾賯 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賵賲賳 賷購丨丕賰賲 丕賱賯丕囟賷. 廿賳 爻賷丕丿丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 兀氐亘丨鬲 賲賯賷賾丿丞 亘氐乇丕賲丞. 賵賲賳 卮兀賳 賴匕丕 兀賳 賷購賱賿賯賷 囟賵亍賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賱氐乇丕毓 丕賱卮乇賯 丕賱兀賵爻胤. 賳噩丿賳丕 賮賷 賲賵丕噩賴丞 賴卮丕卮丞 賵爻賴賵賱丞 丕禺鬲乇丕賯 丕賱丨丿賵丿 丕賱賮丕氐賱丞 亘賷賳 爻賱胤丞 睾賷乇 丿賵賱鬲賷丞 賵睾賷乇 卮乇毓賷丞 賵爻賱胤丞 丿賵賱鬲賷丞 卮乇毓賷丞".
賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱禺丕賲爻貙 "丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賲賯賵賱丞 兀賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷丞"貙 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 噩賷噩賷賰 賲爻兀賱丞 鬲孬賯賷賮 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賮賷乇丿 鬲氐賵購賾乇 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 丕賱賷賵賲 兀賳賴丕 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 鬲毓氐購賾亘 賵毓丿賲 鬲爻丕賲丨貙 亘丿賱賸丕 賲賳 乇丐賷鬲賴丕 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 鬲賮丕賵購鬲 賵丕賳毓丿丕賲 賲爻丕賵丕丞 賵丕爻鬲睾賱丕賱 賵馗賱賲 廿賱賶 毓賲賱賷丞 廿囟賮丕亍 氐賮丞 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 兀賵 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 孬賵亘賸丕 孬賯丕賮賷賸丕. 賷賯賵賱: "賷噩乇賷 鬲毓乇賷囟 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲亘丕賷賳丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 - 賵賴賷 禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賲卮乇賵胤丞 亘毓丿賲 丕賱鬲賰丕賮丐 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 兀賵 丕賱丕爻鬲睾賱丕賱 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 - 賱毓賲賱賷丞 鬲胤亘賷毓 賵鬲噩賳賷爻 賵鬲丨賷賷丿貙 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 噩毓賱賴丕 鬲亘丿賵 禺賱丕賮丕鬲 孬賯丕賮賷丞 丨囟丕乇賷丞貙 兀賷 鬲亘丕賷賳賸丕 賮賷 兀賳賲丕胤 丕賱丨賷丕丞貙 賵禺賱丕賮丕鬲 丨囟丕乇賷丞 賴賷 賲賳 丕賱賲爻賱賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲毓匕乇 丕賱鬲睾賱亘 毓賱賷賴丕貙 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 廿賱丕 鬲丨賲購賾賱購賴丕 賵丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賲毓賴丕". 賵賷囟賷賮 賯丕卅賱賸丕 廿賳 賲賳 丕賱爻賴賱 噩毓賱 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 廿卮賰丕賱賷賸丕貙 賵噩毓賱 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱匕賷 賷丿賷賲賴 賵丕囟丨賸丕 賲賱賲賵爻賸丕. 賮賴賵貙 賱賷爻 賰賵賳賷賸丕 卮丕賲賱賸丕 亘丕賱賮毓賱貙 賵賱賷爻 賮馗賸丕 毓丿賷賲 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞.
兀賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱爻丕丿爻貙 "丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷"貙 賮賷賯賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 廿賳 賲賱賰賵鬲 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷 賴賵 賲賱賰賵鬲 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賮賷賴 丕賱賯鬲賱 鬲毓亘賷乇賸丕 毓賳 丨丕賱丞 賲乇囟賷賾丞 卮禺氐賷丞貙 賵賱丕 毓賳 噩乇賷賲丞貙 兀賵 賯購乇亘丕賳賸丕 賲賯丿賻爻賸丕. 賰賲丕 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 噩賲丕賱賷賸丕貙 賵賱丕 兀禺賱丕賯...
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐丕丿乇 丨丿賷孬賸丕 賮賷 爻賱爻賱丞 鬲乇噩賲丕賳 毓賳 丕賱賲乇賰夭 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賱賱兀亘丨丕孬 賵丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻丕鬲 (248 氐賮丨丞貙 賲賳 丕賱賯胤毓 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤貙 賲賵孬賯賸丕 賵賲賮賴乇爻賸丕)貙 賲丐賱賮 賲賳 賲賯丿賲丞 賵爻鬲丞 賮氐賵賱 賵禺丕鬲賲丞. 賮賷 賲賯丿賲鬲賴貙 "孬賵亘 丕賱胤丕睾賷丞 丕賱丿丕賲賷"貙 賷乇賶 噩賷噩賷賰 兀賳賴 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賴賳丕賰 賯丕爻賲 賲卮鬲乇賰 亘賷賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵丕賱鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 丕賱禺丕氐丞 亘丕賱毓賳賮貙 賮廿賳 賲賮丕乇賯丞 賲卮丕亘賴丞 鬲鬲胤丕亘賯 賲毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲貨 "廿匕 鬲亘賯賶 賮賷 毓賯賵賱賳丕貙 賵賯亘賱 賰賱 卮賷亍貙 賲丐卮乇丕鬲 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱氐乇賷丨丞 丕賱賵丕囟丨丞 賲鬲賲孬賱丞 賮賷 兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱廿噩乇丕賲 賵丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 賵丕賱丕囟胤乇丕亘 丕賱兀賴賱賷貙 賵丕賱氐乇丕毓 丕賱丿賵賱賷". 賵賷囟賷賮 兀賳 毓賱賷賳丕 兀賳 賳鬲毓賱賲 賮賳 丕賱鬲乇丕噩毓貨 賮賳 賮賰 丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕賱廿睾乇丕亍 丕賱賲亘賴乇 賱賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 丕賱賲乇卅賷 賲亘丕卮乇丞貙 賮賲賳 卮兀賳 匕賱賰 兀賳 賷賲賰賳賳丕 賲賳 兀賳 賳胤賷丨 丕賱毓賳賮貙 "賲丕 賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 廿丿丕賲丞 噩賴丿賳丕 丕賱賮毓賱賷 丕賱賲賰乇賻賾爻 賱賲丨丕乇亘丞 丕賱毓賳賮 賵鬲毓夭賷夭 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨".
賳丿丕亍 丕爻鬲睾丕孬丞
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱兀賵賱貙 "丕賱賳噩丿丞! 孬賲賻賾丞 毓賳賮!" 賷亘丨孬 噩賷噩賷賰 賮賷 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 賵丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷 賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵賮賷 丕賱噩賳爻丕賳賷丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賱丕賲鬲賳丕睾賲貙 賵賮賷 丕賱卮賷賵毓賷賷賳 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷賷賳. 賷賯賵賱 廿賳 賲賵丕噩賴丞 兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱毓賳賮貙 亘丿亍賸丕 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲丕丿賷 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賰丕賱賯鬲賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷 賵丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 廿賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿賷 丕賱兀賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷 賰丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲丨乇賷囟 賵丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱噩賳丿乇賷 賴賷 卮睾賱 丕賱賲賵賯賮 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 丕賱賲鬲爻丕賲丨 丕賱卮丕睾賱. 賷爻兀賱: "兀賱賷爻 孬賲丞 卮賷亍 賲孬賷乇 賱賱乇賷亘丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 - 匕賱賰 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲賮賻毓賻賾賱 亘毓賳丕氐乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞: 兀賮乇丕丿 兀卮乇丕乇貙 賵兀噩賴夭丞 賯賲毓賷丞 賲丿乇賾亘丞貙 賵丨卮賵丿 兀毓賲丕賴丕 丕賱鬲毓氐購賾亘責 兀賱賷爻 賮賷 匕賱賰 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賷丕卅爻丞 賱氐乇賮 丕賱兀賳馗丕乇 毓賳 亘丐乇丞 丕賱卮乇 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞貙 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 胤賲爻 丕賱兀卮賰丕賱 丕賱兀禺乇賶 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮貙 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賲卮丕乇賰丞 賮賷 賲賲丕乇爻鬲賴丕責".
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賳賷貙 "禺賮賿 噩丕乇賻賰 賰賲丕 鬲禺丕賮購 賳賮爻賻賰!" 賷鬲氐丿賶 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賱爻賷丕爻丞 丕賱禺賵賮貙 賵賲賯賵賱丞 丕賱噩賷乇丞 賵丕賱噩丕乇貙 賵賱毓賳賮 丕賱賱睾丞. 賵賮賷 乇兀賷賴貙 鬲噩丿 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷丞 兀賳賾 賲賳 丕賱兀爻賴賱 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賲毓 胤乇丕卅賯 丨賷丕丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞貙 賲賳 賲賳胤賱賯 賲丕 賷丿兀亘 賳購賯賾丕丿賴丕 毓丕丿丞賸 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲亘乇丐 賲賳賴 賵丕爻鬲賳賰丕乇賴 亘賵氐賮賴 賲賰賲賳 囟毓賮賴丕 賵爻亘亘 廿禺賮丕賯賴丕貙 兀賷 丕睾鬲乇丕亘 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞貙 "賮兀丨丿 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賷毓賳賷賴丕 丕賱丕睾鬲乇丕亘 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賲爻丕賮丞 丕賱賮丕氐賱丞 鬲丿禺賱 賮賷 丕賱賳爻賷噩 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞 亘丕賱匕丕鬲. 丨鬲賶 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 兀毓賷卮 噩賳亘賸丕 廿賱賶 噩賳亘 賲毓 丌禺乇賷賳貙 賮廿賳賳賷 兀鬲睾丕囟賶 毓賳賴賲 賮賷 丨丕賱鬲賷 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞. 賲爻賲賵丨 賱賷 兀賱賾丕 兀亘丕賱睾 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲乇丕亘 賲賳 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 賵兀賳 兀鬲丨乇賰 賮賷 賮囟丕亍 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 賷賲賰賾賳賳賷 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮丕毓賱 賲毓 丌禺乇賷賳 賲乇丕毓賷賸丕 賯賵丕毓丿 賲賷賰丕賳賷賰賷丞 禺丕乇噩賷丞 賲毓賷賳丞貙 賲賳 丿賵賳 賲卮丕乇賰鬲賴賲 毓丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱丿丕禺賱賷". 賷囟賷賮: "賱毓賱 丕賱丿乇爻 丕賱匕賷 賷賳亘睾賷 鬲毓賱賲賴 賴賵 兀賳 噩乇毓丞 丕睾鬲乇丕亘 鬲賰賵賳 兀丨賷丕賳賸丕 賵爻賷賱丞 賷鬲毓匕乇 丕賱丕爻鬲睾賳丕亍 毓賳賴丕 賱賱鬲毓丕賷卮 丕賱爻賱賲賷. 兀丨賷丕賳賸丕 賱賷爻鬲 丕賱睾乇亘丞 賲卮賰賱丞貙 亘賱 賴賷 丨賱賾".
賴丿賲 丕賱噩丿丕乇
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱孬丕賱孬貙 "賲賻丿賹賾 丿賻賲賻賵賷 賲賳賮賱鬲"貙 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 噩賷噩賷賰 卮乇賷胤賸丕 胤賵賷賱賸丕 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱丿賲賵賷 丕賱匕賷 鬲鬲禺賱賱賴 丨丕賱丕鬲 睾乇賷亘丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 丕賱賲噩丕賲賱 賵丕賱爻禺胤 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘賷貙 賵丌禺乇賴 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷 囟丿 丕賱賱丕噩卅賷賳貙 賵禺氐賵氐賸丕 丕賱兀賮丕乇賯丞 賲賳賴賲貙 賲爻賱胤賸丕 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 賲丨丿賵丿賷丞 丕賱賲賯丕乇亘丞 丕賱賲鬲爻丕賲丨丞 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 毓賱賶 賯丕毓丿丞 鬲毓丿丿賷丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 賱丕 鬲賰賮 毓賳 廿賱賯丕亍 丕賱賲賵丕毓馗 丕賱丿丕毓賷丞 廿賱賶 賮鬲丨 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賵賯亘賵賱 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 "賮賱賵 賮購鬲丨鬲 丕賱丨丿賵丿 賱賰丕賳鬲 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱毓丕賲賱丞 丕賱賲丨賱賷丞 賴賷 胤賱賷毓丞 丕賱鬲賲乇丿 囟丿 賴匕丕 丕賱廿噩乇丕亍. 賵賴賰匕丕 賷睾丿賵 賵丕囟丨賸丕 兀賳 丕賱丨賱 賱丕 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 賴丿賲 丕賱噩丿乇丕賳 賵丕賱爻賲丕丨 亘丿禺賵賱 丕賱噩賲賷毓貙 賵賴賵 丕賱賲胤賱亘 丕賱爻賴賱 丕賱賮丕乇睾 丕賱氐丕丿乇 毓賳 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷賷賳 丕賱乇丕丿賷賰丕賱賷賷賳 匕賵賷 丕賱賯賱賵亘 丕賱乇賯賷賯丞貨 賮賲賳 丕賱賲丐賰丿 兀賳 丕賱丨賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賴賵 賴丿賲 丕賱噩丿丕乇 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷貙 賱丕 噩丿丕乇 賵夭丕乇丞 丕賱賴噩乇丞貙 亘賱 丕賱噩丿丕乇 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 - 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷. 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱丨賱 賷賰賲賳 賮賷 鬲睾賷賷乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 噩毓賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賷賰購賮賾賵賳 毓賳 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲賴賲 丕賱賷丕卅爻丞 賱賱賴乇賵亘 賲賳 毓賵丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱禺丕氐丞".
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱乇丕亘毓貙 "鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲鬲爻丕賲丨"貙 賷丿賵乇 賳氐 噩賷噩賷賰 丨賵賱 爻丐丕賱: 賱賷亘乇丕賱賷丞 兀賲 兀氐賵賱賷丞責 賯丕卅賱賸丕 廿賳 孬賲丞 胤丕毓賵賳賸丕 賮賷 賴丕鬲賷賳 丕賱丿丕乇賻賷賿賳. 賰賲丕 賷爻兀賱: 賱賲丕匕丕 賳丨賳 兀賰孬乇 丨爻丕爻賷丞 丨賷丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賷賵賲責 賷噩賷亘: "鬲丨丿賷丿賸丕 賱兀賳 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱爻賷丕丿賷丞貙 賮賷 賰賵賳賺 毓丕賱賲賷 賷卮乇毓賳 賳賮爻賴 亘兀禺賱丕賯 毓丕賱賲賷丞貙 賲丕 毓丕丿鬲 賲爻鬲孬賳丕丞 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞貙 亘賱 鬲購毓丕賲賱 亘賵氐賮賴丕 賰賷丕賳賸丕 賷噩亘 賲毓丕賯亘鬲賴 毓賱賶 噩乇丕卅賲賴貙 賲賴賲丕 亘賱睾鬲 丨丿丞 丕賱爻噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丿丕卅乇丞 賮賷 卮兀賳 賴賵賷丞 賲賳 賷胤亘賽賾賯 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賵賲賳 賷購丨丕賰賲 丕賱賯丕囟賷. 廿賳 爻賷丕丿丞 丕賱丿賵賱丞 兀氐亘丨鬲 賲賯賷賾丿丞 亘氐乇丕賲丞. 賵賲賳 卮兀賳 賴匕丕 兀賳 賷購賱賿賯賷 囟賵亍賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賯賷賲丞 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賱氐乇丕毓 丕賱卮乇賯 丕賱兀賵爻胤. 賳噩丿賳丕 賮賷 賲賵丕噩賴丞 賴卮丕卮丞 賵爻賴賵賱丞 丕禺鬲乇丕賯 丕賱丨丿賵丿 丕賱賮丕氐賱丞 亘賷賳 爻賱胤丞 睾賷乇 丿賵賱鬲賷丞 賵睾賷乇 卮乇毓賷丞 賵爻賱胤丞 丿賵賱鬲賷丞 卮乇毓賷丞".
賮賷 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷
賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱禺丕賲爻貙 "丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賲賯賵賱丞 兀賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷丞"貙 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 噩賷噩賷賰 賲爻兀賱丞 鬲孬賯賷賮 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞貙 賮賷乇丿 鬲氐賵購賾乇 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 丕賱賷賵賲 兀賳賴丕 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 鬲毓氐購賾亘 賵毓丿賲 鬲爻丕賲丨貙 亘丿賱賸丕 賲賳 乇丐賷鬲賴丕 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 鬲賮丕賵購鬲 賵丕賳毓丿丕賲 賲爻丕賵丕丞 賵丕爻鬲睾賱丕賱 賵馗賱賲 廿賱賶 毓賲賱賷丞 廿囟賮丕亍 氐賮丞 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞 毓賱賶 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 兀賵 廿賱亘丕爻 丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 孬賵亘賸丕 孬賯丕賮賷賸丕. 賷賯賵賱: "賷噩乇賷 鬲毓乇賷囟 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲亘丕賷賳丕鬲 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 - 賵賴賷 禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賲卮乇賵胤丞 亘毓丿賲 丕賱鬲賰丕賮丐 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 兀賵 丕賱丕爻鬲睾賱丕賱 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 - 賱毓賲賱賷丞 鬲胤亘賷毓 賵鬲噩賳賷爻 賵鬲丨賷賷丿貙 賵氐賵賱賸丕 廿賱賶 噩毓賱賴丕 鬲亘丿賵 禺賱丕賮丕鬲 孬賯丕賮賷丞 丨囟丕乇賷丞貙 兀賷 鬲亘丕賷賳賸丕 賮賷 兀賳賲丕胤 丕賱丨賷丕丞貙 賵禺賱丕賮丕鬲 丨囟丕乇賷丞 賴賷 賲賳 丕賱賲爻賱賲丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲毓匕乇 丕賱鬲睾賱亘 毓賱賷賴丕貙 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 廿賱丕 鬲丨賲購賾賱購賴丕 賵丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賲毓賴丕". 賵賷囟賷賮 賯丕卅賱賸丕 廿賳 賲賳 丕賱爻賴賱 噩毓賱 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 廿卮賰丕賱賷賸丕貙 賵噩毓賱 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱匕賷 賷丿賷賲賴 賵丕囟丨賸丕 賲賱賲賵爻賸丕. 賮賴賵貙 賱賷爻 賰賵賳賷賸丕 卮丕賲賱賸丕 亘丕賱賮毓賱貙 賵賱賷爻 賮馗賸丕 毓丿賷賲 丕賱孬賯丕賮丞.
兀賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱爻丕丿爻貙 "丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷"貙 賮賷賯賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 廿賳 賲賱賰賵鬲 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷 賴賵 賲賱賰賵鬲 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賮賷賴 丕賱賯鬲賱 鬲毓亘賷乇賸丕 毓賳 丨丕賱丞 賲乇囟賷賾丞 卮禺氐賷丞貙 賵賱丕 毓賳 噩乇賷賲丞貙 兀賵 賯購乇亘丕賳賸丕 賲賯丿賻爻賸丕. 賰賲丕 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 噩賲丕賱賷賸丕貙 賵賱丕 兀禺賱丕賯...
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
566 people are currently reading
11691 people want to read
About the author
Slavoj 沤i啪ek
613听books7,225听followersSlavoj 沤i啪ek is a Slovene sociologist, philosopher, and cultural critic.
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and Fran莽ois Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, 沤i啪ek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
沤i啪ek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pa铆s he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
He was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia (then part of SFR Yugoslavia). He received a Doctor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Ljubljana and studied psychoanalysis at the University of Paris VIII with Jacques-Alain Miller and Fran莽ois Regnault. In 1990 he was a candidate with the party Liberal Democracy of Slovenia for Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia (an auxiliary institution, abolished in 1992).
Since 2005, 沤i啪ek has been a member of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
沤i啪ek is well known for his use of the works of 20th century French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in a new reading of popular culture. He writes on many topics including the Iraq War, fundamentalism, capitalism, tolerance, political correctness, globalization, subjectivity, human rights, Lenin, myth, cyberspace, postmodernism, multiculturalism, post-marxism, David Lynch, and Alfred Hitchcock.
In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pa铆s he jokingly described himself as an "orthodox Lacanian Stalinist". In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! he described himself as a "Marxist" and a "Communist."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 424 reviews
June 17, 2020
The Poetry of Dominance
Violence is a necessary if regrettable condition of civilisation. A few of us who enjoy the comforts of civilisation are uncomfortable with that reality. Such violence appears overtly from time to time but it exists continuously in subtle forms of coercion that sustain relationships of domination and exploitation which are what constitute civilisation. It is the threat of violence which keeps us secure, at least when we are not the recipient of the threat.
It is this that constitutes 鈥渢he invisible background of systemic violence鈥� which is the subject of 沤i啪ek鈥檚 analysis. It is an awkward subject precisely because it is invisible to most of us. We can only see it askance, as it were, out of the corner of the eye. This kind of violence he calls 鈥渢he dark matter鈥� of society (I should have preferred 鈥榙ark energy鈥�). It must be present for society to exist at all. But we must infer its properties because it can鈥檛 be observed directly. We are therefore forced into a poetical mode of discourse: 鈥減oetry is always, by definition, 鈥榓bout鈥� something that cannot be addressed directly, only alluded to.鈥�
Liberal sympathies, says 沤i啪ek, are with those subjected to overt, visible violence, never with those oppressed by the invisible violence which assures the comforts of liberality. Yet it is the invisible violence that most often generates the visible. The invisible is systemic violence and by definition it is directed toward those who are perceived merely as potential, not actual, threats. Whatever might disrupt liberal security must be prevented. Liberals fail to connect the dots. Social conservatives at least recognise the reality of the use of violence against specific parts of a polity.
As I write, London as well as other cities around the world are experiencing the protests organised by the so-called Extinction Rebellion. This seems to be a coalition of the somewhat young and the somewhat old to exert pressure for the political awareness of climate change. Yesterday, after a week of disruption, several protestors were beaten when they interrupted train services in London Docklands. Liberal commentators have been outraged that 鈥榟onest鈥� protest has met with such a violent response.
But the Extinction Rebellion actions have accomplished something important. They have made visible first the objective systemic violence that they themselves have created (there is no doubt that closing down London Transport is a violent act). And, second, several of their members have suffered the subjective violence perpetrated by the responding systemic violence of a London mob. Whether the protestors will also be prosecuted with the implicit systemic violence of the state is not yet determined. 沤i啪ek, I think, would appreciate the concrete example of his theory in all its intricacies.
沤i啪ek, being 沤i啪ek, that is to say, a Marxist of the old school, names the ultimate source of systemic violence as Capitalism. Many in Extinction Rebellion appear to agree with him. And indeed there is good reason to associate the economic inequalities and environmental destruction around the world with what is blithely called global capitalism. But this structure of violent control is as unlike what Marx thought of as Capitalism as what Stalin thought of as Democracy. Marxist theory was obsolete almost as soon as it was formulated. Marx knew about the factory and the factory owner not the corporation and corporate members. Using Marxist theory today to formulate a theory of systemic violence is futile.
The world as it exists is neither capitalist in the sense that Marx used the term, nor freely competitive in the sense that liberal economists use to defend 鈥榚fficient鈥� economic arrangements. The world is corporate. That is, it is ruled by very large institutions whose primary function is to internalise competitive economics and make them personal under rules dictated by the corporation. These institutions dominate not only the individuals whom they employ but the governments which depend upon corporate employees health and well-being to fund their democratic elections and to fulfil their political promises of prosperity and security.
It is the corporate world, not the political or judicial world which has systemic power and controls systemic violence. It maintains this power in a way never contemplated by Marx, nor by liberal economic theorists, by enrolling individuals into the safety and security of the corporate structure. Having a place in the independent corporate hierarchy insulates its members from personal attack, at least regarding the consequences of their professional or economic actions. As a society, we enthusiastically want this kind of security even if it implies far less security in society in all its other aspects.
To summarise the situation: the dominant modern institution of the corporation has popularised avarice. Avarice is not greed in the sense of desiring the acquisition of an excess of certain things - food, shelter, warmth, physical care - but the accumulation of nothing in particular, merely more of whatever it is that others have. Capital is now corporate capital, which is not owned by anyone. What others do have is position, reputation, status, and reward within the corporation. This is what really counts as the key to all other parts of life, particularly to the physical, legal and other social aspects of security one might naturally desire. All modern life is corporate life; the corporation, we implicitly presume, will protect us as the rest of the world goes to hell in a basket.
Hence 沤i啪ek is often blowing stale hot air. He knows that old fashioned communism is a dead letter in the archives of history. Among other things, communism involves at least as much systemic violence as capitalism. He also knows that we are in the position of 鈥淕. K. Chesterton鈥檚 The Man Who Was Thursday, in which the highest police authority is the same person as the super-criminal, staging a battle with himself.鈥� We bring systemic violence on ourselves and simultaneously distract ourselves with concerns for the victims of that same violence. But the cause is not the inherent conflict of those who possess capital and those who do not. It is between those who have corporate protection and those who do not.*
沤i啪ek鈥檚 implicit message is that we need to read more, especially more poetry, and more critically. I can鈥檛 deny that this is probably a good idea. But despite his erudition and numerous literary, sociological, and philosophical insights, I think he still doesn鈥檛 understand today鈥檚 world for what it is: namely, governed everywhere by corporate interests which are impervious to any equivalent countervailing power, including poetry.
*This seems to me a rather good theory for explaining the rise of Trumpism. Trumpists would be horrified to find themselves associated with Marx. It is their alienation from the corporate world not from capitalism that is most apparent from both their geographic locations and their gripes about being effectively ejected from their secure corporate existence.
Postscript: My wife has reminded me that in fact poetry may indeed be just the thing needed and quoted this from memory:
I Am the Only Being Whose Doom
by EMILY BRONT脣
I am the only being whose doom
No tongue would ask, no eye would mourn;
I never caused a thought of gloom,
A smile of joy, since I was born.
In secret pleasure, secret tears,
This changeful life has slipped away,
As friendless after eighteen years,
As lone as on my natal day.
There have been times I cannot hide,
There have been times when this was drear,
When my sad soul forgot its pride
And longed for one to love me here.
But those were in the early glow
Of feelings since subdued by care;
And they have died so long ago,
I hardly now believe they were.
First melted off the hope of youth,
Then fancy鈥檚 rainbow fast withdrew;
And then experience told me truth
In mortal bosoms never grew.
鈥橳was grief enough to think mankind
All hollow, servile, insincere;
But worse to trust to my own mind
And find the same corruption there.
Post-postscript: For more 0n the literary theory of the corporate world see /review/show...
And on the institution of the corporation itself, see /review/show...
Post-post-postscript: there are a number of fictional accounts of corporate violence; but one of the most moving is this: /review/show...
Violence is a necessary if regrettable condition of civilisation. A few of us who enjoy the comforts of civilisation are uncomfortable with that reality. Such violence appears overtly from time to time but it exists continuously in subtle forms of coercion that sustain relationships of domination and exploitation which are what constitute civilisation. It is the threat of violence which keeps us secure, at least when we are not the recipient of the threat.
It is this that constitutes 鈥渢he invisible background of systemic violence鈥� which is the subject of 沤i啪ek鈥檚 analysis. It is an awkward subject precisely because it is invisible to most of us. We can only see it askance, as it were, out of the corner of the eye. This kind of violence he calls 鈥渢he dark matter鈥� of society (I should have preferred 鈥榙ark energy鈥�). It must be present for society to exist at all. But we must infer its properties because it can鈥檛 be observed directly. We are therefore forced into a poetical mode of discourse: 鈥減oetry is always, by definition, 鈥榓bout鈥� something that cannot be addressed directly, only alluded to.鈥�
Liberal sympathies, says 沤i啪ek, are with those subjected to overt, visible violence, never with those oppressed by the invisible violence which assures the comforts of liberality. Yet it is the invisible violence that most often generates the visible. The invisible is systemic violence and by definition it is directed toward those who are perceived merely as potential, not actual, threats. Whatever might disrupt liberal security must be prevented. Liberals fail to connect the dots. Social conservatives at least recognise the reality of the use of violence against specific parts of a polity.
As I write, London as well as other cities around the world are experiencing the protests organised by the so-called Extinction Rebellion. This seems to be a coalition of the somewhat young and the somewhat old to exert pressure for the political awareness of climate change. Yesterday, after a week of disruption, several protestors were beaten when they interrupted train services in London Docklands. Liberal commentators have been outraged that 鈥榟onest鈥� protest has met with such a violent response.
But the Extinction Rebellion actions have accomplished something important. They have made visible first the objective systemic violence that they themselves have created (there is no doubt that closing down London Transport is a violent act). And, second, several of their members have suffered the subjective violence perpetrated by the responding systemic violence of a London mob. Whether the protestors will also be prosecuted with the implicit systemic violence of the state is not yet determined. 沤i啪ek, I think, would appreciate the concrete example of his theory in all its intricacies.
沤i啪ek, being 沤i啪ek, that is to say, a Marxist of the old school, names the ultimate source of systemic violence as Capitalism. Many in Extinction Rebellion appear to agree with him. And indeed there is good reason to associate the economic inequalities and environmental destruction around the world with what is blithely called global capitalism. But this structure of violent control is as unlike what Marx thought of as Capitalism as what Stalin thought of as Democracy. Marxist theory was obsolete almost as soon as it was formulated. Marx knew about the factory and the factory owner not the corporation and corporate members. Using Marxist theory today to formulate a theory of systemic violence is futile.
The world as it exists is neither capitalist in the sense that Marx used the term, nor freely competitive in the sense that liberal economists use to defend 鈥榚fficient鈥� economic arrangements. The world is corporate. That is, it is ruled by very large institutions whose primary function is to internalise competitive economics and make them personal under rules dictated by the corporation. These institutions dominate not only the individuals whom they employ but the governments which depend upon corporate employees health and well-being to fund their democratic elections and to fulfil their political promises of prosperity and security.
It is the corporate world, not the political or judicial world which has systemic power and controls systemic violence. It maintains this power in a way never contemplated by Marx, nor by liberal economic theorists, by enrolling individuals into the safety and security of the corporate structure. Having a place in the independent corporate hierarchy insulates its members from personal attack, at least regarding the consequences of their professional or economic actions. As a society, we enthusiastically want this kind of security even if it implies far less security in society in all its other aspects.
To summarise the situation: the dominant modern institution of the corporation has popularised avarice. Avarice is not greed in the sense of desiring the acquisition of an excess of certain things - food, shelter, warmth, physical care - but the accumulation of nothing in particular, merely more of whatever it is that others have. Capital is now corporate capital, which is not owned by anyone. What others do have is position, reputation, status, and reward within the corporation. This is what really counts as the key to all other parts of life, particularly to the physical, legal and other social aspects of security one might naturally desire. All modern life is corporate life; the corporation, we implicitly presume, will protect us as the rest of the world goes to hell in a basket.
Hence 沤i啪ek is often blowing stale hot air. He knows that old fashioned communism is a dead letter in the archives of history. Among other things, communism involves at least as much systemic violence as capitalism. He also knows that we are in the position of 鈥淕. K. Chesterton鈥檚 The Man Who Was Thursday, in which the highest police authority is the same person as the super-criminal, staging a battle with himself.鈥� We bring systemic violence on ourselves and simultaneously distract ourselves with concerns for the victims of that same violence. But the cause is not the inherent conflict of those who possess capital and those who do not. It is between those who have corporate protection and those who do not.*
沤i啪ek鈥檚 implicit message is that we need to read more, especially more poetry, and more critically. I can鈥檛 deny that this is probably a good idea. But despite his erudition and numerous literary, sociological, and philosophical insights, I think he still doesn鈥檛 understand today鈥檚 world for what it is: namely, governed everywhere by corporate interests which are impervious to any equivalent countervailing power, including poetry.
*This seems to me a rather good theory for explaining the rise of Trumpism. Trumpists would be horrified to find themselves associated with Marx. It is their alienation from the corporate world not from capitalism that is most apparent from both their geographic locations and their gripes about being effectively ejected from their secure corporate existence.
Postscript: My wife has reminded me that in fact poetry may indeed be just the thing needed and quoted this from memory:
I Am the Only Being Whose Doom
by EMILY BRONT脣
I am the only being whose doom
No tongue would ask, no eye would mourn;
I never caused a thought of gloom,
A smile of joy, since I was born.
In secret pleasure, secret tears,
This changeful life has slipped away,
As friendless after eighteen years,
As lone as on my natal day.
There have been times I cannot hide,
There have been times when this was drear,
When my sad soul forgot its pride
And longed for one to love me here.
But those were in the early glow
Of feelings since subdued by care;
And they have died so long ago,
I hardly now believe they were.
First melted off the hope of youth,
Then fancy鈥檚 rainbow fast withdrew;
And then experience told me truth
In mortal bosoms never grew.
鈥橳was grief enough to think mankind
All hollow, servile, insincere;
But worse to trust to my own mind
And find the same corruption there.
Post-postscript: For more 0n the literary theory of the corporate world see /review/show...
And on the institution of the corporation itself, see /review/show...
Post-post-postscript: there are a number of fictional accounts of corporate violence; but one of the most moving is this: /review/show...
July 24, 2011
One doesn't go to for answers. One goes to him for questions. He raises them, then raises some more, and asks us to raise questions for every answer we get. That is his genius, and that's what makes him worth while. The interrogatives -- Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How? -- are his and our most powerful tools, and he challenges us to use them.
When I was a 4 year old boy, I wore a helmet for a year because I fractured my skull. That's the story I grew up with. "I" fractured my skull. I was running down the hallway in our apartment, I was wearing socks, and I smacked my head against the protruding corner of the wall; my skull cracked.
I always accepted that story.
I accepted that story even after my father punched me so hard that he knocked me out of the cast I had on my broken hand.
I accepted that story even after my father punched me in the face (while we were boxing) and my head hit a similar corner in what was then our house; it took seven stiches to close the cut.
I accepted that story even after my father fucked up my back by pulling a dangerous wrestling move on me (he was a high school wrestling champ in Upstate NY) when I made the mistake of putting him in a playful full nelson.
I accepted that story when he knocked me into our shoe closet with a punch that permanently scarred my mouth; it took 6 internal stiches and fourteen external stitches to repair the damage.
I accepted the story after repeated gut shots, rib shots (which have led to arthritis where my ribs join my sternum), spankings with paddles (with holes drilled in them to lower the resistance and increase the speed of the blow), humiliations and slaps.
And then a few years ago my mother and I were coming out of a Mexican restaurant with my twins. Milo拧 loved to swing between us back then. He'd grab our hands, take a little run and swing his legs out, and we (me and any other adult I happened to be with), would swing him and set him down as many times as he liked. That day my Mom's hands were wet. Milo拧 grabbed our hands, started his swing, and when he reached the apex my Mom's grip gave way. Milo拧 went flying. I couldn't hold on, and there he went, about six feet in the air. His body flipped, he turned face first, and his head hit the sidewalk at speed with a sickening thud.
It freaked me out. Freaked him out too, of course. And we spent a stressful afternoon in the hospital while they observed him and ran tests and interrogated me as a possible abuser. Milo拧 has never wanted to swing again. But he was fine. He had a minor concussion, a big scrape where he hit the pavement, and a goose egg. But that was it. One of the most horrifying head injuries I had ever been witness to, and it was almost nothing.
It got me thinking about my fractured skull.
Had "I" broken it? Or was that just the story I was told? How many times had I heard the comment, "Brad's got a head like a rock. Nothing hurts that kid"? And it seemed to be true but for that one time. Why had I gone to stay with my grandparents for a little while after the damage was done? Where was my Dad when it happened? What if it wasn't me who was to blame at all? Did "I" really do it when my Dad was at work?
I wanted to know; I still want to know, but I never will. My Mom died before I worked up the courage to ask her. I wasn't worried about offending her, but I don't know if I could have handled the potential lie. My Dad is still alive, so I could confront him, but he can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything that has to do with me. My grandparents are all dead, so I don't know the answer, and I will always only suspect. And suspect I do.
You can see now why I am fascinated by violence, and why 沤i啪ek's work would call to me. And why the final sentence of would have a powerful personal impact:
Luckily, though, she and I resolved the issue of her tacit guilt for the acts of violence she knew about before she died. We had a falling out, then we had a coming together, and we were able to become very close -- closer than we'd ever been. We just never got to what I suspect was the biggest lie of all: that she had covered up the earliest and most dangerous piece of abuse in my life.
Quick thought it is, 沤i啪ek tries to dig into the whys and hows and wherefores of systemic violence. He takes his thought and ours beyond the subjective acts we see and ponders what lies beneath it all. He demystifies our mystification and asks us dispel our own illusions as much as we can. He spends an awfully long time talking about the big moments of violence -- the Holocaust, the Collectivisation, 9-11, etc., etc. -- which is fine, but and I, for one, would have liked this book better had he focused his mind blowing brain on the everyday acts of violence that are at the root of it all.
That's my own selfishness talking, however, and the book is important regardless of 沤i啪ek's focus. I will be coming back to this book again. Next time, though, I will only come back after I've brushed up on my Lacan and Kant and Hegel and Heidegger and Freud.
Stop name dropping, Slavoj, you beautiful sonuvabitch.
When I was a 4 year old boy, I wore a helmet for a year because I fractured my skull. That's the story I grew up with. "I" fractured my skull. I was running down the hallway in our apartment, I was wearing socks, and I smacked my head against the protruding corner of the wall; my skull cracked.
I always accepted that story.
I accepted that story even after my father punched me so hard that he knocked me out of the cast I had on my broken hand.
I accepted that story even after my father punched me in the face (while we were boxing) and my head hit a similar corner in what was then our house; it took seven stiches to close the cut.
I accepted that story even after my father fucked up my back by pulling a dangerous wrestling move on me (he was a high school wrestling champ in Upstate NY) when I made the mistake of putting him in a playful full nelson.
I accepted that story when he knocked me into our shoe closet with a punch that permanently scarred my mouth; it took 6 internal stiches and fourteen external stitches to repair the damage.
I accepted the story after repeated gut shots, rib shots (which have led to arthritis where my ribs join my sternum), spankings with paddles (with holes drilled in them to lower the resistance and increase the speed of the blow), humiliations and slaps.
And then a few years ago my mother and I were coming out of a Mexican restaurant with my twins. Milo拧 loved to swing between us back then. He'd grab our hands, take a little run and swing his legs out, and we (me and any other adult I happened to be with), would swing him and set him down as many times as he liked. That day my Mom's hands were wet. Milo拧 grabbed our hands, started his swing, and when he reached the apex my Mom's grip gave way. Milo拧 went flying. I couldn't hold on, and there he went, about six feet in the air. His body flipped, he turned face first, and his head hit the sidewalk at speed with a sickening thud.
It freaked me out. Freaked him out too, of course. And we spent a stressful afternoon in the hospital while they observed him and ran tests and interrogated me as a possible abuser. Milo拧 has never wanted to swing again. But he was fine. He had a minor concussion, a big scrape where he hit the pavement, and a goose egg. But that was it. One of the most horrifying head injuries I had ever been witness to, and it was almost nothing.
It got me thinking about my fractured skull.
Had "I" broken it? Or was that just the story I was told? How many times had I heard the comment, "Brad's got a head like a rock. Nothing hurts that kid"? And it seemed to be true but for that one time. Why had I gone to stay with my grandparents for a little while after the damage was done? Where was my Dad when it happened? What if it wasn't me who was to blame at all? Did "I" really do it when my Dad was at work?
I wanted to know; I still want to know, but I never will. My Mom died before I worked up the courage to ask her. I wasn't worried about offending her, but I don't know if I could have handled the potential lie. My Dad is still alive, so I could confront him, but he can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything that has to do with me. My grandparents are all dead, so I don't know the answer, and I will always only suspect. And suspect I do.
You can see now why I am fascinated by violence, and why 沤i啪ek's work would call to me. And why the final sentence of would have a powerful personal impact:
Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.Which is the act I place squarely in the hands of my mother. I do not exonerate my father and his subjective violence in any way, but my mother's embrace of systemic violence shouldn't be ignored either. Even if she didn't cover up a fractured skull, even if "I" really did slip into the corner of the wall, even if a wispy four year old's weight and inertia was somehow enough to literally crack his skull, even if my father had no hand in that long ago wound, she did know about many of the others. She knew, and she had options (unlike so many women), and she had potential support systems and escape routes (unlike too many women), and she did nothing. And I am fairly sure that even when I was four and had to wear a helmet ... even then when escape and safety was at its easiest ... I am fairly sure she did nothing.
Luckily, though, she and I resolved the issue of her tacit guilt for the acts of violence she knew about before she died. We had a falling out, then we had a coming together, and we were able to become very close -- closer than we'd ever been. We just never got to what I suspect was the biggest lie of all: that she had covered up the earliest and most dangerous piece of abuse in my life.
Quick thought it is, 沤i啪ek tries to dig into the whys and hows and wherefores of systemic violence. He takes his thought and ours beyond the subjective acts we see and ponders what lies beneath it all. He demystifies our mystification and asks us dispel our own illusions as much as we can. He spends an awfully long time talking about the big moments of violence -- the Holocaust, the Collectivisation, 9-11, etc., etc. -- which is fine, but and I, for one, would have liked this book better had he focused his mind blowing brain on the everyday acts of violence that are at the root of it all.
That's my own selfishness talking, however, and the book is important regardless of 沤i啪ek's focus. I will be coming back to this book again. Next time, though, I will only come back after I've brushed up on my Lacan and Kant and Hegel and Heidegger and Freud.
Stop name dropping, Slavoj, you beautiful sonuvabitch.
August 15, 2008
I don't want to assert that 'the rock star of cultural theory' is full of shit, but y'know, Slavoj 沤i啪ek seems to me to be kind of full of shit.
Me: Hey Mr 沤i啪ek! What did you think of the last season of Lost?
沤i啪ek: Well, in the context of a Hegelian dialectic, this work must be considered ultimately a usurpation/derivation of Freud's pathetic "death drive" mythos, if you get me. By which I mean, it's opposed to Nietzsche's ironic reading of the story of Job, but only in letter; not so much in spirit.
Me: Are you saying that you think that TV show is stupid?
沤i啪ek: Well yes, but I am saying it a lot more complicatedly.
I mean, I don't really read philosophy, so what the fuck do I know, right? I read this in the back seat of a car on a two-day trip from Oakland to Camp Trans Michigan, and then on the two-day trip back, with an adorable little dog bouncing around the car and a bunch of Atmosphere on Micah's iPod. But I mostly tuned the other stuff out because what's the point of reading a dense book of cultural theory if you can't really take it in, right? (Well, except for the joke where the dog is sleeping and you pretend that passages from said cultural theory are a bedtime story and you read them out loud to her.) Mostly I followed it, and mostly, what Zizek was doing was going, 'here is the complicated place where this phenomenon is situated, and here is why it is stupid.' So, whatever.
There were a couple highlights, like when he asserted that the commonality in human culture is mostly the struggle against human culture, instead of any kind of altruism or anything. But for every really good moment like that, there's at least one moment where he goes, 'hey guys, masturbation is stupid,' or talks kind of aimlessly and pointlessly (and briefly) about the plasticity of gender in the context of "sex-change operations" (nice terminology, rock star) and you think that maybe he's saying transsexuality is stupid (since he thinks everything else is stupid [except, annoyingly, atheism; since the explosion of angry books espousing atheism in the last couple years, I am very over having people shove atheism down my throat], so probably), so you get pissed at him for just touching on it instead of really saying anything about it. Y'know?
(Nice sentence structure there, Imogen. Way to mock the professionals.)
Anyway, whatever. I was engaged and I get why folks are so stoked about him and yes: heck of erudite. But ultimately, y'know, so what?
Me: Hey Mr 沤i啪ek! What did you think of the last season of Lost?
沤i啪ek: Well, in the context of a Hegelian dialectic, this work must be considered ultimately a usurpation/derivation of Freud's pathetic "death drive" mythos, if you get me. By which I mean, it's opposed to Nietzsche's ironic reading of the story of Job, but only in letter; not so much in spirit.
Me: Are you saying that you think that TV show is stupid?
沤i啪ek: Well yes, but I am saying it a lot more complicatedly.
I mean, I don't really read philosophy, so what the fuck do I know, right? I read this in the back seat of a car on a two-day trip from Oakland to Camp Trans Michigan, and then on the two-day trip back, with an adorable little dog bouncing around the car and a bunch of Atmosphere on Micah's iPod. But I mostly tuned the other stuff out because what's the point of reading a dense book of cultural theory if you can't really take it in, right? (Well, except for the joke where the dog is sleeping and you pretend that passages from said cultural theory are a bedtime story and you read them out loud to her.) Mostly I followed it, and mostly, what Zizek was doing was going, 'here is the complicated place where this phenomenon is situated, and here is why it is stupid.' So, whatever.
There were a couple highlights, like when he asserted that the commonality in human culture is mostly the struggle against human culture, instead of any kind of altruism or anything. But for every really good moment like that, there's at least one moment where he goes, 'hey guys, masturbation is stupid,' or talks kind of aimlessly and pointlessly (and briefly) about the plasticity of gender in the context of "sex-change operations" (nice terminology, rock star) and you think that maybe he's saying transsexuality is stupid (since he thinks everything else is stupid [except, annoyingly, atheism; since the explosion of angry books espousing atheism in the last couple years, I am very over having people shove atheism down my throat], so probably), so you get pissed at him for just touching on it instead of really saying anything about it. Y'know?
(Nice sentence structure there, Imogen. Way to mock the professionals.)
Anyway, whatever. I was engaged and I get why folks are so stoked about him and yes: heck of erudite. But ultimately, y'know, so what?
October 2, 2023
- 賷胤乇丨 噩賷噩賰 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 賵賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賱賶 亘毓囟賴丕貙 毓賱賶 賲丿丕乇 爻鬲丞 賮氐賵賱 毓丕賯丿丕賸 賱賲賯丕乇賳丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賱丨丕賱賷丞 賵丕賱卮賷賵毓賷丞 丕賱爻丕亘賯丞貙 丕賱廿賷丿賷賵賱賵噩賷丕鬲 丕賱賲鬲毓丿丿丞貙 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘貙 丕賱賯鬲賱 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷貙 毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻貙 丕賱廿氐賵賱賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲
- 賷賮乇賯 噩賷噩賰 亘賷賳 孬賱丕孬丞 丕賳賵丕毓 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮: 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 (廿胤賱丕賯 賳丕乇 毓賱賶 卮禺氐 賲丕) 賵丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷 (爻賷丕爻賷貙 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷) 賵丕賱乇賲夭賷 (賱睾丞貙 賲賵乇賵孬 孬賯丕賮賷) 賵賷亘丿兀 亘鬲丨賱賷賱賴丕 賵爻賵賯 丕賱賯乇丕卅賳 賵丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱毓丿賷丿丞 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 (丕丨丿丕孬 賮乇賳爻丕 2005貙 丕丨丿丕孬 11 丕賷賱賵賱貙 亘賷賱 睾丕賷鬲爻) 賵賲賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 賵丕賱兀賮賱丕賲 賵賲爻乇丨 亘乇賷禺鬲 賵睾賷乇賴.
- 賮賷 丕賱禺鬲丕賲 賷禺賱氐 噩賷噩賰 丕賱賶 鬲賮賳賷丿 丕賱丿乇賵爻 丕賱賲爻鬲賯丕丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賷賳賴賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 亘噩賲賱丞 "廿賳 毓丿賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘兀賷 鬲丨乇賰 賷賰賵賳 兀丨賷丕賳丕賸貙 兀賯賵賶 丕賱鬲丨乇賰丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘賴丕"
- 賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 賮鬲乇丞 10 兀賷丕賲貙 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 賰賷賮賷丞 丕禺鬲亘丕亍 丕賱毓賳賮 賵乇丕亍 賯賳丕毓 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賵丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賰丕賳 賵丕囟丨丕賸 賵噩賷丿丕賸 賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 賰賳鬲 丕毓賷丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賮賯乇丕鬲 毓丿丞 賲乇丕鬲 賱兀丨丕賵賱 賮賴賲 賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱乇亘胤 禺氐賵氐丕賸 賲毓 廿丿禺丕賱 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賴賷睾賱 賵賱丕賰丕賳 賵胤乇賵丨丕鬲 亘賳賷丕賲賷賳. 賱賰賳賳賷 賱賲 丕賳噩丨 賱賱兀爻賮 賵賱賲 丕賯鬲賳毓 亘賲毓馗賲 丕賱匕賷 丕賵乇丿賴 賵賵噩丿鬲賴 賲毓賯丿丕賸 丕賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷噩亘! 賱匕賱賰 乇亘賲丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱廿毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕亍丞 賲乇丞 丕禺乇賶
- - -
亘毓囟 丕賱廿賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲:
丕賳 賲毓賳賶 丕賱鬲毓丕胤賮 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 丨丕賱丕鬲 丕賱胤賵丕乇卅 賲賮亘乇賰貙 賵賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴 亘丕賱賮毓賱貙 噩乇丕亍 丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕囟丨丞
賲丕 毓賱賷賳丕 賮毓賱賴 丕賱賷賵賲 毓賳丿賲丕 賷賯氐賮賳丕 丕賱廿毓賱丕賲 亘賵丕亘賱 賲賳 氐賵乇 丕賱毓賳賮 賴賵 丕賳 賳鬲毓賱賲 孬賲 賳鬲毓賱賲 賵賳鬲毓賱賲 丕賷囟丕賸貙 賱賱賵賯賵賮 毓賱賶 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱賰丕賲賳丞 賵乇丕亍 丕賱毓賳賮.
賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱丿賶 丕賱卮賷賵毓賷賷賳 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷賷賳 鬲購賵丕噩賴 丌賮丞 丕賱噩乇賷 丕賱賲丨賲賵賲 賵乇丕亍 丕賱乇亘丨 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱廿丨爻丕賳 賵毓賲賱 丕賱禺賷乇. 賵丕賱廿丨爻丕賳 賴匕丕 賴賵 丕賱賯賳丕毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 丕賱匕賷
賷禺賮賷 賵噩賴 丕賱廿爻鬲睾賱丕賱 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷
丨賷賳 賷噩乇賷 丕睾乇丕賯賳丕 亘賵丕亘賱 賲賳 丕賱丕賳亘丕亍 丕賱爻丕乇丞 賱賱賯賱賵亘 毓賳 丕賱睾丕亍 丿賷賵賳 賲毓賷賳丞 丕賵 毓賳 丨賲賱丞 丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賰亘乇賶 賱廿爻鬲卅氐丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賵亘丕亍 丕賵 匕丕賰貙 賷賰賮賷 丕賳 鬲丨乇賰 丕賱亘胤丕賯丞 丕賱亘乇賷丿賷丞 賯賱賷賱丕賸 賰賷 鬲賱鬲賯胤 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 丕賱丿丕毓乇丞 賱賱卮賷賵毓賷 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 賮賷 睾賲乇丞 丕賱毓賲賱 禺賱賮 丕賱爻鬲丕乇.
賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷噩毓賱 賰賷爻賳噩乇 丕賱匕賷 丕賲乇 亘賯氐賮 賰賲亘賵丿賷丕 賯氐賮丕 賰孬賷賮丕 賵賲乇賰夭丕賸 兀丿賶 丕賱賶 賴賱丕賰 賲卅丕鬲 丕賱丌賱丕賮 賲賳 丕賱亘卮乇貙 兀賯賱 廿噩乇丕賲丕賸 賲賳 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱賷賳 毓賳 丕賳賴賷丕乇 亘乇噩賷 丕賱鬲噩丕乇丞 賮賷 賳賷賵賷賵乇賰責 兀賱賷爻 爻亘亘 匕賱賰 賲鬲賲孬賱丕賸 賮賷 賰賵賳賳丕 囟丨丕賷丕 賳賵毓 賲賳 "丕賱賵賴賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷"責
丕匕丕 賰丕賳 丕氐賵賱賷賵 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賷丕賲 丕賱賲夭毓賵賲賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘兀賳賴賲 丕賴鬲丿賵丕 丕賱賶 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 賮賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷囟胤乇賴賲 丕賱賶 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘兀賳賴賲 賲賴丿丿賵賳 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳責 賲丕 丕賱丿丕毓賷 丕賱賶 丕賳 賷丨爻丿賵賴賲責
- 賷賮乇賯 噩賷噩賰 亘賷賳 孬賱丕孬丞 丕賳賵丕毓 賲賳 丕賱毓賳賮: 丕賱匕丕鬲賷 (廿胤賱丕賯 賳丕乇 毓賱賶 卮禺氐 賲丕) 賵丕賱賲賵囟賵毓賷 (爻賷丕爻賷貙 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷) 賵丕賱乇賲夭賷 (賱睾丞貙 賲賵乇賵孬 孬賯丕賮賷) 賵賷亘丿兀 亘鬲丨賱賷賱賴丕 賵爻賵賯 丕賱賯乇丕卅賳 賵丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱毓丿賷丿丞 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞 (丕丨丿丕孬 賮乇賳爻丕 2005貙 丕丨丿丕孬 11 丕賷賱賵賱貙 亘賷賱 睾丕賷鬲爻) 賵賲賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丕鬲 賵丕賱兀賮賱丕賲 賵賲爻乇丨 亘乇賷禺鬲 賵睾賷乇賴.
- 賮賷 丕賱禺鬲丕賲 賷禺賱氐 噩賷噩賰 丕賱賶 鬲賮賳賷丿 丕賱丿乇賵爻 丕賱賲爻鬲賯丕丞 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賵賷賳賴賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 亘噩賲賱丞 "廿賳 毓丿賲 丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘兀賷 鬲丨乇賰 賷賰賵賳 兀丨賷丕賳丕賸貙 兀賯賵賶 丕賱鬲丨乇賰丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘賴丕"
- 賯乇兀鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 賮鬲乇丞 10 兀賷丕賲貙 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賮賷 賰賷賮賷丞 丕禺鬲亘丕亍 丕賱毓賳賮 賵乇丕亍 賯賳丕毓 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻丕賲丨 賵丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賰丕賳 賵丕囟丨丕賸 賵噩賷丿丕賸 賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 賰賳鬲 丕毓賷丿 亘毓囟 丕賱賮賯乇丕鬲 毓丿丞 賲乇丕鬲 賱兀丨丕賵賱 賮賴賲 賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱乇亘胤 禺氐賵氐丕賸 賲毓 廿丿禺丕賱 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賴賷睾賱 賵賱丕賰丕賳 賵胤乇賵丨丕鬲 亘賳賷丕賲賷賳. 賱賰賳賳賷 賱賲 丕賳噩丨 賱賱兀爻賮 賵賱賲 丕賯鬲賳毓 亘賲毓馗賲 丕賱匕賷 丕賵乇丿賴 賵賵噩丿鬲賴 賲毓賯丿丕賸 丕賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷噩亘! 賱匕賱賰 乇亘賲丕 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱廿毓丕丿丞 賯乇丕亍丞 賲乇丞 丕禺乇賶
- - -
亘毓囟 丕賱廿賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲:
丕賳 賲毓賳賶 丕賱鬲毓丕胤賮 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 丨丕賱丕鬲 丕賱胤賵丕乇卅 賲賮亘乇賰貙 賵賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴 亘丕賱賮毓賱貙 噩乇丕亍 丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕囟丨丞
賲丕 毓賱賷賳丕 賮毓賱賴 丕賱賷賵賲 毓賳丿賲丕 賷賯氐賮賳丕 丕賱廿毓賱丕賲 亘賵丕亘賱 賲賳 氐賵乇 丕賱毓賳賮 賴賵 丕賳 賳鬲毓賱賲 孬賲 賳鬲毓賱賲 賵賳鬲毓賱賲 丕賷囟丕賸貙 賱賱賵賯賵賮 毓賱賶 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱賰丕賲賳丞 賵乇丕亍 丕賱毓賳賮.
賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賱丿賶 丕賱卮賷賵毓賷賷賳 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷賷賳 鬲購賵丕噩賴 丌賮丞 丕賱噩乇賷 丕賱賲丨賲賵賲 賵乇丕亍 丕賱乇亘丨 毓賳 胤乇賷賯 丕賱廿丨爻丕賳 賵毓賲賱 丕賱禺賷乇. 賵丕賱廿丨爻丕賳 賴匕丕 賴賵 丕賱賯賳丕毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 丕賱匕賷
賷禺賮賷 賵噩賴 丕賱廿爻鬲睾賱丕賱 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿賷
丨賷賳 賷噩乇賷 丕睾乇丕賯賳丕 亘賵丕亘賱 賲賳 丕賱丕賳亘丕亍 丕賱爻丕乇丞 賱賱賯賱賵亘 毓賳 丕賱睾丕亍 丿賷賵賳 賲毓賷賳丞 丕賵 毓賳 丨賲賱丞 丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賰亘乇賶 賱廿爻鬲卅氐丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賵亘丕亍 丕賵 匕丕賰貙 賷賰賮賷 丕賳 鬲丨乇賰 丕賱亘胤丕賯丞 丕賱亘乇賷丿賷丞 賯賱賷賱丕賸 賰賷 鬲賱鬲賯胤 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞 丕賱丿丕毓乇丞 賱賱卮賷賵毓賷 丕賱賱賷亘乇丕賱賷 賮賷 睾賲乇丞 丕賱毓賲賱 禺賱賮 丕賱爻鬲丕乇.
賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷噩毓賱 賰賷爻賳噩乇 丕賱匕賷 丕賲乇 亘賯氐賮 賰賲亘賵丿賷丕 賯氐賮丕 賰孬賷賮丕 賵賲乇賰夭丕賸 兀丿賶 丕賱賶 賴賱丕賰 賲卅丕鬲 丕賱丌賱丕賮 賲賳 丕賱亘卮乇貙 兀賯賱 廿噩乇丕賲丕賸 賲賳 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱賲爻丐賵賱賷賳 毓賳 丕賳賴賷丕乇 亘乇噩賷 丕賱鬲噩丕乇丞 賮賷 賳賷賵賷賵乇賰責 兀賱賷爻 爻亘亘 匕賱賰 賲鬲賲孬賱丕賸 賮賷 賰賵賳賳丕 囟丨丕賷丕 賳賵毓 賲賳 "丕賱賵賴賲 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷"責
丕匕丕 賰丕賳 丕氐賵賱賷賵 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賷丕賲 丕賱賲夭毓賵賲賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘兀賳賴賲 丕賴鬲丿賵丕 丕賱賶 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞貙 賮賲丕 丕賱匕賷 賷囟胤乇賴賲 丕賱賶 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘兀賳賴賲 賲賴丿丿賵賳 賲賳 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丐賲賳賷賳責 賲丕 丕賱丿丕毓賷 丕賱賶 丕賳 賷丨爻丿賵賴賲責
Read
September 15, 2010zizek thinks "the village" was a good movie
June 3, 2020
噩賲賱賴鈥屫й� 賲毓乇賵賮 丕夭 賱賳蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 丿賯蹖賯 蹖丕丿賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫⒇� 丕賲丕 賲囟賲賵賳卮 趩賳蹖賳 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賵丿 : "丿賲賵讴乇丕爻蹖 亘乇丕蹖 讴丿丕賲 胤亘賯賴責"
丿乇 丿賳蹖丕蹖 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 丕賲乇賵夭 讴賴 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕毓氐丕乇貙 亘卮乇蹖鬲 - 賴賲丕賳 酃酃 丿乇氐丿 讴賴 丕賱丕賳 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 卮丿賴 酃酃.鄣 丿乇氐丿 - 倬乇賵賱鬲丕乇蹖夭賴! 卮丿賴貙 賳诏乇丕賳蹖 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賳賴 丕夭 賲禺丕賱賮鬲 蹖丕 賲孬賱丕賸 乇兀蹖 丿丕丿賳 賲乇丿賲 亘賴 賮賱丕賳 讴丕賳丿蹖丿貙 讴賴 丕夭 丕賳賮毓丕賱 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賲乇丿賲 賴爻鬲.
賴卮鬲诏 亘夭賳蹖丿貙 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 囟乇蹖丨鈥屬勠屫驰� 賵 倬丿賵賮蹖賱蹖 鬲鬲賱賵 噩賳亘卮 賲噩丕夭蹖 乇丕賴 亘賳丿丕夭蹖丿貙 毓賱蹖賴 丕賵賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 卮賲丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫辟� 賵 賲丕爻讴 賳賲蹖鈥屫操嗁� 賮丨卮鈥屬嗀з呝� 鬲賳馗蹖賲 讴賳蹖丿貙 丕夭 鬲乇爻賽 乇賵蹖鈥屭┴ж必з堎呚嗁� "亘丿鬲乇" 亘乇丕蹖 "亘丿" 乇兀蹖 噩賲毓 讴賳蹖丿 丕賲丕 爻讴賵鬲 賳讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 賴賲丕賳丕 "亘蹖鈥屫佖з堌� 讴卮賳丿賴鈥屫臂屬� 丕爻賱丨賴鈥屫池�."
跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 丕賳賵丕毓 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲蹖鈥屭� 賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫� 讴賴 趩賴鈥屫焚堌� 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屬囏й屰� "賮毓丕賱丕賳賴" 賲孬賱 丨賵丕丿孬 鬲乇賵乇蹖爻鬲蹖 賵 睾丕乇鬲 賮乇賵卮诏丕賴 賵 丕賲孬丕賱賴賲 禺賵丿卮賵賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 禺卮賵賳鬲蹖 丿蹖诏賴 - 禺卮賵賳鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 賵 賳賲丕丿蹖賳 - 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 賲孬賱 賲賵乇丿 丕賵賱 乇爻丕賳賴鈥屫й� 賳賲蹖鈥屫促�!
亘賴 賯賵賱 亘賵丿乇蹖丕乇 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 乇爻丕賳賴 丿乇 丨蹖胤賴鈥屰� 禺卮賵賳鬲 丌诏丕賴蹖鈥屫ㄘ篡� 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿卮 賳賲丕蹖丕賳丿賳 丌卮賵亘 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 賴賵賱賳丕讴賴 賵 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丿丕丿賳 丨爻賽 丕賲賳蹖鬲 亘賴 賲禺丕胤亘 乇賵 亘賴鈥屫官囏� 丿丕乇賴貨 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 賲賵乇丿蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 乇賵夭賴丕 丿丕乇賴 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲蹖鈥屫з佖囏� 賵丕讴賳卮 賲禺丕胤亘 爻蹖鈥屫з嗏€屫з嗀� 乇兀蹖 賳丿丕丿賳 亘賴 鬲乇丕賲倬蹖 賴爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賵 亘丕賳蹖 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲蹖 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴鈥屫池�! 賵 蹖讴 賲丕賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 賴賲 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賲蹖鈥屫促� 讴賴 丕氐賱丕賸 丕毓鬲乇丕囟蹖 亘賵丿.
毓賱蹖 丕蹖賾丨丕賱貙 亘賴 賯賵賱 跇蹖跇讴 - 讴賴 禺賵丿卮 丕夭 賱賳蹖賳 賳賯賱 賯賵賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� - 丿乇 賲賵丕噩賴賴 亘丕 乇爻丕賳賴 賵 丕禺亘丕乇蹖 讴賴 賴乇 乇賵夭 賵 賴乇 爻丕毓鬲 賲丕 乇賵 亘丕 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 賯鬲賱 賵 賮噩丕蹖毓 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇賵亘賴鈥屫辟� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 丕夭 賲丕 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賵丕讴賳卮 爻乇蹖毓 賵 丿爻鬲 乇賵蹖 丿爻鬲 賳诏匕丕卮鬲賳 丿丕乇賴貙 亘禺夭蹖賲 亘賴 讴賳噩蹖 賵 爻賴 讴丕乇 丕賳噩丕賲 亘丿蹖賲: "丌賲賵禺鬲賳貙 丌賲賵禺鬲賳貙 丌賲賵禺鬲賳".
倬.賳 : 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 " Violence: Six Sideways Reflections " 亘賵丿 讴賴 蹖讴 賳诏丕賴賽 夭蹖乇趩卮賲蹖 亘賴鈥屭┵� 丨匕賮 卮丿 賵 賲賵賳丿 倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴.
丿乇 丿賳蹖丕蹖 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 丕賲乇賵夭 讴賴 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴賲賴鈥屰� 丕毓氐丕乇貙 亘卮乇蹖鬲 - 賴賲丕賳 酃酃 丿乇氐丿 讴賴 丕賱丕賳 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 卮丿賴 酃酃.鄣 丿乇氐丿 - 倬乇賵賱鬲丕乇蹖夭賴! 卮丿賴貙 賳诏乇丕賳蹖 丿賵賱鬲鈥屬囏� 賳賴 丕夭 賲禺丕賱賮鬲 蹖丕 賲孬賱丕賸 乇兀蹖 丿丕丿賳 賲乇丿賲 亘賴 賮賱丕賳 讴丕賳丿蹖丿貙 讴賴 丕夭 丕賳賮毓丕賱 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賲乇丿賲 賴爻鬲.
賴卮鬲诏 亘夭賳蹖丿貙 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 囟乇蹖丨鈥屬勠屫驰� 賵 倬丿賵賮蹖賱蹖 鬲鬲賱賵 噩賳亘卮 賲噩丕夭蹖 乇丕賴 亘賳丿丕夭蹖丿貙 毓賱蹖賴 丕賵賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 卮賲丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫辟� 賵 賲丕爻讴 賳賲蹖鈥屫操嗁� 賮丨卮鈥屬嗀з呝� 鬲賳馗蹖賲 讴賳蹖丿貙 丕夭 鬲乇爻賽 乇賵蹖鈥屭┴ж必з堎呚嗁� "亘丿鬲乇" 亘乇丕蹖 "亘丿" 乇兀蹖 噩賲毓 讴賳蹖丿 丕賲丕 爻讴賵鬲 賳讴賳蹖丿 讴賴 賴賲丕賳丕 "亘蹖鈥屫佖з堌� 讴卮賳丿賴鈥屫臂屬� 丕爻賱丨賴鈥屫池�."
跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 丕賳賵丕毓 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲蹖鈥屭� 賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫� 讴賴 趩賴鈥屫焚堌� 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屬囏й屰� "賮毓丕賱丕賳賴" 賲孬賱 丨賵丕丿孬 鬲乇賵乇蹖爻鬲蹖 賵 睾丕乇鬲 賮乇賵卮诏丕賴 賵 丕賲孬丕賱賴賲 禺賵丿卮賵賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屰� 禺卮賵賳鬲蹖 丿蹖诏賴 - 禺卮賵賳鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 賵 賳賲丕丿蹖賳 - 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕賱亘鬲賴 賲孬賱 賲賵乇丿 丕賵賱 乇爻丕賳賴鈥屫й� 賳賲蹖鈥屫促�!
亘賴 賯賵賱 亘賵丿乇蹖丕乇 賮毓丕賱蹖鬲 乇爻丕賳賴 丿乇 丨蹖胤賴鈥屰� 禺卮賵賳鬲 丌诏丕賴蹖鈥屫ㄘ篡� 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 讴丕乇讴乇丿卮 賳賲丕蹖丕賳丿賳 丌卮賵亘 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 賴賵賱賳丕讴賴 賵 賵馗蹖賮賴鈥屰� 丿丕丿賳 丨爻賽 丕賲賳蹖鬲 亘賴 賲禺丕胤亘 乇賵 亘賴鈥屫官囏� 丿丕乇賴貨 丕丨鬲賲丕賱丕賸 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 賲賵乇丿蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 乇賵夭賴丕 丿丕乇賴 丕鬲賮丕賯 賲蹖鈥屫з佖囏� 賵丕讴賳卮 賲禺丕胤亘 爻蹖鈥屫з嗏€屫з嗀� 乇兀蹖 賳丿丕丿賳 亘賴 鬲乇丕賲倬蹖 賴爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 賵 亘丕賳蹖 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲蹖 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴鈥屫池�! 賵 蹖讴 賲丕賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 賴賲 賮乇丕賲賵卮 賲蹖鈥屫促� 讴賴 丕氐賱丕賸 丕毓鬲乇丕囟蹖 亘賵丿.
毓賱蹖 丕蹖賾丨丕賱貙 亘賴 賯賵賱 跇蹖跇讴 - 讴賴 禺賵丿卮 丕夭 賱賳蹖賳 賳賯賱 賯賵賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� - 丿乇 賲賵丕噩賴賴 亘丕 乇爻丕賳賴 賵 丕禺亘丕乇蹖 讴賴 賴乇 乇賵夭 賵 賴乇 爻丕毓鬲 賲丕 乇賵 亘丕 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 賯鬲賱 賵 賮噩丕蹖毓 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇賵亘賴鈥屫辟� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 丕夭 賲丕 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賵丕讴賳卮 爻乇蹖毓 賵 丿爻鬲 乇賵蹖 丿爻鬲 賳诏匕丕卮鬲賳 丿丕乇賴貙 亘禺夭蹖賲 亘賴 讴賳噩蹖 賵 爻賴 讴丕乇 丕賳噩丕賲 亘丿蹖賲: "丌賲賵禺鬲賳貙 丌賲賵禺鬲賳貙 丌賲賵禺鬲賳".
倬.賳 : 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘 " Violence: Six Sideways Reflections " 亘賵丿 讴賴 蹖讴 賳诏丕賴賽 夭蹖乇趩卮賲蹖 亘賴鈥屭┵� 丨匕賮 卮丿 賵 賲賵賳丿 倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴.
Read
August 26, 2017I've read something like 16 Zizek books at this point. So this Itty Bitty Book served as a nice trip down memory lane. It's not all here by a long shot, but a lot of it is ; in it's shortened form.
And I'll be honest with you. Really up front. The little thing about subjective vs objective violence? Makes it pretty clear why the Z=Man said he'd vote for Trump. He really does believe (and shouldn't you? and don't you?) that it is the objective violence underlying and enabling the smooth functioning of a peaceful neoliberalism that needs to be destroyed. So meanwhile, he would seemingly have taken it upon himself to commit the subjective violence of voting for Trump. Accelerationist? Sure, possibly. But what about those of us who for decades have fought neoliberalism and then once more found ourselves taken hostage and voting happily for the slime? I first started reading Zizek after having that experience being blackmailed (again) into voting for Obama. What can I say? Zizek knows how it feels.
But. As is becoming increasingly clear ; the only changes Rump is bringing is making sure it all stays the same, only more so.
Soundtrak ::
Two Minutes to Midnight
Where the Slime Live
Imaginary Music
Time's End
A Lesson in Violence
Nazi Trump Fuck Off
And I'll be honest with you. Really up front. The little thing about subjective vs objective violence? Makes it pretty clear why the Z=Man said he'd vote for Trump. He really does believe (and shouldn't you? and don't you?) that it is the objective violence underlying and enabling the smooth functioning of a peaceful neoliberalism that needs to be destroyed. So meanwhile, he would seemingly have taken it upon himself to commit the subjective violence of voting for Trump. Accelerationist? Sure, possibly. But what about those of us who for decades have fought neoliberalism and then once more found ourselves taken hostage and voting happily for the slime? I first started reading Zizek after having that experience being blackmailed (again) into voting for Obama. What can I say? Zizek knows how it feels.
But. As is becoming increasingly clear ; the only changes Rump is bringing is making sure it all stays the same, only more so.
Soundtrak ::
Two Minutes to Midnight
Where the Slime Live
Imaginary Music
Time's End
A Lesson in Violence
Nazi Trump Fuck Off
May 20, 2011
禺蹖賱蹖 亘丕賴丕卮 禺賵卮 诏匕卮鬲. 鬲賵 毓賳賵丕賳 丕氐賱蹖 丕賵賲丿賴 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 卮蹖卮 鬲丕 賳诏丕賴 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 讴乇丿賴 丕賲丕 賲丕 鬲賵 賮丕乇爻蹖 "倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴 夭蹖乇 趩卮賲蹖" 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗃屬�. 賲鬲乇噩賲 賴賲 鬲賵囟蹖丨蹖 賳丿丕丿賴 讴賴 丕賵賳 蹖賴 賳诏丕賴 讴噩丕 乇賮鬲賴 賵 趩乇丕 丨匕賮 卮丿賴. 賲賳 賳诏丕賴 跇蹖跇讴 乇賵 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇賲 讴賴 丕夭 賴賲賴 趩蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖鈥屫藏й屰� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�. 丕蹖乇丕丿卮 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 亘丕 乇賳丿蹖 丕夭 睾賮賱鬲 賵 丕丨鬲賲丕賱賳 丿丕賳卮 讴賲 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴鈥屫� 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 讴賴 賲亘賴賵鬲卮 讴賳賴. 蹖毓賳蹖 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗃� 蹖賴 噩丕賴丕蹖 丕夭 蹖賴 賲賵囟賵毓 讴賲鬲乇蹖賳 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 丕蹖賳胤賵乇蹖 賵丕賳賲賵丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕胤賱丕毓鬲 讴賱 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 賵 丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屬囏ж池� 賵 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賴賲賵賳 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屫� 乇賵 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 賳鬲蹖噩賴鈥屭屫臂� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 鬲丕 卮賵讴賴鈥屫� 讴賳賴. 鬲賵蹖 賲鬲賳 蹖賴 爻乇蹖 丕乇噩丕毓丕鬲 亘賴 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 丿丕乇賴 讴賴 丕诏賴 趩蹖夭蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇丕鬲 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賳丿賵賳蹖 卮丕蹖丿 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇鬲 賳卮賴 讴賴 趩蹖賴 賲丕噩乇丕. 鬲乇噩賲賴 賴賲 蹖賴 噩丕賴丕蹖蹖 賵丕賯毓賳 丕匕蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┴必�.
August 16, 2009
Here is a slightly patronizing way of summarizing the methodology of Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Zizek; address a relevant social issue (such as violence) and certain ideological perspectives that have been applied to it, cut and paste seemingly disparate examples of high and low culture arbitrarily throughout the text, draw reaching connections between the two, and hopefully attempt to arrive at an intelligible conclusion or thesis. This became apparent during my reading of Violence, part of Picador's BIG IDEA'S/small books series and what is, more or less, Zizek's most accessible work to date.
It starts out with the relatively lucid premise or distinction of three types of violence; subjective (clearly identifiable, direct), symbolic (language or forms of), and systemic (objective; political and economic). After the groundwork is laid out for this commentary on violence, Zizek then starts in on his typical fugue-like series of a variety of subchapters. In each of these, he'll be bringing up a good deal of Lacan, Hegel, and Marx. Approaching surface-level, logical assessments of violence with paradoxical and ironic reasoning, Zizek rambles on about subjects such as the Paris riots of 2005, Bill Gates and subversive entrepreneurship, torture, religious fundamentalism, atheism, and Benjamin's concept of Divine Violence.
I'm not even going to attempt to paraphrase the respective chapters of Violence, and I'll take the deserved criticism for my own lazy criticism here. However, I must say that I do this out of a dismissive attitude toward Zizek's writing style. He is like a kid in the candy store of cultural theory; too excited by the endless possibility of example and analogy at hand to really make a focused point. One second he is criticizing Sam Harris and his controversial, but rational, opinions on political torture, then he suddenly makes the transition into the "Judeo-Christian-Freudian" (ugh) weight of the concept of the Lacanian notion of the Neighbor and the significance of the physical distance and proximity of this Neighbor (the Other being tortured) to the level of ease with which one is able to torture. Granted, he is still following Harris (sort of), but his "point" here is so utterly bloated, and the ones that follow are even more digressive and trivial.
The man basically needs to stick to public lectures and debates, and even those can be interminable. Maybe I'm not even making the greatest point about what is wrong with his writing, but at around page 170, I was about to throw this book against the wall. He's good for an occasional, cultural-studies-type joke, but as I've said before, the man is a completely shallow thinker.
It starts out with the relatively lucid premise or distinction of three types of violence; subjective (clearly identifiable, direct), symbolic (language or forms of), and systemic (objective; political and economic). After the groundwork is laid out for this commentary on violence, Zizek then starts in on his typical fugue-like series of a variety of subchapters. In each of these, he'll be bringing up a good deal of Lacan, Hegel, and Marx. Approaching surface-level, logical assessments of violence with paradoxical and ironic reasoning, Zizek rambles on about subjects such as the Paris riots of 2005, Bill Gates and subversive entrepreneurship, torture, religious fundamentalism, atheism, and Benjamin's concept of Divine Violence.
I'm not even going to attempt to paraphrase the respective chapters of Violence, and I'll take the deserved criticism for my own lazy criticism here. However, I must say that I do this out of a dismissive attitude toward Zizek's writing style. He is like a kid in the candy store of cultural theory; too excited by the endless possibility of example and analogy at hand to really make a focused point. One second he is criticizing Sam Harris and his controversial, but rational, opinions on political torture, then he suddenly makes the transition into the "Judeo-Christian-Freudian" (ugh) weight of the concept of the Lacanian notion of the Neighbor and the significance of the physical distance and proximity of this Neighbor (the Other being tortured) to the level of ease with which one is able to torture. Granted, he is still following Harris (sort of), but his "point" here is so utterly bloated, and the ones that follow are even more digressive and trivial.
The man basically needs to stick to public lectures and debates, and even those can be interminable. Maybe I'm not even making the greatest point about what is wrong with his writing, but at around page 170, I was about to throw this book against the wall. He's good for an occasional, cultural-studies-type joke, but as I've said before, the man is a completely shallow thinker.
October 17, 2022
蹖丕丿丌賵乇蹖 亘賴 丌賯丕蹖 跇蹖跇讴!
讴鬲丕亘 芦禺卮賵賳鬲貙 倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴 夭蹖乇趩卮賲蹖禄 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻賱丕賵蹖 跇蹖跇讴 讴鬲丕亘蹖 禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖 丕爻鬲 丕夭 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 讴賴 卮丕蹖丿 爻鬲蹖賴賳丿賴 鬲乇蹖賳 賲賳鬲賯丿 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 亘丕卮丿. 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲孬丕賱賴丕蹖 賮乇賵丕賳蹖 丕夭 卮讴賱賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 禺卮賵賳鬲 丌賮乇蹖賳蹖 鬲賵爻胤 賳馗丕賲 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 乇丕 匕讴乇 賲蹖讴賳丿. (1) 賵 趩賳丿 賳賲賵賳賴 丕夭 丕毓鬲乇丕囟賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 乇丕 賲孬丕賱 賲蹖夭賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴賴 亘诏賵蹖丿 賳馗丕賲賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 賵 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇 亘乇禺賵乇丿 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 賴蹖趩 賲賱丕丨馗賴 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 乇丕 乇毓丕蹖鬲 賳賲蹖讴賳賳丿. 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 丨賵賲賴 倬丕乇蹖爻 (2) 賵 賵囟毓 丕爻賮亘丕乇 賵 睾丕乇鬲诏乇丕賳賴 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 亘毓丿 丕夭 胤賵賮丕賳 讴丕鬲乇蹖賳丕. (3)
賲爻卅賱賴 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿禄 乇丕 丨賱丕噩蹖 賵 賳賯丿 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖丿賴丿 讴賴 賮乇賴賳诏 睾乇亘蹖 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 禺賵丿卮 賲賳氐賮丕賳賴 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 亘乇禺賵乇丿 賳讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. (4) 賵 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 亘乇禺賵乇丿 睾乇亘 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 丿乇 賯囟蹖賴 丨噩丕亘 乇丕 賲孬丕賱 賲蹖夭賳丿. (5)
蹖丕丿丌賵乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 亘丕 丿乇賵睾诏賵蹖蹖 賵 亘夭乇诏賳賲丕蹖蹖 賲爻丕卅賱 匕賴賳蹖 賲丕 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 (6) 賵 賴賲賴 賲丕 丿趩丕乇 丕蹖賳 囟毓賮 賴爻鬲蹖賲 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 鬲氐賵蹖乇 丿賱禺乇丕卮 诏夭丕乇卮 卮丿賴 賮乇蹖亘 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘禺賵乇蹖賲 (7) 賲禺氐賵氐丕 賵賯鬲蹖 賮乇丿 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 乇丕 丿乇 賳馗乇 亘诏蹖乇蹖賲! (8)
亘丕 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丕诏乇 乇賵蹖 丕蹖賳 讴乇賴 禺丕讴蹖 蹖讴 賳賮乇貙 賮賯胤 蹖讴 賳賮乇 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖卮丿 讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 诏夭丕乇卮 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 丕夭 賵囟毓蹖鬲 丕蹖乇丕賳 胤蹖 蹖讴 賲丕賴 诏匕卮鬲賴 爻讴賵鬲 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賲蹖讴乇丿 讴爻蹖 賳亘賵丿 噩夭 丌賯丕蹖 跇蹖跇讴!
賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿賲 賲蹖倬乇爻賲 趩乇丕 跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 倬蹖丕賲 賵蹖丿卅賵蹖蹖 丕夭 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 丕蹖乇丕賳 丨賲丕蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴 趩賳丿 噩賵丕亘 亘賴 匕賴賳賲 賲蹖乇爻丿 讴賴 賴賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿 禺賵丿卮 丌賲賵禺鬲賴 丕賲 賵 賴賲 爻乇賳禺 乇丕 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 賵蹖丿卅賵蹖 禺賵丿卮 讴卮賮 讴乇丿賴 丕賲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賵蹖丿卅賵 賵 丿乇 賳丕賲賴 丕卮 跇蹖跇讴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 倬蹖乇 賵 亘蹖賲丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 賲毓鬲乇囟丕賳 亘丕卮丿 (鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲蹖丿丕賳賲 亘賴 賮乇丕賳爻賴 賴賲 賳乇賮鬲 鬲丕 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 噩賱蹖賯賴 夭乇丿賴丕 亘丕卮丿) 诏賵蹖丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賮乇丿 亘蹖 丿賮丕毓 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 卮丿賴 賵 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 賮乇蹖亘 賲蹖禺賵乇丿. 丕賲丕 丕夭 丌賳 賲賴賲 鬲乇 丕賵 賲丿丕賲 鬲讴乇丕乇 賲蹖讴賳丿 睾乇亘 趩蹖夭蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌賲賵禺鬲賳 亘賴 賲毓鬲乇囟丕賳 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 賳丿丕乇丿 趩賵賳 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 睾乇亘蹖 丕賮鬲囟丕丨蹖 賲孬賱 賲蹖 鬲賵 (metoo) 亘丕賱丕 丌賵乇丿賴 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 跇蹖跇讴 亘賴 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 丕蹖乇丕賳 趩卮賲 丿賵禺鬲賴 亘賱讴賴 蹖讴 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 丌亘乇賵賲賳丿 丕夭 丿賱 丌賳 亘蹖乇賵賳 亘蹖丕蹖丿.
趩賯丿乇 賳丕乇丕丨鬲 禺賵丕賴丿卮丿 丕诏乇 亘丿丕賳丿 賲丕 賴賲 丕蹖賳噩丕 蹖讴 賲蹖 鬲賵 乇賵賳賵卮鬲 亘乇丕亘乇 丕氐賱 睾乇亘 丿丕乇蹖賲. 賵 趩賴 賯丿乇 丿賱卮 禺賵丕賴丿卮讴爻鬲 賵賯鬲蹖 亘乇賴賳賴 卮丿賳 倬鬲蹖丕乇賴 賴丕 乇丕 丿乇 禺蹖丕亘丕賳 亘亘蹖賳丿. 亘賴 賯乇蹖賳賴 賲孬丕賱賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賳賯囟 丨賯賵賯 夭賳丕賳 丿乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丕爻賱丕賲蹖 賲蹖夭賳丿 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖讴賳賲 賮讴乇 賲蹖讴賳丿 賴賳賵夭 禺鬲賳賴 丿禺鬲乇丕賳 亘賴 胤賵乇 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賵丿 ( 丕夭 賯囟丕 讴乇丿爻鬲丕賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲卮讴賱 丿爻鬲 亘賴 诏乇蹖亘丕賳 丕爻鬲!)
亘賴 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳賴丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕賮夭賵丿 丕賮鬲丕丿賳 丿乇 鬲賱賴 丕胤丕毓鬲 乇丕. 鬲賱賴 丕蹖 讴賴 丕賳亘賵賴蹖 丕夭 趩賴乇賴 賴丕蹖 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 乇丕 賵丕丿丕乇 讴乇丿 丕夭 "賳馗乇 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲" 鬲亘毓蹖鬲 讴賳賳丿. 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖丿賴丿 趩诏賵賳賴 丕蹖賳 賮囟丕蹖 爻乇讴賵亘诏乇 讴賴 馗丕賴乇蹖 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 丕賲丕 賲丕賴蹖鬲蹖 丕乇賵賵賱蹖 丿丕乇丿 賵 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴 "亘乇丕丿乇 亘夭乇诏鬲乇" 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賴蹖趩 賳馗乇 賲禺丕賱賮蹖 乇丕 亘乇賳賲蹖鈥屫жㄘ�. (9)
丕賲丕 讴爻蹖 賳亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 丿賱 亘诏蹖乇丿. 賲诏乇 賲蹖卮賵丿 丕乇爻胤賵 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 夭賳 爻鬲蹖夭蹖 賵 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 亘乇丿賴 丿丕乇蹖貙 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賮爻讴蹖 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 蹖賴賵丿爻鬲蹖夭蹖 賵 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 讴賳丕乇 诏匕丕卮鬲責 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 丕賲乇賵夭 亘丕蹖丿 賴賲賴 賲丕 (賲禺氐賵氐丕 丕诏乇 賵爻賵爻賴 賲蹖卮賵蹖賲 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲卮乇賵毓蹖鬲 賵 賲蹖丿丕賳 亘丿賴蹖賲) 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賳蹖賲 賵 丿乇爻 亘夭乇诏蹖 讴賴 跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴 賵 賲賵禺乇賴 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇 丌賳 鬲丕讴蹖丿 讴乇丿賴 乇丕 亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲:
芦賲丕 丕賲乇賵夭賴 賵賯鬲蹖 禺賵丿賲丕賳 乇丕 夭蹖乇 乇诏亘丕乇 鬲氐賵蹖乇賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖 亘蹖賳蹖賲 讴賴 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 丕夭 氐丨賳賴 賴丕蹖 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘丕乇 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 亘丕蹖丿 蹖讴 诏賵卮賴 禺賱賵鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲 賵 芦亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲貙 亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲 賵 亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲禄 讴賴 毓賱鬲 丕蹖賳 禺卮賵賳鬲 賴丕 趩蹖爻鬲.禄
---
诏夭蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 芦禺卮賵賳鬲貙 倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴 夭蹖乇趩卮賲蹖禄 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻賱丕賵蹖 跇蹖跇讴:
(1) 爻乇賳賵卮鬲 讴賱 丕賯卮丕乇 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 诏丕賴 讴賱 讴卮賵乇賴丕 乇丕 乇賯氐 亘賵乇爻 亘丕夭丕賳賴 賵 芦禺賵丿賲丿丕乇丕賳賴禄 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丕蹖 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 乇賯賲 亘夭賳丿 讴賴 亘丕 賳賵毓蹖 亘蹖 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 賱毓賳鬲蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴賴 噩丕亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖 丕卮 趩賴 鬲兀孬蹖乇蹖 亘乇 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 诏匕丕卮鬲 賴丿賮 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 讴賴 爻賵丿丌賵乇蹖 丕爻鬲 丿賳亘丕賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 乇賯氐 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 禺賵丿讴丕乇 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 氐丨賳賴 诏乇丿丕賳 賳賲丕蹖卮 丕爻鬲 賵 讴賱蹖丿 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賵 賲氐蹖亘鬲 賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 禺卮賵賳鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 丕爻丕爻蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 睾乇蹖亘 鬲乇 丕夭 賴乇诏賵賳賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 - 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 倬蹖卮丕 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 丕爻鬲 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 乇賯氐 禺賵丿讴丕乇 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲.
(2) 賲毓鬲乇囟丕賳 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴賴 毓賲賱丕 賲丨乇賵賲 賵 讴賳丕乇 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 诏乇爻賳賴 賳亘賵丿賳丿. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賴 爻胤丨 亘賯丕蹖 賲丨囟 賳蹖夭 爻賯賵胤 賳讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿. 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賳诏賳丕蹖 賲丕丿蹖 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 亘丿鬲乇蹖 诏乇賮鬲丕乇 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿 - 趩賴 乇爻丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 丿趩丕乇 爻乇讴賵亘 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賵 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 亘丕卮賳丿 - 賯丕丿乇 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿 禺賵丿卮丕賳 乇丕 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 爻丕夭賲丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘丕 丿爻鬲賵乇 讴丕乇 乇賵卮賳 蹖丕 丨鬲蹖 丌卮賮鬲賴丕蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳 丿賴賳丿. 倬爻 丕蹖賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 讴賴 丿乇 倬卮鬲 丌鬲卮 丕賮夭賵蹖 賴丕蹖 丨賵賲賴 倬丕乇蹖爻 賴蹖趩 亘乇賳丕賲賴 丕蹖 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲 禺賵丿 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿 鬲賮爻蹖乇 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 亘蹖丕賳诏乇 丨賯丕蹖賯 賮乇丕賵丕賳蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賵囟毓 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 - 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賳丕噩賵乇蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 诏乇賮鬲丕乇 丌賲丿賴 丕蹖賲.
(3) 亘賴 蹖賯蹖賳貙 亘蹖 賳馗賲蹖 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵丕賯毓蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 噩乇賯賴 丕丨爻丕爻 禺胤乇 乇丕 夭丿: 亘賴 賲噩乇丿蹖 讴賴 鬲賵賮丕賳 丕夭 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 诏匕卮鬲 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 趩倬丕賵賱 賵 睾丕乇鬲诏乇蹖 丌睾丕夭 卮丿. 丕蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 丕夭 丿夭丿蹖 亘蹖 卮乇賲丕賳賴 鬲丕 诏卮鬲賳 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 囟乇賵乇蹖丕鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 賲蹖 诏乇賮鬲. 丕賲丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 (賲丨丿賵丿) 噩賳丕蹖鬲 賴丕 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 芦诏夭丕乇卮 賴丕蹖蹖禄 乇丕 鬲賵噩蹖賴 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖 鬲賲丕賲 毓蹖丕乇 賳馗賲 賵 賯丕賳賵賳 丕乇爻丕賱 賲蹖 卮丿貙 賳賴 丕夭 丌賳 乇賵 讴賴 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇卮 賴丕 芦丕睾乇丕賯 丌賲蹖夭禄 亘賵丿貙 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱蹖 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 乇蹖卮賴 丕蹖 鬲乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳: 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖 诏夭丕乇卮 賴丕蹖 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 鬲毓乇囟 噩賳爻蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丿乇爻鬲 亘賵丿 丨讴丕蹖鬲 賴丕蹖 賳賯賱 卮丿賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丌賳賴丕 亘丕夭 賴賲 亘蹖賲丕乇诏賵賳貙 賵 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴 亘賵丿 夭蹖乇丕 賲丨乇讴 丕蹖賳 丨讴丕蹖鬲 賴丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 賳亘賵丿 亘賱讴賴 倬蹖卮丿丕賵乇蹖 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴 亘賵丿貨 丕丨爻丕爻 乇囟丕蹖鬲 禺丕胤乇 讴爻丕賳蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賳丿 亘诏賵蹖賳丿 芦賲蹖 亘蹖賳蹖丿! 爻蹖丕賴 倬賵爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丕蹖賳 噩賵乇蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 賵丨卮蹖丕賳蹖 禺卮賵賳鬲 胤賱亘 讴賴 夭蹖乇 賱丕蹖賴 賳丕夭讴蹖 丕夭 鬲賲丿賳 倬賳賴丕賳 卮丿賴 丕賳丿禄. 亘賴 丿蹖诏乇 爻禺賳貙 丕蹖賳 噩丕 亘丕 趩蹖夭蹖 爻乇賵讴丕乇 丿丕乇蹖賲 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 丿乇賵睾 诏賮鬲賳 丿乇 倬賵卮卮 丨賯蹖賯鬲 禺賵丕賳丿: 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丌賳趩賴 賲蹖 诏賵蹖蹖賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 賵丕賯毓蹖丕鬲 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 丕賳诏蹖夭賴 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲丕 乇丕 賵丕丿丕乇 亘賴 诏賮鬲賳 丌賳 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 賳丕丿乇爻鬲 賵 讴丕匕亘 丕爻鬲.
(4) 鬲賳賴丕 賮乇賴賳诏 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 睾乇亘蹖 賳賵 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿賲禺鬲丕乇蹖 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 賮乇丿蹖 乇丕 賵丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 賴賲亘爻鬲诏蹖 噩賲毓蹖貙 丕乇鬲亘丕胤貙 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 卮賳丕爻蹖 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 丿蹖诏乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲丕 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 丕賳丿 賵 賵馗蹖賮賴 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 爻賳鬲賴丕 賵 毓乇賮賴丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 禺賵丿 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 禺賵丿 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘乇丕蹖 賮乇賴賳诏 禺丕氐蹖 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭 賯丕卅賱 丕爻鬲: 賮乇賴賳诏 睾乇亘蹖 賳賵. 丿乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賴賲貙 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 丿趩丕乇 噩丕賳亘丿丕乇蹖 卮丿蹖丿蹖 丕爻鬲. 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 鬲丨賲賱 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿蹖诏乇 賮乇賴賳诏 賴丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丿丕丿賴 賳卮賵丿.
(5) 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 賴丕蹖 賳诏乇卮 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 噩丕 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 亘賴 夭賳丕賳 賲爻賱賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲賯賳毓賴 亘賴 爻乇 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 賳蹖夭 丕蹖賳 噩丕 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲. 夭賳丕賳 丕噩丕夭賴 丿丕乇賳丿 賲賯賳毓賴 亘賴 爻乇 讴賳賳丿 賲卮乇賵胤 亘乇 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘丕卮丿 賵 賳賴 诏夭蹖賳賴 丕蹖 讴賴 賴賲爻乇 亘丕 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 卮丕賳 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 鬲丨賲蹖賱 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮丿. 丕賲丕 賴賲蹖賳 讴賴 夭賳丕賳 賲賯賳毓賴 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓賲丕賱 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 賮乇丿蹖 卮丕賳 賲孬賱丕 亘乇丕蹖 鬲丨賯賯 賲毓賳賵蹖鬲 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘賴 爻乇 讴賳賳丿 賲毓賳丕蹖 賲賯賳毓賴 亘賴 爻乇 讴乇丿賳 讴丕賲賱丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 丿蹖诏乇 賲賯賳毓賴 賳卮丕賳賴 鬲毓賱賯 丌賳丕賳 亘賴 噩賲毓 賲爻賱賲丕賳丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲 亘賱讴賴 賳賲賵丿 賮乇丿蹖鬲 禺丕氐 禺賵丿卮丕賳 丕爻鬲. 鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕蹖賳 丿賵 賴賲丕賳 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賲蹖丕賳 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖 趩蹖賳蹖 讴賴 睾匕丕蹖 趩蹖賳蹖 賲蹖 禺賵乇丿 趩賵賳 丕夭 禺蹖賱蹖 賯丿蹖賲 賲乇丿賲 乇賵爻鬲丕蹖 卮丕賳 趩賳蹖賳 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 卮賴乇賵賳丿蹖 丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 讴賱丕賳 卮賴乇賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲氐賲蹖賲 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 卮丕賲 乇丕 丿乇 蹖讴 乇爻鬲賵乇丕賳 趩蹖賳蹖 賲丨賱蹖 亘禺賵乇丿. 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 毓乇賮蹖 賲丕 讴賴 丕爻丕爻 丌賳 乇丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖 丿賴丿 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 讴賴 鬲毓賱賯 賲匕賴亘蹖 趩卮賲诏蹖乇蹖 丿丕乇賳丿 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲 賮乇賵丿爻鬲 鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇賳丿. 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丌賳丕賳 丕噩丕夭賴 蹖丕亘賳丿 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 卮丕賳 乇丕 丨賮馗 讴賳賳丿. 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 (賮賯胤) 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 蹖丕 毓賯蹖丿賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺丕氐 禺賵丿卮丕賳 芦鬲丨賲賱 賲蹖 卮賵丿禄. 亘賴 賲噩乇丿蹖 讴賴 丌賳丕賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 卮丕賳 乇丕 毓賱賳丕 亘賴 賴賲丕賳 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿卮丕賳 丿丕乇丿 賲孬賱丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賳卮丕賳賴 鬲毓賱賯 丕爻丕爻蹖 卮丕賳 噩丕乇 亘夭賳賳丿 賲鬲賴賲 亘賴 芦亘賳蹖丕丿诏乇丕蹖蹖禄 賲蹖 卮賵賳丿. 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕蹖卮 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 芦爻賵跇賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿禄 丿乇 賲毓賳丕蹖 芦鬲爻丕賴賱 诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴禄 趩賳丿賮乇賴賳诏蹖 睾乇亘蹖 鬲賳賴丕 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇賵賳丿 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 禺卮賳 讴賳丿賴 卮丿賳 丕夭 夭蹖爻鬲 噩賴丕賳蹖 禺丕氐 賵 亘乇蹖丿賳 丕夭 乇蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 禺賵丿 爻乇 亘乇丌賵乇丿.
(6) 賵賯鬲蹖 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 賲丕 乇丕 亘丕 芦亘丨乇丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 亘卮乇蹖禄 讴賴 馗丕賴乇丕 倬蹖賵爻鬲賴 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 噩賴丕賳 倬丿蹖丿丕乇 賲蹖 卮賵賳丿 亘賲亘丕乇丕賳 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 賴賲賵丕乇賴 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲 讴賴 賴乇 亘丨乇丕賳 禺丕氐蹖 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 鬲賯賱丕蹖蹖 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 蹖讴亘丕乇賴 丿乇 讴丕賳賵賳 鬲賵噩賴 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿. 毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕毓丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 噩丕 賳賯卮 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賵丕賯毓丞 亘卮乇丿賵爻鬲丕賳賴 讴賲 丕賴賲蹖鬲 鬲乇 丕夭 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 - 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲.
(7) 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 讴賴 丌丿賲 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 氐賮丨賴 賳賲丕蹖卮诏乇 乇丕蹖丕賳賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿 賳卮爻鬲賴 賵 賲賵噩 爻賵丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 賮乇丿蹖 噩賵賴乇蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 倬賳噩乇賴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲蹖 乇賵 亘賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 亘丕 倬蹖讴乇賴 賴丕蹖 賲噩丕夭蹖 乇賵亘賴 乇賵爻鬲 賵 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇 賳賵毓蹖 卮亘讴賴 噩賴丕賳蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 睾乇賯 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
(8) 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 讴賴 丌丿賲 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 氐賮丨賴 賳賲丕蹖卮诏乇 乇丕蹖丕賳賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿 賳卮爻鬲賴 賵 賲賵噩 爻賵丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 賮乇丿蹖 噩賵賴乇蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 倬賳噩乇賴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲蹖 乇賵 亘賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 亘丕 倬蹖讴乇賴 賴丕蹖 賲噩丕夭蹖 乇賵亘賴 乇賵爻鬲 賵 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇 賳賵毓蹖 卮亘讴賴 噩賴丕賳蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 睾乇賯 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
(9) 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丌蹖賳丿賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 丨賵賱 趩蹖夭蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 芦亘乇丕丿乇 亘夭乇诏鬲乇禄 噩賵乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱 丿賵乇 賲蹖 夭賳丿. 賵賱蹖 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 丕蹖賳 賳诏乇卮蹖 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲蹖 亘賴 噩亘丕乇蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 噩亘丕乇蹖鬲 丕賲乇賵夭 丿丕乇丿 趩賴乇賴 賲亘丿賱 鬲丕夭賴 丕蹖 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 噩亘丕乇蹖鬲 爻丿賴 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 蹖讴賲 賲乇丿賲 爻丕賱丕乇蹖 賳丕賲蹖丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿.
讴鬲丕亘 芦禺卮賵賳鬲貙 倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴 夭蹖乇趩卮賲蹖禄 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻賱丕賵蹖 跇蹖跇讴 讴鬲丕亘蹖 禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖 丕爻鬲 丕夭 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 讴賴 卮丕蹖丿 爻鬲蹖賴賳丿賴 鬲乇蹖賳 賲賳鬲賯丿 賱蹖亘乇丕賱 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 亘丕卮丿. 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲孬丕賱賴丕蹖 賮乇賵丕賳蹖 丕夭 卮讴賱賴丕蹖 賲禺鬲賱賮 禺卮賵賳鬲 丌賮乇蹖賳蹖 鬲賵爻胤 賳馗丕賲 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 乇丕 匕讴乇 賲蹖讴賳丿. (1) 賵 趩賳丿 賳賲賵賳賴 丕夭 丕毓鬲乇丕囟賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 乇丕 賲孬丕賱 賲蹖夭賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴賴 亘诏賵蹖丿 賳馗丕賲賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 賵 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇 亘乇禺賵乇丿 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 賴蹖趩 賲賱丕丨馗賴 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 乇丕 乇毓丕蹖鬲 賳賲蹖讴賳賳丿. 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 丨賵賲賴 倬丕乇蹖爻 (2) 賵 賵囟毓 丕爻賮亘丕乇 賵 睾丕乇鬲诏乇丕賳賴 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 亘毓丿 丕夭 胤賵賮丕賳 讴丕鬲乇蹖賳丕. (3)
賲爻卅賱賴 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿禄 乇丕 丨賱丕噩蹖 賵 賳賯丿 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖丿賴丿 讴賴 賮乇賴賳诏 睾乇亘蹖 賴蹖趩诏丕賴 禺賵丿卮 賲賳氐賮丕賳賴 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 亘乇禺賵乇丿 賳讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲. (4) 賵 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 亘乇禺賵乇丿 睾乇亘 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 丿乇 賯囟蹖賴 丨噩丕亘 乇丕 賲孬丕賱 賲蹖夭賳丿. (5)
蹖丕丿丌賵乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 亘丕 丿乇賵睾诏賵蹖蹖 賵 亘夭乇诏賳賲丕蹖蹖 賲爻丕卅賱 匕賴賳蹖 賲丕 乇丕 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 (6) 賵 賴賲賴 賲丕 丿趩丕乇 丕蹖賳 囟毓賮 賴爻鬲蹖賲 讴賴 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 鬲氐賵蹖乇 丿賱禺乇丕卮 诏夭丕乇卮 卮丿賴 賮乇蹖亘 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘禺賵乇蹖賲 (7) 賲禺氐賵氐丕 賵賯鬲蹖 賮乇丿 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 乇丕 丿乇 賳馗乇 亘诏蹖乇蹖賲! (8)
亘丕 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳 賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丕诏乇 乇賵蹖 丕蹖賳 讴乇賴 禺丕讴蹖 蹖讴 賳賮乇貙 賮賯胤 蹖讴 賳賮乇 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖卮丿 讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 诏夭丕乇卮 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 丕夭 賵囟毓蹖鬲 丕蹖乇丕賳 胤蹖 蹖讴 賲丕賴 诏匕卮鬲賴 爻讴賵鬲 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賲蹖讴乇丿 讴爻蹖 賳亘賵丿 噩夭 丌賯丕蹖 跇蹖跇讴!
賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿賲 賲蹖倬乇爻賲 趩乇丕 跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 倬蹖丕賲 賵蹖丿卅賵蹖蹖 丕夭 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 丕蹖乇丕賳 丨賲丕蹖鬲 讴乇丿賴 趩賳丿 噩賵丕亘 亘賴 匕賴賳賲 賲蹖乇爻丿 讴賴 賴賲 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿 禺賵丿卮 丌賲賵禺鬲賴 丕賲 賵 賴賲 爻乇賳禺 乇丕 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 賵蹖丿卅賵蹖 禺賵丿卮 讴卮賮 讴乇丿賴 丕賲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賵蹖丿卅賵 賵 丿乇 賳丕賲賴 丕卮 跇蹖跇讴 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 倬蹖乇 賵 亘蹖賲丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 賲毓鬲乇囟丕賳 亘丕卮丿 (鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲蹖丿丕賳賲 亘賴 賮乇丕賳爻賴 賴賲 賳乇賮鬲 鬲丕 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 噩賱蹖賯賴 夭乇丿賴丕 亘丕卮丿) 诏賵蹖丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賮乇丿 亘蹖 丿賮丕毓 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 卮丿賴 賵 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 賮乇蹖亘 賲蹖禺賵乇丿. 丕賲丕 丕夭 丌賳 賲賴賲 鬲乇 丕賵 賲丿丕賲 鬲讴乇丕乇 賲蹖讴賳丿 睾乇亘 趩蹖夭蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌賲賵禺鬲賳 亘賴 賲毓鬲乇囟丕賳 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 賳丿丕乇丿 趩賵賳 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 睾乇亘蹖 丕賮鬲囟丕丨蹖 賲孬賱 賲蹖 鬲賵 (metoo) 亘丕賱丕 丌賵乇丿賴 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 跇蹖跇讴 亘賴 丕毓鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 丕蹖乇丕賳 趩卮賲 丿賵禺鬲賴 亘賱讴賴 蹖讴 賮賲蹖賳蹖爻賲 丌亘乇賵賲賳丿 丕夭 丿賱 丌賳 亘蹖乇賵賳 亘蹖丕蹖丿.
趩賯丿乇 賳丕乇丕丨鬲 禺賵丕賴丿卮丿 丕诏乇 亘丿丕賳丿 賲丕 賴賲 丕蹖賳噩丕 蹖讴 賲蹖 鬲賵 乇賵賳賵卮鬲 亘乇丕亘乇 丕氐賱 睾乇亘 丿丕乇蹖賲. 賵 趩賴 賯丿乇 丿賱卮 禺賵丕賴丿卮讴爻鬲 賵賯鬲蹖 亘乇賴賳賴 卮丿賳 倬鬲蹖丕乇賴 賴丕 乇丕 丿乇 禺蹖丕亘丕賳 亘亘蹖賳丿. 亘賴 賯乇蹖賳賴 賲孬丕賱賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕夭 賳賯囟 丨賯賵賯 夭賳丕賳 丿乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丕爻賱丕賲蹖 賲蹖夭賳丿 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖讴賳賲 賮讴乇 賲蹖讴賳丿 賴賳賵夭 禺鬲賳賴 丿禺鬲乇丕賳 亘賴 胤賵乇 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賵丿 ( 丕夭 賯囟丕 讴乇丿爻鬲丕賳 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲卮讴賱 丿爻鬲 亘賴 诏乇蹖亘丕賳 丕爻鬲!)
亘賴 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳賴丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕賮夭賵丿 丕賮鬲丕丿賳 丿乇 鬲賱賴 丕胤丕毓鬲 乇丕. 鬲賱賴 丕蹖 讴賴 丕賳亘賵賴蹖 丕夭 趩賴乇賴 賴丕蹖 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 乇丕 賵丕丿丕乇 讴乇丿 丕夭 "賳馗乇 丕讴孬乇蹖鬲" 鬲亘毓蹖鬲 讴賳賳丿. 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖丿賴丿 趩诏賵賳賴 丕蹖賳 賮囟丕蹖 爻乇讴賵亘诏乇 讴賴 馗丕賴乇蹖 丿賲賵讴乇丕鬲蹖讴 丕賲丕 賲丕賴蹖鬲蹖 丕乇賵賵賱蹖 丿丕乇丿 賵 噩丕蹖诏夭蹖賳 丕蹖丿賴 "亘乇丕丿乇 亘夭乇诏鬲乇" 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 賴蹖趩 賳馗乇 賲禺丕賱賮蹖 乇丕 亘乇賳賲蹖鈥屫жㄘ�. (9)
丕賲丕 讴爻蹖 賳亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 丿賱 亘诏蹖乇丿. 賲诏乇 賲蹖卮賵丿 丕乇爻胤賵 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 夭賳 爻鬲蹖夭蹖 賵 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 亘乇丿賴 丿丕乇蹖貙 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賮爻讴蹖 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 蹖賴賵丿爻鬲蹖夭蹖 賵 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丨賲丕蹖鬲 丕夭 賳丕夭蹖爻賲 讴賳丕乇 诏匕丕卮鬲責 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 丕賲乇賵夭 亘丕蹖丿 賴賲賴 賲丕 (賲禺氐賵氐丕 丕诏乇 賵爻賵爻賴 賲蹖卮賵蹖賲 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲卮乇賵毓蹖鬲 賵 賲蹖丿丕賳 亘丿賴蹖賲) 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賳蹖賲 賵 丿乇爻 亘夭乇诏蹖 讴賴 跇蹖跇讴 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴 賵 賲賵禺乇賴 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇 丌賳 鬲丕讴蹖丿 讴乇丿賴 乇丕 亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲:
芦賲丕 丕賲乇賵夭賴 賵賯鬲蹖 禺賵丿賲丕賳 乇丕 夭蹖乇 乇诏亘丕乇 鬲氐賵蹖乇賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖 亘蹖賳蹖賲 讴賴 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 丕夭 氐丨賳賴 賴丕蹖 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘丕乇 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 亘丕蹖丿 蹖讴 诏賵卮賴 禺賱賵鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳蹖賲 賵 芦亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲貙 亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲 賵 亘蹖丕賲賵夭蹖賲禄 讴賴 毓賱鬲 丕蹖賳 禺卮賵賳鬲 賴丕 趩蹖爻鬲.禄
---
诏夭蹖丿賴 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 芦禺卮賵賳鬲貙 倬賳噩 賳诏丕賴 夭蹖乇趩卮賲蹖禄 賳賵卮鬲賴 丕爻賱丕賵蹖 跇蹖跇讴:
(1) 爻乇賳賵卮鬲 讴賱 丕賯卮丕乇 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 诏丕賴 讴賱 讴卮賵乇賴丕 乇丕 乇賯氐 亘賵乇爻 亘丕夭丕賳賴 賵 芦禺賵丿賲丿丕乇丕賳賴禄 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丕蹖 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 乇賯賲 亘夭賳丿 讴賴 亘丕 賳賵毓蹖 亘蹖 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 賱毓賳鬲蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴賴 噩丕亘賴 噩丕蹖蹖 丕卮 趩賴 鬲兀孬蹖乇蹖 亘乇 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 诏匕丕卮鬲 賴丿賮 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 讴賴 爻賵丿丌賵乇蹖 丕爻鬲 丿賳亘丕賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 乇賯氐 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 禺賵丿讴丕乇 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 氐丨賳賴 诏乇丿丕賳 賳賲丕蹖卮 丕爻鬲 賵 讴賱蹖丿 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賵 賲氐蹖亘鬲 賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 乇丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 禺卮賵賳鬲 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 丕爻丕爻蹖 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 睾乇蹖亘 鬲乇 丕夭 賴乇诏賵賳賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 - 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 倬蹖卮丕 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 丕爻鬲 丿乇 賴賲蹖賳 乇賯氐 禺賵丿讴丕乇 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲.
(2) 賲毓鬲乇囟丕賳 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴賴 毓賲賱丕 賲丨乇賵賲 賵 讴賳丕乇 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 诏乇爻賳賴 賳亘賵丿賳丿. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 亘賴 爻胤丨 亘賯丕蹖 賲丨囟 賳蹖夭 爻賯賵胤 賳讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿. 賲乇丿賲蹖 讴賴 丿乇 鬲賳诏賳丕蹖 賲丕丿蹖 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 亘丿鬲乇蹖 诏乇賮鬲丕乇 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿 - 趩賴 乇爻丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 丿趩丕乇 爻乇讴賵亘 賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賵 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 亘丕卮賳丿 - 賯丕丿乇 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿 禺賵丿卮丕賳 乇丕 丿乇 賯丕賱亘 爻丕夭賲丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘丕 丿爻鬲賵乇 讴丕乇 乇賵卮賳 蹖丕 丨鬲蹖 丌卮賮鬲賴丕蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳 丿賴賳丿. 倬爻 丕蹖賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 讴賴 丿乇 倬卮鬲 丌鬲卮 丕賮夭賵蹖 賴丕蹖 丨賵賲賴 倬丕乇蹖爻 賴蹖趩 亘乇賳丕賲賴 丕蹖 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲 禺賵丿 賳蹖丕夭賲賳丿 鬲賮爻蹖乇 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖賳 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 亘蹖丕賳诏乇 丨賯丕蹖賯 賮乇丕賵丕賳蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賵囟毓 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 - 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賳丕噩賵乇蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 诏乇賮鬲丕乇 丌賲丿賴 丕蹖賲.
(3) 亘賴 蹖賯蹖賳貙 亘蹖 賳馗賲蹖 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵丕賯毓蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 噩乇賯賴 丕丨爻丕爻 禺胤乇 乇丕 夭丿: 亘賴 賲噩乇丿蹖 讴賴 鬲賵賮丕賳 丕夭 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 诏匕卮鬲 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 趩倬丕賵賱 賵 睾丕乇鬲诏乇蹖 丌睾丕夭 卮丿. 丕蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 丕夭 丿夭丿蹖 亘蹖 卮乇賲丕賳賴 鬲丕 诏卮鬲賳 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 囟乇賵乇蹖丕鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 丿乇 亘乇 賲蹖 诏乇賮鬲. 丕賲丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 (賲丨丿賵丿) 噩賳丕蹖鬲 賴丕 亘賴 賴蹖趩 賵噩賴 芦诏夭丕乇卮 賴丕蹖蹖禄 乇丕 鬲賵噩蹖賴 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賮乇賵倬丕卮蹖 鬲賲丕賲 毓蹖丕乇 賳馗賲 賵 賯丕賳賵賳 丕乇爻丕賱 賲蹖 卮丿貙 賳賴 丕夭 丌賳 乇賵 讴賴 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇卮 賴丕 芦丕睾乇丕賯 丌賲蹖夭禄 亘賵丿貙 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱蹖 亘賴 賲乇丕鬲亘 乇蹖卮賴 丕蹖 鬲乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳: 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖 诏夭丕乇卮 賴丕蹖 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵 鬲毓乇囟 噩賳爻蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丿乇爻鬲 亘賵丿 丨讴丕蹖鬲 賴丕蹖 賳賯賱 卮丿賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丌賳賴丕 亘丕夭 賴賲 亘蹖賲丕乇诏賵賳貙 賵 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴 亘賵丿 夭蹖乇丕 賲丨乇讴 丕蹖賳 丨讴丕蹖鬲 賴丕 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 賳亘賵丿 亘賱讴賴 倬蹖卮丿丕賵乇蹖 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴 亘賵丿貨 丕丨爻丕爻 乇囟丕蹖鬲 禺丕胤乇 讴爻丕賳蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賳丿 亘诏賵蹖賳丿 芦賲蹖 亘蹖賳蹖丿! 爻蹖丕賴 倬賵爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丕蹖賳 噩賵乇蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 賵丨卮蹖丕賳蹖 禺卮賵賳鬲 胤賱亘 讴賴 夭蹖乇 賱丕蹖賴 賳丕夭讴蹖 丕夭 鬲賲丿賳 倬賳賴丕賳 卮丿賴 丕賳丿禄. 亘賴 丿蹖诏乇 爻禺賳貙 丕蹖賳 噩丕 亘丕 趩蹖夭蹖 爻乇賵讴丕乇 丿丕乇蹖賲 讴賴 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 丿乇賵睾 诏賮鬲賳 丿乇 倬賵卮卮 丨賯蹖賯鬲 禺賵丕賳丿: 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丌賳趩賴 賲蹖 诏賵蹖蹖賲 丕夭 賳馗乇 賵丕賯毓蹖丕鬲 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿 丕賳诏蹖夭賴 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賲丕 乇丕 賵丕丿丕乇 亘賴 诏賮鬲賳 丌賳 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 賳丕丿乇爻鬲 賵 讴丕匕亘 丕爻鬲.
(4) 鬲賳賴丕 賮乇賴賳诏 爻乇賲丕蹖賴 丿丕乇蹖 睾乇亘蹖 賳賵 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿賲禺鬲丕乇蹖 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 賮乇丿蹖 乇丕 賵丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 賴賲亘爻鬲诏蹖 噩賲毓蹖貙 丕乇鬲亘丕胤貙 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 卮賳丕爻蹖 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 丿蹖诏乇丕賳蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲丕 賵丕亘爻鬲賴 丕賳丿 賵 賵馗蹖賮賴 丕丨鬲乇丕賲 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 亘賴 爻賳鬲賴丕 賵 毓乇賮賴丕蹖 噩丕賲毓賴 禺賵丿 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿. 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 禺賵丿 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 亘乇丕蹖 賮乇賴賳诏 禺丕氐蹖 丕賲鬲蹖丕夭 賯丕卅賱 丕爻鬲: 賮乇賴賳诏 睾乇亘蹖 賳賵. 丿乇 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賴賲貙 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 丿趩丕乇 噩丕賳亘丿丕乇蹖 卮丿蹖丿蹖 丕爻鬲. 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻賲 鬲丨賲賱 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿蹖诏乇 賮乇賴賳诏 賴丕 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丿丕丿賴 賳卮賵丿.
(5) 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲 賴丕蹖 賳诏乇卮 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 噩丕 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 亘賴 夭賳丕賳 賲爻賱賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲賯賳毓賴 亘賴 爻乇 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 賳蹖夭 丕蹖賳 噩丕 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲. 夭賳丕賳 丕噩丕夭賴 丿丕乇賳丿 賲賯賳毓賴 亘賴 爻乇 讴賳賳丿 賲卮乇賵胤 亘乇 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘丕卮丿 賵 賳賴 诏夭蹖賳賴 丕蹖 讴賴 賴賲爻乇 亘丕 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 卮丕賳 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 鬲丨賲蹖賱 讴乇丿賴 亘丕卮丿. 丕賲丕 賴賲蹖賳 讴賴 夭賳丕賳 賲賯賳毓賴 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 丕毓賲丕賱 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 賮乇丿蹖 卮丕賳 賲孬賱丕 亘乇丕蹖 鬲丨賯賯 賲毓賳賵蹖鬲 禺賵丿卮丕賳 亘賴 爻乇 讴賳賳丿 賲毓賳丕蹖 賲賯賳毓賴 亘賴 爻乇 讴乇丿賳 讴丕賲賱丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 丿蹖诏乇 賲賯賳毓賴 賳卮丕賳賴 鬲毓賱賯 丌賳丕賳 亘賴 噩賲毓 賲爻賱賲丕賳丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲 亘賱讴賴 賳賲賵丿 賮乇丿蹖鬲 禺丕氐 禺賵丿卮丕賳 丕爻鬲. 鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕蹖賳 丿賵 賴賲丕賳 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賲蹖丕賳 讴卮丕賵乇夭蹖 趩蹖賳蹖 讴賴 睾匕丕蹖 趩蹖賳蹖 賲蹖 禺賵乇丿 趩賵賳 丕夭 禺蹖賱蹖 賯丿蹖賲 賲乇丿賲 乇賵爻鬲丕蹖 卮丕賳 趩賳蹖賳 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 卮賴乇賵賳丿蹖 丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 讴賱丕賳 卮賴乇賴丕蹖 睾乇亘蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲氐賲蹖賲 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 卮丕賲 乇丕 丿乇 蹖讴 乇爻鬲賵乇丕賳 趩蹖賳蹖 賲丨賱蹖 亘禺賵乇丿. 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 毓乇賮蹖 賲丕 讴賴 丕爻丕爻 丌賳 乇丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿 鬲卮讴蹖賱 賲蹖 丿賴丿 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 讴賴 鬲毓賱賯 賲匕賴亘蹖 趩卮賲诏蹖乇蹖 丿丕乇賳丿 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲 賮乇賵丿爻鬲 鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇賳丿. 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丌賳丕賳 丕噩丕夭賴 蹖丕亘賳丿 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 卮丕賳 乇丕 丨賮馗 讴賳賳丿. 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 (賮賯胤) 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 蹖丕 毓賯蹖丿賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺丕氐 禺賵丿卮丕賳 芦鬲丨賲賱 賲蹖 卮賵丿禄. 亘賴 賲噩乇丿蹖 讴賴 丌賳丕賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 卮丕賳 乇丕 毓賱賳丕 亘賴 賴賲丕賳 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿卮丕賳 丿丕乇丿 賲孬賱丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賳卮丕賳賴 鬲毓賱賯 丕爻丕爻蹖 卮丕賳 噩丕乇 亘夭賳賳丿 賲鬲賴賲 亘賴 芦亘賳蹖丕丿诏乇丕蹖蹖禄 賲蹖 卮賵賳丿. 丕蹖賳 賲毓賳丕蹖卮 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 芦爻賵跇賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 丌夭丕丿禄 丿乇 賲毓賳丕蹖 芦鬲爻丕賴賱 诏乇丕蹖丕賳賴禄 趩賳丿賮乇賴賳诏蹖 睾乇亘蹖 鬲賳賴丕 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 乇賵賳丿 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 禺卮賳 讴賳丿賴 卮丿賳 丕夭 夭蹖爻鬲 噩賴丕賳蹖 禺丕氐 賵 亘乇蹖丿賳 丕夭 乇蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 禺賵丿 爻乇 亘乇丌賵乇丿.
(6) 賵賯鬲蹖 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 賲丕 乇丕 亘丕 芦亘丨乇丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 亘卮乇蹖禄 讴賴 馗丕賴乇丕 倬蹖賵爻鬲賴 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 噩賴丕賳 倬丿蹖丿丕乇 賲蹖 卮賵賳丿 亘賲亘丕乇丕賳 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 賴賲賵丕乇賴 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮蹖賲 讴賴 賴乇 亘丨乇丕賳 禺丕氐蹖 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 鬲賯賱丕蹖蹖 倬蹖趩蹖丿賴 蹖讴亘丕乇賴 丿乇 讴丕賳賵賳 鬲賵噩賴 乇爻丕賳賴 賴丕 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿. 毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕毓丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳 噩丕 賳賯卮 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賵丕賯毓丞 亘卮乇丿賵爻鬲丕賳賴 讴賲 丕賴賲蹖鬲 鬲乇 丕夭 賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 - 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 丕賯鬲氐丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲.
(7) 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 讴賴 丌丿賲 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 氐賮丨賴 賳賲丕蹖卮诏乇 乇丕蹖丕賳賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿 賳卮爻鬲賴 賵 賲賵噩 爻賵丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 賮乇丿蹖 噩賵賴乇蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 倬賳噩乇賴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲蹖 乇賵 亘賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 亘丕 倬蹖讴乇賴 賴丕蹖 賲噩丕夭蹖 乇賵亘賴 乇賵爻鬲 賵 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇 賳賵毓蹖 卮亘讴賴 噩賴丕賳蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 睾乇賯 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
(8) 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 讴賴 丌丿賲 丕賲乇賵夭蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖 鬲丕乇賳賲丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 诏爻鬲乇 鬲賳賴丕 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 氐賮丨賴 賳賲丕蹖卮诏乇 乇丕蹖丕賳賴 卮禺氐蹖 禺賵丿 賳卮爻鬲賴 賵 賲賵噩 爻賵丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 賮乇丿蹖 噩賵賴乇蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴蹖趩 倬賳噩乇賴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲蹖 乇賵 亘賴 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 亘丕 倬蹖讴乇賴 賴丕蹖 賲噩丕夭蹖 乇賵亘賴 乇賵爻鬲 賵 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 亘蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 夭賲丕賳 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丿乇 賳賵毓蹖 卮亘讴賴 噩賴丕賳蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤丕鬲 睾乇賯 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
(9) 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丌蹖賳丿賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 丨賵賱 趩蹖夭蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 芦亘乇丕丿乇 亘夭乇诏鬲乇禄 噩賵乇噩 丕賵乇賵賱 丿賵乇 賲蹖 夭賳丿. 賵賱蹖 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 丕蹖賳 賳诏乇卮蹖 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲蹖 亘賴 噩亘丕乇蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 噩亘丕乇蹖鬲 丕賲乇賵夭 丿丕乇丿 趩賴乇賴 賲亘丿賱 鬲丕夭賴 丕蹖 倬蹖丿丕 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 噩亘丕乇蹖鬲 爻丿賴 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 蹖讴賲 賲乇丿賲 爻丕賱丕乇蹖 賳丕賲蹖丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿.
January 6, 2012
Last year I grew inexcusably lazy with philosophy, favoring watered-down texts infused with psychobabble and sociological schemata. Zizek was the worst offender on my bad-philosophers list. The sole purpose behind my absolute enamour with his writings was the potpurrian style of combining popular culture with historical philosophy. As my reading within his realm of work progressed, I realized that Zizek in fact does very little philosophizing of his own, aside from condemning marginalized groups and condemning the actions of financial charity and tolerance. Though Slavoj's argument is somewhat reasonable at times (that is, why promote equality through the institutions that perpetuate disparity ie capitalism), most of the time his privilege and obsessive styles of writing overwhelm any sensibility of thought (ie tolerance policies foster 'true violence' as they encourage distance, blah blah blah). This work is largely unintelligible, illiterate, disjointed, foolish, discriminatory, hypocritical, discordant; Zizek is disillusioned, obsessive, disgusting, and foolish. Every time he mentions the Holocaust or Jewish people, I think, "Oh no," to myself.
April 10, 2016
What a classy book. The book, as the name suggests is a study of violence but a massively intellectual look on things and often zizek puts a new spin on what you may consider to be themes which are quite pertinent at the moment. One of his key points is that there is something alluring about violence, that head for a head mentality which stops individuals from really thinking about what the right thing really is to do. Zizek is clearly more left of centre inclined and has huge gripes with the global capitalist agenda most of us in the west are bedazzled with. He also talks very interestingly about the importance of language and some of the symbolisation that sits behind it which we can become enslaved to. There is also a strong understanding of some of the fundamentalism we see in Islam today and some of the insights he offers in that area are sharp also, for example the way modernisation affected the west gradually over the centuries but how that has impacted the Muslim world over the course of a much shorter period of time and the ramification that has had on places like Dubai which are the living embodiment of that crass adherence to modernisation. Other interesting chapters looked at the liberal communist village, fearing the neighbour as oneself, the violence of language, terrorist resentment, liberalism or fundamentalism, the religion of atheism, the culturalisation of politics, divine violence - what it is and what it is not. Overall a hugely intellectual book which covered a plethora of topics and certainly work a read.
January 6, 2018
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 禺卮賵賳鬲 乇丕 亘賴 丿賵鈥屭堎嗁� 禺卮賵賳鬲 賮毓丕賱丕賳賴 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲賳賮毓賱丕賳賴 丿爻鬲賴鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲賳賮毓賱丕賳賴 爻胤丨 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌卮讴丕乇丕 亘賴 趩卮賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屬囏й� 爻蹖爻鬲賲蹖 賵 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳賲丕丿蹖賳 (亘賵丕爻胤賴 夭亘丕賳)貙 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿爻鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屭嗀嗀�.
亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲 丿蹖诏乇貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賲亘丿丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘賴 讴賲讴 丌賳 禺卮賵賳鬲貙 賲賵乇丿 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 爻胤丨 氐賮乇蹖 讴賴 賲丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 爻胤丨 氐賮乇 禺卮賵賳鬲貙 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬呚� 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 爻胤丨 氐賮乇 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 噩丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲賳賮毓賱丕賳賴 賵 倬賳賴丕賳 丿乇 丌賳 爻乇亘乇賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟嗀� 賵 讴賲鬲乇 丕毓鬲乇丕囟 讴爻蹖 乇丕 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫з嗂屫藏з嗁嗀�.
亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲 丿蹖诏乇貙 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賲亘丿丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘賴 讴賲讴 丌賳 禺卮賵賳鬲貙 賲賵乇丿 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 乇丕 夭蹖乇 爻賵丕賱 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 爻胤丨 氐賮乇蹖 讴賴 賲丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 爻胤丨 氐賮乇 禺卮賵賳鬲貙 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿貙 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬呚� 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 爻胤丨 氐賮乇 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 噩丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲賳賮毓賱丕賳賴 賵 倬賳賴丕賳 丿乇 丌賳 爻乇亘乇賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟嗀� 賵 讴賲鬲乇 丕毓鬲乇丕囟 讴爻蹖 乇丕 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫з嗂屫藏з嗁嗀�.
February 16, 2019
沤i啪ekas, ai拧ku, yra bi拧k寞 i拧prot臈j臋s, bet vis tiek vienas 寞domiausi懦 拧iuolaikin臈s popkult奴ros komentatori懦. Kai i拧kyla koks klausimas ar 寞tampa, jisai renkasi t膮 keli膮, kaip ma啪daug buvo pavaizduota jo filme "Pervert's guide to the cinema", kur "Matricos" scenoje yra si奴lomos raudona ir m臈lyna tablet臈s, o 沤i啪ekas sako: "Kur tre膷ia tablet臈? A拧 noriu tre膷ios tablet臈s."
Kelios citatos:
Kelios citatos:
Kai suvokiame k膮 nors kaip smurto akt膮, mes vertiname j寞 pagal tai, k膮 laikome "normalia" situacija be smurto. Tokiu b奴du auk拧膷iausia smurto forma yra 拧io normos standarto, pagal kur寞 tam tikri 寞vykiai atrodys smurtiniai arba ne, primetimas. 艩tai kod臈l pati kalba, toji smurto atsisakymo ir tarpusavio pripa啪inimo priemon臈, apima ir bes膮lygi拧k膮 smurt膮.
Jei n奴dienos vadinamieji fundamentalistai i拧ties tiki surad臋 savo keli膮 寞 ties膮, kod臈l jie tur臈t懦 jaustis taip, tarsi netikintieji kelt懦 gr臈sm臋, kod臈l tur臈t懦 jiems pavyd臈ti? <...> Prie拧ingai nei tikrus fundamentalistus, teroristinius pseudofundamentalistus nuod臈mingas netikin膷i懦j懦 gyvenmas labai domina, intriguoja, 啪avi. <...> Fundamentalistinio islamo teroras 苍臈谤补 pagr寞stas terorist懦 寞sitikinimu savo prana拧umu ir tro拧kimu apsaugoti sav膮j膮 kult奴rin臋 ir religin臋 tapatyb臋 nuo globalios vartotoj懦 civilizacijos antpuolio. Fundamentalist懦 problema - ne kad mes juos laikome menkesniais u啪 save, bet grei膷iau tai, kad jie patys save laiko menkesniais. 艩tai kod臈l m奴s懦 melagingi, politi拧kai korekti拧ki patikinimai, jog nesijau膷iame anei kiek prana拧esni, tik dar labiau juos siutina ir kelia apmaud膮.
Taigi blogas asmuo 苍臈谤补 egoistas, "m膮stantis tik apie savo paties interesus". Tikras egoistas yra pernelyg u啪sim臈臋s siekdamas sau g臈rio, kad tur臈t懦 laiko pridaryti kitiems b臈d懦. Pirmin臈 blogo asmens yda yra b奴tent ta, kad jam labiau r奴pi kiti nei jis pats.
Prisiminkime gerai 啪inom膮 antropologin寞 anekdot膮: "primityvai", kurie, manoma, turi tam tikr懦 prietaring懦 寞sitikinim懦 (pavyzd啪iui, kad yra kil臋 i拧 啪uvies ar pauk拧膷io), paklausti apie tuos 寞sitikinimus tiesiai, atsako: "沤inoma, ne - mes ne tokie kvaili! Bet man pasakojo, kad kai kurie m奴s懦 prot臈viai i拧ties tuo tik臈jo..." Trumpai tariant, jie perkelia savo tik臈jim膮 kitam. <...> Kad ir kaip tai atrodyt懦 keista, kai kurie tik臈jimai visada atrodo funkcionuojantys "per atstum膮": kad tik臈jimas funkcionuot懦, turi b奴ti koks nors galutinis jo garantas, ta膷iau tas garantas visada atid臈tas, perkeltas kitur, niekada nepasirodantis in persona. 沤inoma, svarbiausia, kad 拧is kitas subjektas, kuris visi拧kai tiki, neprivalo egzistuoti, kad tik臈jimas b奴t懦 veiksmingas.
March 4, 2009
If you're ready to go along with Zizek for the ride...this book is sure to take you out of whatever box you're currently in and do to your box exactly what the cover of this book portrays.
He may be self-indulgent, but it's a nice blend of psych, linguistics and philosophy that makes his case complete.
He may be self-indulgent, but it's a nice blend of psych, linguistics and philosophy that makes his case complete.
May 16, 2020
((诏丕賴蹖 讴丕乇蹖 賳讴乇丿賳 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘丕乇 鬲乇蹖賳 讴丕乇蹖爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 讴乇丿.))噩賲賱賴 丕蹖 丿乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖 丌蹖丿 賵 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賵 卮丕蹖丿 賲賮蹖丿 鬲乇蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丕夭 丌賳 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丌賵乇丿.
December 11, 2013
Nobody is subject to such diminishing returns as Zizek, in large part because by the time I've finished this review he'll have published two books. 'Violence' makes a great point about how difficult it is to write about violence: if you don't make a big show about how sympathetic you are to victims of (what we usually call) violence, you look like a psychopath; if you do put on that show, you're unlikely to say anything interesting. So, he argues, you have to write about violence obliquely. He proceeds to do this in six fairly uninteresting 'digressions.'
There's good analysis, nonetheless: he distinguishes subjective violence (roughly, when a known agent perpetuates a discrete act, like shooting someone), objective violence (roughly, injustice that can't be blamed on an individual agent; structural violence and so on), and symbolic violence, which I assume is linked to Lacan's 'symbolic', but that doesn't come up in the book after the introduction. That's probably for the best.
In the conclusion, Zizek suggests three lessons that can be taken from the book. First, the mere chastising of violence ('Mandela is a terrorist!') is pure ideology that ignores whatever a specific act of subjective violence is responding to (i.e., usually objective violence). Second, true violence disturbs the basic parameters of social life (= the symbolic?); this is almost impossible. Finally, the violence of an act is always contextual. For instance, in Saramago's 'Seeing,' the mere act of abstaining from the vote is 'violent', in the sense that it disturbs the way things have been going. This leads Zizek to claim that "doing nothing is the most violent thing to do."
But that is almost never true, no matter how you define violence. In between the analysis and the conclusion, there's a bunch of stuff you can get less painlessly from Zizek's other books. I can't be the only one for whom all the cultural analogies are getting both boring and intrusive. Can I?
There's good analysis, nonetheless: he distinguishes subjective violence (roughly, when a known agent perpetuates a discrete act, like shooting someone), objective violence (roughly, injustice that can't be blamed on an individual agent; structural violence and so on), and symbolic violence, which I assume is linked to Lacan's 'symbolic', but that doesn't come up in the book after the introduction. That's probably for the best.
In the conclusion, Zizek suggests three lessons that can be taken from the book. First, the mere chastising of violence ('Mandela is a terrorist!') is pure ideology that ignores whatever a specific act of subjective violence is responding to (i.e., usually objective violence). Second, true violence disturbs the basic parameters of social life (= the symbolic?); this is almost impossible. Finally, the violence of an act is always contextual. For instance, in Saramago's 'Seeing,' the mere act of abstaining from the vote is 'violent', in the sense that it disturbs the way things have been going. This leads Zizek to claim that "doing nothing is the most violent thing to do."
But that is almost never true, no matter how you define violence. In between the analysis and the conclusion, there's a bunch of stuff you can get less painlessly from Zizek's other books. I can't be the only one for whom all the cultural analogies are getting both boring and intrusive. Can I?
April 2, 2017
Why We Fight
2 April 2017
I must be starting to get a bit tired of Zizek, not because he isn't a bad writer, nor because he isn't confronting, but rather because, as another reviewer suggested, it has more to do with the law of diminishing returns than anything else. There was a time when I thought that I should read everything by an author that I loved (or admired) until I discovered that not everything that a great author writes is actually any good. In fact, like everything else, pretty much all authors suffer from the law of diminishing returns, and the more that they write, the worse the content tends to become. As I suggested at one time the key to becoming a successful author is not always writing good books (thought that does help, and writing something that becomes a modern classic is even better), but rather creating such a cult following that whenever you release a book you have a hoard of adoring fans that camp outside the local bookshop waiting for its release.
I have probably been a bit too harsh on this book though because as the same reviewer suggested, writing a book about violence without feeling some form of sympathy for the victim, is actually quite hard. In a sense we have this idea of violence being bad drilled into our minds that we end up becoming disconnected behind the reasons as to why people commit violence, and we also become somewhat desensitised to it when it is perpetrated a world away as opposed to being in our own back yard. However these is something of a dichotomy here because while our governments do everything to prevent violence being perpetrated against 'innocent' victims (such as the lock out laws in Sydney which basically forces pubs to close at around midnight, and also having something akin to passport control in some areas), we still seem to have violence being forced onto us from the television and cinema screen or on the sporting field. Isn't it interesting that a sport that is violent (such as football) draws larger crowds than sorts that aren't (such as lawn bowls 鈥� though sports like Baseball and Cricket seem to go against this trend).
The interesting thing about violence is that it does tend to be very victim focused, and we tend to want to deal with the perpetrator rather than looking at the reason why the perpetrators are committing the violent act. For instance we have the school yard bully that goes out of their way to pick on those weaker than them, but we never seem to look at the reasons as to why the bully is behaving in that manner, and one of the reasons I suspect that this is the case is because the bully is himself (or herself) also a victim of violence. For instance if a child were to grow up in a house where the father (or mother) is violent, then the child is not going to know any better, and the child is not only going to behave like that in public, but is also going to see this as a norm and behave like that in their adult lives. While I am not trying to justify the actions of the bully, particularly since I have been at the receiving end of it, we need to remember that violence rarely occurs in a vacuum.
One of the things that Zizek explores is the idea of the sacred cow, such as the Holocaust. In a sense it seems as if this is one of the reasons behind why there is such turmoil in the Israel/Palestinian territories. What is actually quite baffling is that Israel is actually a secular state (or at least it is according to Zizek), which makes it odd that they seem to use the religious writings as a reason to claim this particular land. Actually, it probably has more to do with tradition than anything else as to why they want this particular piece of territory, though interestingly many of the orthodox Jews really aren't interested in sharing it.
Actually, it isn't as if people in the past didn't want to give the Jews a territory of their own 鈥� the Russians gave them some land in the far reaches of Siberia, while the United Nations originally wanted to give them some land down near Oman 鈥� it is just that they wanted this particular piece of land, and basically started moving in, and even went as far as declaring themselves a country. Obviously all of the fundamentalist Christians got really excited over this because this was apparently a prophecy that had been fulfilled, though it does seem interesting that it is the Christians that are far more supportive of Israel on religious grounds than the Israelis, but as I suggested this probably has much more to do with tradition than any real religious basis.
A discussion on violence probably should at least explore the idea of religious violence. Isn't it interesting that for religions that are supposed to promote peace the supporters are actually quite violent in the way they go about propagating their faith 鈥� in a sense of believe or die. I'm not just talking about Christianity here because with most religions, and I'm not even narrowing myself to the people of the book, there is always this fear that one's religious view is going to be proven to be little more than nothing 鈥� basically somebody's whole basis of existence is being challenged, and if they are proven to be wrong then their entire life, and in fact their entire meaning for existence, is going to come to naught. The problem is that religions tend not to be flexible (and in talking about religion, I'm not referring to Buddhism because in my mind that is more of a philosophy).
The problem with religion is that it is inflexible, and practitioners tend not to want to be flexible 鈥� if one part of the religion is wrong then it is possible that everything is wrong, and people fear doubt. However, there is a difference between being wrong about an interpretation of religion, and the religion being wrong. However, many practitioners don't actually think for themselves, but rather follow some leader that they all believe is infallible. It would be interesting in seeing how many people drifted away from religion when the televangelists came out as being basically pretty corrupt. Yet even when they are exposed for the hedonists that they really are, they still manage to survive, and even flourish. Maybe it has something to do with this concept of repentance, and when they are seen as being human, they are accepted all the more 鈥� a leader that admits his flaws do tend to generate much more empathy than one who denies them. In a way it is all part of the stage show.
Taking this into account, it is not surprising that many practitioners of religion tend to be conservative, and many conservatives tend to live in rural areas. In the country the pace of life tends to be much slower, which means that the speed of development that occurs in the cities, as well as the interchange of ideas, tends to challenge the conservative. It goes without saying that conservatives do not like change, though I should probably suggest that what they don't like is fast change 鈥� things change, they always do, it is the nature of the universe, however change works better for most people when it is slow and gradual as opposed to when it is fast. Still, there are those that don't like change at all because that is how things have always been. I guess that is probably a good reason why I didn't end up moving out to the country because even though the money would have been nice, I also like change.
Which brings us back to violence 鈥� one of the reasons that conservatives react with violence when change happens is because they don't like change, and will violently attempt to suppress it. This is not just the rancher clutching his Bible and his gun, but also the Islamic fundamentalist that can't handle the changing pace of technology. Then again it is not only technology, it is basically attempting to make sure things stay the way that they have always been. Isn't it interesting that the rise of Islamic violence occurs now as opposed to back in the days of the British Empire 鈥� one of the reasons is the idea of gender equality. Back in the 20s women dressed a lot more modestly than they do now, but the other thing was that the British tended to rule on the cheap 鈥� namely they didn't really interfere with the cultural practices of the lands that they had conquered, unless they found the practice offensive (such as the widows throwing themselves onto their husband's pyre). However, when the Americans invaded Iraq it wasn't seen as liberating the Iraqis from a dictator, but rather Americanising the middle east. Rumour has it that Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea weren't members of the IMF, which also happen have been the countries on George Bush's axis of evil.
Which brings me to capitalism. Sure, I know I said that I would finish off with religion, but I feel that I should also say a few things about Capitalism because capitalism is inherently violent. It is all about greed and wealth, and people will go to great lengths to get as much money as possible. Isn't it interesting that if you rip off a bank you are a thief but if a bank rips you off then it is the normal course of doing business. The thing with capitalism is that it is always looking for new markets, and it will go to great lengths to open up these new markets. China and Japan for instance - neither countries wanted to participate in a world of global trade, but the British (and Americans) didn't take no for an answer and forced them to open up through violence 鈥� the British with the Opium Wars and the Americans by sailing a gunship into Tokyo harbour. No wonder the Japanese declared war against the United States in the 1940s.
Well, this is getting a bit long in the tooth, particularly for a book that I only gave a couple of stars However, I should make mention of Atheism. Zizek suggests that based upon the propensity for religious violence, Atheism is actually a peaceful religion. Look, I would disagree, not to the extent where some Christian preachers have claimed that because Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists and mass murderers therefore all atheists are mass murderers, but rather because of the lack of any moral basis. Sure, we have the old adage of do unto others (which is actually Christian), but in reality the whole idea of 'as long as it doesn't hurt anybody' is a bit of a fallacy because there are a lot of things that we do that causes lots of misery and heartache, it is just that because we don't see it, we pretend that it doesn't exist, which brings us back to where I started 鈥� violence is aberrant, but only if it is in our back yard.
2 April 2017
I must be starting to get a bit tired of Zizek, not because he isn't a bad writer, nor because he isn't confronting, but rather because, as another reviewer suggested, it has more to do with the law of diminishing returns than anything else. There was a time when I thought that I should read everything by an author that I loved (or admired) until I discovered that not everything that a great author writes is actually any good. In fact, like everything else, pretty much all authors suffer from the law of diminishing returns, and the more that they write, the worse the content tends to become. As I suggested at one time the key to becoming a successful author is not always writing good books (thought that does help, and writing something that becomes a modern classic is even better), but rather creating such a cult following that whenever you release a book you have a hoard of adoring fans that camp outside the local bookshop waiting for its release.
I have probably been a bit too harsh on this book though because as the same reviewer suggested, writing a book about violence without feeling some form of sympathy for the victim, is actually quite hard. In a sense we have this idea of violence being bad drilled into our minds that we end up becoming disconnected behind the reasons as to why people commit violence, and we also become somewhat desensitised to it when it is perpetrated a world away as opposed to being in our own back yard. However these is something of a dichotomy here because while our governments do everything to prevent violence being perpetrated against 'innocent' victims (such as the lock out laws in Sydney which basically forces pubs to close at around midnight, and also having something akin to passport control in some areas), we still seem to have violence being forced onto us from the television and cinema screen or on the sporting field. Isn't it interesting that a sport that is violent (such as football) draws larger crowds than sorts that aren't (such as lawn bowls 鈥� though sports like Baseball and Cricket seem to go against this trend).
The interesting thing about violence is that it does tend to be very victim focused, and we tend to want to deal with the perpetrator rather than looking at the reason why the perpetrators are committing the violent act. For instance we have the school yard bully that goes out of their way to pick on those weaker than them, but we never seem to look at the reasons as to why the bully is behaving in that manner, and one of the reasons I suspect that this is the case is because the bully is himself (or herself) also a victim of violence. For instance if a child were to grow up in a house where the father (or mother) is violent, then the child is not going to know any better, and the child is not only going to behave like that in public, but is also going to see this as a norm and behave like that in their adult lives. While I am not trying to justify the actions of the bully, particularly since I have been at the receiving end of it, we need to remember that violence rarely occurs in a vacuum.
One of the things that Zizek explores is the idea of the sacred cow, such as the Holocaust. In a sense it seems as if this is one of the reasons behind why there is such turmoil in the Israel/Palestinian territories. What is actually quite baffling is that Israel is actually a secular state (or at least it is according to Zizek), which makes it odd that they seem to use the religious writings as a reason to claim this particular land. Actually, it probably has more to do with tradition than anything else as to why they want this particular piece of territory, though interestingly many of the orthodox Jews really aren't interested in sharing it.
Actually, it isn't as if people in the past didn't want to give the Jews a territory of their own 鈥� the Russians gave them some land in the far reaches of Siberia, while the United Nations originally wanted to give them some land down near Oman 鈥� it is just that they wanted this particular piece of land, and basically started moving in, and even went as far as declaring themselves a country. Obviously all of the fundamentalist Christians got really excited over this because this was apparently a prophecy that had been fulfilled, though it does seem interesting that it is the Christians that are far more supportive of Israel on religious grounds than the Israelis, but as I suggested this probably has much more to do with tradition than any real religious basis.
A discussion on violence probably should at least explore the idea of religious violence. Isn't it interesting that for religions that are supposed to promote peace the supporters are actually quite violent in the way they go about propagating their faith 鈥� in a sense of believe or die. I'm not just talking about Christianity here because with most religions, and I'm not even narrowing myself to the people of the book, there is always this fear that one's religious view is going to be proven to be little more than nothing 鈥� basically somebody's whole basis of existence is being challenged, and if they are proven to be wrong then their entire life, and in fact their entire meaning for existence, is going to come to naught. The problem is that religions tend not to be flexible (and in talking about religion, I'm not referring to Buddhism because in my mind that is more of a philosophy).
The problem with religion is that it is inflexible, and practitioners tend not to want to be flexible 鈥� if one part of the religion is wrong then it is possible that everything is wrong, and people fear doubt. However, there is a difference between being wrong about an interpretation of religion, and the religion being wrong. However, many practitioners don't actually think for themselves, but rather follow some leader that they all believe is infallible. It would be interesting in seeing how many people drifted away from religion when the televangelists came out as being basically pretty corrupt. Yet even when they are exposed for the hedonists that they really are, they still manage to survive, and even flourish. Maybe it has something to do with this concept of repentance, and when they are seen as being human, they are accepted all the more 鈥� a leader that admits his flaws do tend to generate much more empathy than one who denies them. In a way it is all part of the stage show.
Taking this into account, it is not surprising that many practitioners of religion tend to be conservative, and many conservatives tend to live in rural areas. In the country the pace of life tends to be much slower, which means that the speed of development that occurs in the cities, as well as the interchange of ideas, tends to challenge the conservative. It goes without saying that conservatives do not like change, though I should probably suggest that what they don't like is fast change 鈥� things change, they always do, it is the nature of the universe, however change works better for most people when it is slow and gradual as opposed to when it is fast. Still, there are those that don't like change at all because that is how things have always been. I guess that is probably a good reason why I didn't end up moving out to the country because even though the money would have been nice, I also like change.
Which brings us back to violence 鈥� one of the reasons that conservatives react with violence when change happens is because they don't like change, and will violently attempt to suppress it. This is not just the rancher clutching his Bible and his gun, but also the Islamic fundamentalist that can't handle the changing pace of technology. Then again it is not only technology, it is basically attempting to make sure things stay the way that they have always been. Isn't it interesting that the rise of Islamic violence occurs now as opposed to back in the days of the British Empire 鈥� one of the reasons is the idea of gender equality. Back in the 20s women dressed a lot more modestly than they do now, but the other thing was that the British tended to rule on the cheap 鈥� namely they didn't really interfere with the cultural practices of the lands that they had conquered, unless they found the practice offensive (such as the widows throwing themselves onto their husband's pyre). However, when the Americans invaded Iraq it wasn't seen as liberating the Iraqis from a dictator, but rather Americanising the middle east. Rumour has it that Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea weren't members of the IMF, which also happen have been the countries on George Bush's axis of evil.
Which brings me to capitalism. Sure, I know I said that I would finish off with religion, but I feel that I should also say a few things about Capitalism because capitalism is inherently violent. It is all about greed and wealth, and people will go to great lengths to get as much money as possible. Isn't it interesting that if you rip off a bank you are a thief but if a bank rips you off then it is the normal course of doing business. The thing with capitalism is that it is always looking for new markets, and it will go to great lengths to open up these new markets. China and Japan for instance - neither countries wanted to participate in a world of global trade, but the British (and Americans) didn't take no for an answer and forced them to open up through violence 鈥� the British with the Opium Wars and the Americans by sailing a gunship into Tokyo harbour. No wonder the Japanese declared war against the United States in the 1940s.
Well, this is getting a bit long in the tooth, particularly for a book that I only gave a couple of stars However, I should make mention of Atheism. Zizek suggests that based upon the propensity for religious violence, Atheism is actually a peaceful religion. Look, I would disagree, not to the extent where some Christian preachers have claimed that because Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists and mass murderers therefore all atheists are mass murderers, but rather because of the lack of any moral basis. Sure, we have the old adage of do unto others (which is actually Christian), but in reality the whole idea of 'as long as it doesn't hurt anybody' is a bit of a fallacy because there are a lot of things that we do that causes lots of misery and heartache, it is just that because we don't see it, we pretend that it doesn't exist, which brings us back to where I started 鈥� violence is aberrant, but only if it is in our back yard.
Read
March 12, 2020丕蹖賳 丿賮毓賴 丿賵賲蹖賴 讴賴 賲蹖禺賵丕賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 亘禺賵賳賲 賵 賳賲蹖鬲賵賳賲. 夭亘丕賳卮 禺蹖賱蹖 爻禺鬲賴 賳賲蹖丿賵賳賲 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屫� 蹖丕 倬蹖趩蹖丿诏蹖 賳賵卮鬲丕乇 跇蹖跇讴 蹖丕 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 賴乇丿賵.
June 30, 2019
丕賲乇賵夭賴 毓賱賲 毓賲賱丕賸 亘丕 賲匕賴亘 乇賯丕亘鬲 丿丕乇丿 夭蹖乇丕 丿賵 賳蹖丕夭 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴 乇丕 亘乇丌賵乇丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏� 讴賴 丕夭 丿蹖乇亘丕夭 賲匕賴亘 毓賴丿賴鈥屫ж� 鬲兀賲蹖賳鈥屫� 亘賵丿 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 丕賲蹖丿 賵 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 爻丕賳爻賵乇.
丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丨賲賱丕鬲 鬲乇賵乇蹖爻鬲蹖 亘賳蹖丕丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳貙 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 噩賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賳丕乇爻丕蹖蹖 丕蹖賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 丿丕乇丕蹖 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屬囏й� 毓賯賱丕蹖蹖鈥屫池� 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘乇丨爻亘 亘丕賵乇賴丕 賵 鬲賲賳蹖丕鬲 讴賳卮诏乇 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿 : 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 鬲賵囟蹖丨蹖 毓賯賱丕蹖蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 趩乇丕 賮乇丿 賲丐賲賳 丨丕囟乇 丕爻鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲賳賮噩乇 讴賳丿 乇賵蹖 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕賳诏卮鬲 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 讴賴 丿乇 亘賴卮鬲 趩賴丕乇氐丿 丿禺鬲乇 亘丕讴乇賴 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丕賵 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭┴促嗀�. 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屬囏� 丿乇 鬲賱丕卮鈥� 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 卮亘蹖賴 禺賵丿賲丕賳 讴賳賳丿 賵蹖 乇丕 亘賴 卮讴賱 禺賳丿賴鈥屫ж臂� 毓噩蹖亘 賵 睾乇蹖亘 賲蹖鈥屫池ж操嗀�.
亘賴鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏� 賮丕賯丿 賴乇诏賵賳賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 亘丿鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏�/丌讴賳丿賴 丕夭 卮賵乇蹖 丌鬲卮蹖賳. 丕蹖賳 鬲賵氐蹖賮蹖 毓丕賱蹖 丕夭 卮讴丕賮蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丨丕賱 丨丕囟乇 亘蹖賳 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏й� 乇賳诏鈥屬矩臂屫� 賵 亘賳蹖丕丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳 倬乇卮賵乇 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏� 丿蹖诏乇 賯丕丿乇 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴丕賲賱 丿乇诏蹖乇 卮賵賳丿 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 亘丿鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏� 诏乇賮鬲丕乇 禺卮讴鈥屫з嗀屫篡� 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴貙 賲匕賴亘蹖貙 賵 噩賳爻蹖鬲鈥屭必й屫з嗁� 丕賳丿.
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 乇丕賴亘乇丿鈥屬囏й� 乇跇蹖賲鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲鈥屫堌з� 蹖丕 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩賳丕賳 賲賯乇乇丕鬲 丨賯賵賯蹖(賯賵丕賳蹖賳 讴蹖賮乇蹖) 爻禺鬲鈥屭屫必з嗁団€屫й� 賵囟毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 丕诏乇 賳氐 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賳馗乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮賵丿 賴賲诏丕賳 賲噩乇賲鈥屫з嗀�. 賵賱蹖 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕噩乇丕蹖 讴丕賲賱 丌賳賴丕 丕賲鬲賳丕毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘丿蹖賳鈥屫必屫� 乇跇蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 亘丕 诏匕卮鬲 亘賵丿賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 乇禺 亘讴卮丿.
( 賲蹖亘蹖賳蹖丿! 丕诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池屬� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池屬� 賴賲賴鈥屫з� 乇丕 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 賵 賲丨讴賵賲 讴賳蹖賲 賵賱蹖 賳鬲乇爻蹖丿 賲丕 丕賴賱 賲丿丕乇丕 賵 丌爻丕賳鈥屭屫臂� 賴爻鬲蹖賲..) 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 乇跇蹖賲 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丕鬲亘丕毓 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲賴丿蹖丿 亘賴 鬲賳亘蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� : (亘蹖卮 丕夭 丨丿 亘丕 賲丕 亘丕夭蹖 丿乇賳蹖丕賵乇蹖丿 蹖丕丿鬲丕賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賴乇 賱丨馗賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬�..)
丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丨賲賱丕鬲 鬲乇賵乇蹖爻鬲蹖 亘賳蹖丕丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳貙 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 噩賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賳丕乇爻丕蹖蹖 丕蹖賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賯丿丕賲丕鬲 丕賳爻丕賳 丿丕乇丕蹖 丕賳诏蹖夭賴鈥屬囏й� 毓賯賱丕蹖蹖鈥屫池� 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘乇丨爻亘 亘丕賵乇賴丕 賵 鬲賲賳蹖丕鬲 讴賳卮诏乇 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿 : 丕夭 噩賲賱賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 鬲賵囟蹖丨蹖 毓賯賱丕蹖蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 趩乇丕 賮乇丿 賲丐賲賳 丨丕囟乇 丕爻鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 賲賳賮噩乇 讴賳丿 乇賵蹖 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕賳诏卮鬲 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 讴賴 丿乇 亘賴卮鬲 趩賴丕乇氐丿 丿禺鬲乇 亘丕讴乇賴 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丕賵 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屭┴促嗀�. 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥屬囏� 丿乇 鬲賱丕卮鈥� 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 卮亘蹖賴 禺賵丿賲丕賳 讴賳賳丿 賵蹖 乇丕 亘賴 卮讴賱 禺賳丿賴鈥屫ж臂� 毓噩蹖亘 賵 睾乇蹖亘 賲蹖鈥屫池ж操嗀�.
亘賴鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏� 賮丕賯丿 賴乇诏賵賳賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 亘丿鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏�/丌讴賳丿賴 丕夭 卮賵乇蹖 丌鬲卮蹖賳. 丕蹖賳 鬲賵氐蹖賮蹖 毓丕賱蹖 丕夭 卮讴丕賮蹖爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丨丕賱 丨丕囟乇 亘蹖賳 賱蹖亘乇丕賱鈥屬囏й� 乇賳诏鈥屬矩臂屫� 賵 亘賳蹖丕丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳 倬乇卮賵乇 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏� 丿蹖诏乇 賯丕丿乇 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿 亘賴 胤賵乇 讴丕賲賱 丿乇诏蹖乇 卮賵賳丿 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 亘丿鬲乇蹖賳鈥屬囏� 诏乇賮鬲丕乇 禺卮讴鈥屫з嗀屫篡� 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲丕賳賴貙 賲匕賴亘蹖貙 賵 噩賳爻蹖鬲鈥屭必й屫з嗁� 丕賳丿.
蹖讴蹖 丕夭 乇丕賴亘乇丿鈥屬囏й� 乇跇蹖賲鈥屬囏й� 鬲賲丕賲蹖鬲鈥屫堌з� 蹖丕 鬲賵鬲丕賱蹖鬲乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 趩賳丕賳 賲賯乇乇丕鬲 丨賯賵賯蹖(賯賵丕賳蹖賳 讴蹖賮乇蹖) 爻禺鬲鈥屭屫必з嗁団€屫й� 賵囟毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 讴賴 丕诏乇 賳氐 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賳馗乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮賵丿 賴賲诏丕賳 賲噩乇賲鈥屫з嗀�. 賵賱蹖 丿乇 賲乇丨賱賴鈥屰� 亘毓丿 丕夭 丕噩乇丕蹖 讴丕賲賱 丌賳賴丕 丕賲鬲賳丕毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 亘丿蹖賳鈥屫必屫� 乇跇蹖賲 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 亘丕 诏匕卮鬲 亘賵丿賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 乇禺 亘讴卮丿.
( 賲蹖亘蹖賳蹖丿! 丕诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж池屬� 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池屬� 賴賲賴鈥屫з� 乇丕 丿爻鬲诏蹖乇 賵 賲丨讴賵賲 讴賳蹖賲 賵賱蹖 賳鬲乇爻蹖丿 賲丕 丕賴賱 賲丿丕乇丕 賵 丌爻丕賳鈥屭屫臂� 賴爻鬲蹖賲..) 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 乇跇蹖賲 賴賲賵丕乇賴 丕鬲亘丕毓 禺賵丿 乇丕 鬲賴丿蹖丿 亘賴 鬲賳亘蹖賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� : (亘蹖卮 丕夭 丨丿 亘丕 賲丕 亘丕夭蹖 丿乇賳蹖丕賵乇蹖丿 蹖丕丿鬲丕賳 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 賴乇 賱丨馗賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬�..)
February 4, 2018
Zizek's main appeal and problem is that he's an idiosyncratic thinker and he's incapable of making his point without referring to pop culture. But it's what we love about him, right? His capacity of making us understand difficult things through what we know and love. Zizek is trying his damnedest not to do that here. This is very academic and while I've enjoyed his railing on invisible, systematic violence we all revel in (his passages on charity and philanthropy were absolutely scathing), but his ideas are not structured and hard to rein in, here. Fun book, but not as enlightening as I thought it would.
December 10, 2017
This is the first book by the prolific Slavoj 沤i啪ek that I have read. The most valuable aspect of his writing appears to be its provocation of thought. 沤i啪ek鈥檚 examples are often questionable, his arguments sometimes off the wall and the train of his thought off the tracks, but he has a brilliance that keeps making you think about things you haven鈥檛 thought about before, or at least not in a particular way.
This book is not about violence really, but then again, it's about a different sort of violence (and many other things) that we don't consider as violent, but should.
This book is not about violence really, but then again, it's about a different sort of violence (and many other things) that we don't consider as violent, but should.
October 26, 2018
"廿賳 丕賱毓賳賮 賱賷爻 氐賮丞 賲賲賷夭丞 賱兀賮毓丕賱 賲毓賷賳丞貙 亘賱 賴賵 賲賵夭毓 亘賷賳 兀賮毓丕賱 賵爻賷丕賯丕鬲賴丕貙 亘賷賳 丕賱賳卮丕胤 賵毓丿賲 丕賱賳卮丕胤貙 賵亘賷賳 丕賱丨乇賰丞 賵丕賱噩賲賵丿貙 廿賳 賲賳 卮兀賳 丕賱賮毓賱 賳賮爻賴 兀賳 賷毓丿 毓賳賷賮丕 兀賵 睾賷乇 毓賳賷賮 鬲亘毓丕 賱賱爻賷丕賯貨 兀丨賷丕賳丕 乇亘賲丕 鬲賰賵賳 丕亘鬲爻丕賲丞 賱亘賯丞 兀卮丿 毓賳賮丕 賲賳 爻賵乇丞 睾囟亘 賯丕爻賷丞."
丕賱毓賳賮 賱丕 賷賯鬲氐乇 毓賱賶 賲丕 丿乇噩 賮賷 賲禺賳丕 賲賳 氐賵乇丞 賳賲胤賷丞 賱賴 丨賷孬 賴賳丕賰 兀丨丿賴賲 賷賯丿賲 毓賱賶 丕賷匕丕亍 卮禺氐 賲丕 兀賵 賷卮鬲賲賴 亘丕爻賵兀 賲丕 賷賰賵賳 兀賵 毓賱賶 卮丕賰賱丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賮毓賱 賲賳 兀賲賵乇貙 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱毓賳賮 亘賵噩賵賴賴 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 賳爻鬲噩賷亘 賱賴丕 賵鬲丨乇賰 賰賱 賲丕 賮賷賳丕 賲賳 毓賳賮 賰丕賲賳 兀賵 賳鬲毓乇囟 賱賴丕 賵賳卮毓乇 亘丕匕賱丕賱 丕賱毓賳賮 賵賱賰賳賳丕 賱丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 鬲氐乇賷賮賴 亘賲爻賲丕賴 丕賱氐丨賷丨 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘.
丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 噩丕賳亘 毓乇囟賴 賱賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱賮賱爻胤賷賳賷丞 賮賴賵 賰丕賳 賲毓丕丿賷丕 賱賯賷丕賲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丕爻乇丕卅賷賱賷丞 賵賷乇賶 賮賷賴丕 丿賵賱丞 賯丕賲鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲丨囟 賵丕賱卮乇 丕賱賵丕囟丨 賵賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷爻鬲胤毓 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱兀賲乇 亘胤乇賷賯丞 爻賱賷賲丞 賮毓夭賶 賮卮賱 賰賱 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲 丕賱丕氐賱丕丨賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賱爻胤賷賳賷賷賳 賵丕賱丕爻乇丕卅賷賱賷賷賳 賱爻賷胤乇丞 丕賱賰爻亘 丕賱睾乇賷夭賷 丕賱卮賴賵賵賷 亘丕賱丿禺賵賱 賮賷 賳賮賯 賲爻丿賵丿!
賵兀賳 丕賱丨賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賱賱賲毓囟賱丞 賷鬲賲孬賱 亘丕賱丿丕卅乇丞 丕賱胤亘卮賵乇賷丞 賱賱賯丿爻 兀賷 鬲乇賰賴丕 亘賱丕 卮毓亘 賱賰賱 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丨賷孬 鬲氐亘丨 賲賱丕匕丕 賵乇丕丨丞 賱賱賲乇鬲丨賱賷賳!
賳賯丕卮 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賵丿丨囟賴丕 賵丕囟丨 賰毓賷賳 丕賱卮賲爻 賮胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丨鬲賱 丕賱賲毓鬲丿 亘賯賵鬲賴 賵賱丕 賯丕賳賵賳 賷乇丿毓賴 兀賵 賷禺賷賮賴 丕賱鬲賲丕丿賷 賰賲丕 賵胤亘賷毓丞 氐丕丨亘 丕賱丨賯 丕賱鬲賲爻賰 賵乇賮囟 丕賱賲爻丕賵賲丞 丕賱賲匕賱丞 乇睾賲 兀賳 丨賰丕賲 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱兀囟毓賮 丕亘丿毓賵丕 賮賷 賯亘賵賱 兀卮丿 丕賱丨賱賵賱 丕賳鬲賯丕氐丕 賱賳丕 賵丕賱賳賰賵氐 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賲賳 噩丕賳亘賴賲 賮賷 丕賱兀睾賱亘 -賮丕賱賵賮丕亍 丕賱賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴 賱賷爻鬲 賲賳 卮賷賲 丕賱賰賱丕亘 賵丨丿賴丕.
兀賲丕 丨賱 丕賱賯丿爻 亘賴匕賴 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 賮賴賵 丨賱 乇賵賲賳爻賷 賰賷賵鬲 賵賱賰賳賴 賲乇賮賵囟 亘賰賱 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯.
賵兀賷囟丕 乇睾賲 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲賴 賱鬲賵囟賷丨 噩丕賳亘 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 毓賳丿 丕賳鬲賮丕囟鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱乇爻賵賲 丕賱賲賴賷賳丞 賱賱乇爻賵賱 賵丕賱兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱鬲賷 氐丕丨亘鬲賴丕貙 賵賲丨丕賵賱鬲賴 賱鬲亘乇賷乇 丕賱兀賲乇 亘兀爻亘丕亘 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷夭丕賱 賷賳鬲賯氐 賲賳 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲 賮賷 賰賱 丿賱丕賱丕鬲 賰賱賲丕鬲賴 賮賴賵 毓賱賶 兀賯賱 鬲賯丿賷乇 毓賳丿 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷 賵丕賱賱賴 鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱廿賱賴 賲賳 噩丕賳亘 賲爻賷丨賷 賵賷賴賵丿賷 賵亘賵匕賷貙 賵亘賴匕丕 兀馗賳賴 兀賵囟丨 賲孬丕賱丕 毓賲賱賷丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賱睾賵賷 丕賱匕賷 兀亘丿毓 賮賷 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳賴.
毓丿丕 匕賱賰 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿丕 賵賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱毓賳賮 亘胤乇賷賯丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賵鬲爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕賱賳賯丕卮貙 丕賱丕鬲賮丕賯 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賲毓賴 睾賷乇 囟乇賵乇賷 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賲賯賷丕爻 賱兀賴賲賷鬲賴貙 廿賳賲丕 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 賵丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱孬乇賷丞.
丕賱毓賳賮 賱丕 賷賯鬲氐乇 毓賱賶 賲丕 丿乇噩 賮賷 賲禺賳丕 賲賳 氐賵乇丞 賳賲胤賷丞 賱賴 丨賷孬 賴賳丕賰 兀丨丿賴賲 賷賯丿賲 毓賱賶 丕賷匕丕亍 卮禺氐 賲丕 兀賵 賷卮鬲賲賴 亘丕爻賵兀 賲丕 賷賰賵賳 兀賵 毓賱賶 卮丕賰賱丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賮毓賱 賲賳 兀賲賵乇貙 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱毓賳賮 亘賵噩賵賴賴 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱鬲賷 賳爻鬲噩賷亘 賱賴丕 賵鬲丨乇賰 賰賱 賲丕 賮賷賳丕 賲賳 毓賳賮 賰丕賲賳 兀賵 賳鬲毓乇囟 賱賴丕 賵賳卮毓乇 亘丕匕賱丕賱 丕賱毓賳賮 賵賱賰賳賳丕 賱丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 鬲氐乇賷賮賴 亘賲爻賲丕賴 丕賱氐丨賷丨 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘.
丕禺鬲賱賮 賲毓 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 噩丕賳亘 毓乇囟賴 賱賱賯囟賷丞 丕賱賮賱爻胤賷賳賷丞 賮賴賵 賰丕賳 賲毓丕丿賷丕 賱賯賷丕賲 丕賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱丕爻乇丕卅賷賱賷丞 賵賷乇賶 賮賷賴丕 丿賵賱丞 賯丕賲鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賲丨囟 賵丕賱卮乇 丕賱賵丕囟丨 賵賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷爻鬲胤毓 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱兀賲乇 亘胤乇賷賯丞 爻賱賷賲丞 賮毓夭賶 賮卮賱 賰賱 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲 丕賱丕氐賱丕丨賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賮賱爻胤賷賳賷賷賳 賵丕賱丕爻乇丕卅賷賱賷賷賳 賱爻賷胤乇丞 丕賱賰爻亘 丕賱睾乇賷夭賷 丕賱卮賴賵賵賷 亘丕賱丿禺賵賱 賮賷 賳賮賯 賲爻丿賵丿!
賵兀賳 丕賱丨賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賱賱賲毓囟賱丞 賷鬲賲孬賱 亘丕賱丿丕卅乇丞 丕賱胤亘卮賵乇賷丞 賱賱賯丿爻 兀賷 鬲乇賰賴丕 亘賱丕 卮毓亘 賱賰賱 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丨賷孬 鬲氐亘丨 賲賱丕匕丕 賵乇丕丨丞 賱賱賲乇鬲丨賱賷賳!
賳賯丕卮 賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賵丿丨囟賴丕 賵丕囟丨 賰毓賷賳 丕賱卮賲爻 賮胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱賲丨鬲賱 丕賱賲毓鬲丿 亘賯賵鬲賴 賵賱丕 賯丕賳賵賳 賷乇丿毓賴 兀賵 賷禺賷賮賴 丕賱鬲賲丕丿賷 賰賲丕 賵胤亘賷毓丞 氐丕丨亘 丕賱丨賯 丕賱鬲賲爻賰 賵乇賮囟 丕賱賲爻丕賵賲丞 丕賱賲匕賱丞 乇睾賲 兀賳 丨賰丕賲 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱兀囟毓賮 丕亘丿毓賵丕 賮賷 賯亘賵賱 兀卮丿 丕賱丨賱賵賱 丕賳鬲賯丕氐丕 賱賳丕 賵丕賱賳賰賵氐 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 賲賳 噩丕賳亘賴賲 賮賷 丕賱兀睾賱亘 -賮丕賱賵賮丕亍 丕賱賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴 賱賷爻鬲 賲賳 卮賷賲 丕賱賰賱丕亘 賵丨丿賴丕.
兀賲丕 丨賱 丕賱賯丿爻 亘賴匕賴 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 賮賴賵 丨賱 乇賵賲賳爻賷 賰賷賵鬲 賵賱賰賳賴 賲乇賮賵囟 亘賰賱 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱賲賳胤賯.
賵兀賷囟丕 乇睾賲 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲賴 賱鬲賵囟賷丨 噩丕賳亘 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 毓賳丿 丕賳鬲賮丕囟鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱乇爻賵賲 丕賱賲賴賷賳丞 賱賱乇爻賵賱 賵丕賱兀賮毓丕賱 丕賱鬲賷 氐丕丨亘鬲賴丕貙 賵賲丨丕賵賱鬲賴 賱鬲亘乇賷乇 丕賱兀賲乇 亘兀爻亘丕亘 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷夭丕賱 賷賳鬲賯氐 賲賳 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲 賮賷 賰賱 丿賱丕賱丕鬲 賰賱賲丕鬲賴 賮賴賵 毓賱賶 兀賯賱 鬲賯丿賷乇 毓賳丿 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷 賵丕賱賱賴 鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱廿賱賴 賲賳 噩丕賳亘 賲爻賷丨賷 賵賷賴賵丿賷 賵亘賵匕賷貙 賵亘賴匕丕 兀馗賳賴 兀賵囟丨 賲孬丕賱丕 毓賲賱賷丕 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賳賮 丕賱賱睾賵賷 丕賱匕賷 兀亘丿毓 賮賷 丕賱鬲丨丿孬 毓賳賴.
毓丿丕 匕賱賰 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 噩丿丕 賵賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱毓賳賮 亘胤乇賷賯丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賵鬲爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕賱賳賯丕卮貙 丕賱丕鬲賮丕賯 賵丕賱丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賲毓賴 睾賷乇 囟乇賵乇賷 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賲賯賷丕爻 賱兀賴賲賷鬲賴貙 廿賳賲丕 丕賱賲賵丕囟賷毓 賵丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱孬乇賷丞.
July 19, 2014
Zizek often seems like a mixed bag from what I've read/listened to of his thinking in the past, but this for the most part is actually pretty strong. His ideas about violence are, like most things Zizek, idiosyncratic; a blend of critical theory, Hegelian philosophy and psychoanalysis while at the same time a critical rejection and modification of each of those thing. But unlike some of his other writings, this one never gets too bogged down in tedious Lacanian/Hegelian nomenclature and he sticks to the topic at hand very tightly with plenty of real world examples. In fact this book probably offers the best take on the 2005 Paris riots that I've encountered anywhere. Zizek kind of tears into everyone in this book. Accusing both the political right and left of complacently refusing to really examine the deep structures of their beliefs on violence, tolerance, etc. There's not really a thesis here, which is fine by me. Like the subtitle says, these are reflections, not a prescription, not a manifesto. I think this book is actually a really good place to start if you want to get into Zizek, he seems to be at his best when the topic isn't one of his own choosing.
November 30, 2021
卮丕蹖丿 亘鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲 賲賯賵賱賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賲亘丕丨孬蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳 賲丿乇賳 賵 禺氐賵氐丕 賴夭丕乇賴 噩丿蹖丿 賲胤乇丨 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 乇丕爻鬲蹖 乇蹖卮賴 丕賳賯賱丕亘鈥屬囏й� 禺卮賵賳鬲 丌賲蹖夭貙 馗賴賵乇 鬲賮讴乇丕鬲 锟斤拷賮乇丕胤蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 丿丕毓卮貙 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 睾丕乇鬲 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 倬爻 丕夭 胤賵賮丕賳 讴丕鬲乇蹖賳丕 趩蹖爻鬲責 趩乇丕 丿乇 毓氐乇蹖 讴賴 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖鈥屫簇� 丿蹖诏乇 噩賳诏鈥屬囏� 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇爻蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 趩賳蹖賳 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲蹖 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 乇禺 賲蹖鈥屫囏�
丕爻賱丕賵蹖 跇蹖跇讴 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 亘賴 賲賯賵賱賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕夭 倬賳噩 夭丕賵蹖賴 亘賳诏乇丿.
丕賵賱 禺卮賵賳鬲 蹖丕乇蹖 胤賱亘. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘賴 鬲賳賴丕蹖蹖 賲賳噩乇 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 跇蹖跇讴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 禺卮賵賳鬲 丿賵 賳賵毓 丿丕乇丿 丕賵賱 禺卮賵賳鬲 讴賳卮诏乇丕賳賴 賵 丿賵賲 禺卮賵賳鬲 讴賳卮鈥屬矩佰屫必з嗁� 讴賴 丌賳 賳賵毓 禺卮賵賳鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賲丿丿 丨囟賵乇 丿乇 賳賵毓 禺丕氐蹖 丕夭 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 亘賴 賲丕 鬲丨賲蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丨囟賵乇 丿乇 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖 禺賵丿 蹖讴 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿.
丿賵賲 丕夭 賴賲爻丕蹖賴鈥屫ж� 趩賵賳丕賳 锟斤拷賵丿鬲 亘鬲乇爻. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 跇蹖跇讴 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘亘蹖賳丿 趩诏賵賳賴 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 睾乇亘蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丨鬲蹖 丕夭 賴賲爻丕蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 賳蹖夭 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 蹖讴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 噩丕賱亘蹖 讴賴 跇蹖跇讴 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 爻賳鬲 賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲 讴賴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 鬲賲丕賲 丕亘賳丕 亘卮乇 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 亘乇丕丿乇賳丿 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丿乇 丿賱 禺賵丿 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇賴 毓丿賲 亘乇丕丿乇蹖 賲爻鬲鬲乇 丕爻鬲. 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 鬲爻丕賴賱 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 讴賴 亘賴 趩賳蹖賳 诏夭丕乇賴鈥屫й� 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賳丿丕乇賳丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 趩賴 氐賵乇鬲責 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲爻蹖丨蹖丕賳 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賳賵毓蹖 丕爻鬲丨丕賱賴 乇丕 丿乇 賮乇賴賳诏 賴賲 禺賵丿 賵 賴賲 芦丿蹖诏乇蹖禄 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 丿乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿丕賲賳 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀�.
爻賵賲 賲賵噩蹖 禺賵賳蹖賳 亘賱賳丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 賲賮賴賵賲 卮賳丕爻蹖 禺賵丿 禺卮賵賳鬲 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 跇蹖跇讴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屬囏й� 丨賵賲賴 倬丕乇蹖爻 蹖丕 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 丨丕賵蹖 倬蹖丕賲 賳亘賵丿賳丿 亘賱讴賴 禺賵丿卮丕賳 倬蹖丕賲 亘賵丿賳丿. 倬蹖丕賲蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 賯卮乇 丌爻蹖亘 丿蹖丿賴 賵 丨匕賮 卮丿賴 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丕蹖賳 倬蹖丕賲 丿乇 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 卮丿.
趩賴丕乇賲 鬲爻丕賴賱 趩賵賳丕賳 賲賯賵賱賴鈥屫й� 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 賳蹖夭 跇蹖跇讴 亘賴 賳賯賱 鬲爻丕賴賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 賵蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 鬲爻丕賴賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘丕毓孬 讴丕賴卮 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賱讴賴 禺賵丿 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丿賱丕蹖賱 丕蹖噩丕丿 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕爻鬲. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 鬲賳丕賯囟鈥屬囏й� 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 賲賮賴賵賲 鬲爻丕賴賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�.
倬賳噩賲 禺卮賵賳鬲 禺丿丕蹖诏丕賳蹖. 禺卮賵賳鬲蹖 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 亘乇賳丕賲賴 讴賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 亘蹖鈥屬呚官嗀й屰� 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 丨囟乇鬲 丕蹖賵亘 (毓) 丿趩丕乇 亘賱丕賴丕蹖 賲鬲毓丿丿蹖 卮丿 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賳丿 賵蹖 乇丕 賲鬲賯丕毓丿 讴賳賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 亘賱丕賴丕 丿賱蹖賱蹖 丿丕乇丿. 丕賲丕 丕蹖賵亘 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 讴賴 丿賱蹖賱 丕蹖賳 亘賱丕賴丕 丿乇 亘蹖 丿賱蹖賱蹖 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 诏丕賴蹖 賳蹖夭 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲乇丿賲 氐乇賮丕 丕夭 毓丿賲 丿賱蹖賱 亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 丿賯蹖賯 丌賳 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 蹖讴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 讴賱丕賳鈥屫� 乇噩賵毓 讴乇丿 讴賴 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 丿乇 丌賳 夭賲丕賳 丿乇 丿爻鬲乇爻 賲丕 賳亘丕卮丿.
丕爻賱丕賵蹖 跇蹖跇讴 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲 亘賴 賲賯賵賱賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕夭 倬賳噩 夭丕賵蹖賴 亘賳诏乇丿.
丕賵賱 禺卮賵賳鬲 蹖丕乇蹖 胤賱亘. 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘賴 鬲賳賴丕蹖蹖 賲賳噩乇 亘賴 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 跇蹖跇讴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 禺卮賵賳鬲 丿賵 賳賵毓 丿丕乇丿 丕賵賱 禺卮賵賳鬲 讴賳卮诏乇丕賳賴 賵 丿賵賲 禺卮賵賳鬲 讴賳卮鈥屬矩佰屫必з嗁� 讴賴 丌賳 賳賵毓 禺卮賵賳鬲蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賲丿丿 丨囟賵乇 丿乇 賳賵毓 禺丕氐蹖 丕夭 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 亘賴 賲丕 鬲丨賲蹖賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�. 丨囟賵乇 丿乇 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲 賲丕 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖 禺賵丿 蹖讴 賳跇丕丿倬乇爻鬲 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿.
丿賵賲 丕夭 賴賲爻丕蹖賴鈥屫ж� 趩賵賳丕賳 锟斤拷賵丿鬲 亘鬲乇爻. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 跇蹖跇讴 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘亘蹖賳丿 趩诏賵賳賴 丿乇 噩賵丕賲毓 睾乇亘蹖 丕賮乇丕丿 丨鬲蹖 丕夭 賴賲爻丕蹖賴鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿 賳蹖夭 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 蹖讴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 噩丕賱亘蹖 讴賴 跇蹖跇讴 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 爻賳鬲 賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲 讴賴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 鬲賲丕賲 丕亘賳丕 亘卮乇 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 亘乇丕丿乇賳丿 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丿乇 丿賱 禺賵丿 丕蹖賳 诏夭丕乇賴 毓丿賲 亘乇丕丿乇蹖 賲爻鬲鬲乇 丕爻鬲. 丨丕賱 丌賳讴賴 鬲爻丕賴賱 蹖賴賵丿蹖丕賳 讴賴 亘賴 趩賳蹖賳 诏夭丕乇賴鈥屫й� 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賳丿丕乇賳丿 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丕夭 賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 趩賴 氐賵乇鬲責 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲爻蹖丨蹖丕賳 亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 賳賵毓蹖 丕爻鬲丨丕賱賴 乇丕 丿乇 賮乇賴賳诏 賴賲 禺賵丿 賵 賴賲 芦丿蹖诏乇蹖禄 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘蹖诏丕賳诏蹖 丿乇 丕賮乇丕丿 丿丕賲賳 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀�.
爻賵賲 賲賵噩蹖 禺賵賳蹖賳 亘賱賳丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 賲賮賴賵賲 卮賳丕爻蹖 禺賵丿 禺卮賵賳鬲 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 跇蹖跇讴 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 禺卮賵賳鬲鈥屬囏й� 丨賵賲賴 倬丕乇蹖爻 蹖丕 賳蹖賵丕賵乇賱卅丕賳 丨丕賵蹖 倬蹖丕賲 賳亘賵丿賳丿 亘賱讴賴 禺賵丿卮丕賳 倬蹖丕賲 亘賵丿賳丿. 倬蹖丕賲蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 賯卮乇 丌爻蹖亘 丿蹖丿賴 賵 丨匕賮 卮丿賴 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丕蹖賳 倬蹖丕賲 丿乇 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳賲丕蹖丕賳 卮丿.
趩賴丕乇賲 鬲爻丕賴賱 趩賵賳丕賳 賲賯賵賱賴鈥屫й� 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖讴. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 賳蹖夭 跇蹖跇讴 亘賴 賳賯賱 鬲爻丕賴賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 賵蹖 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 鬲爻丕賴賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘丕毓孬 讴丕賴卮 禺卮賵賳鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賱讴賴 禺賵丿 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丿賱丕蹖賱 丕蹖噩丕丿 禺卮賵賳鬲 丕爻鬲. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 亘賴 鬲賳丕賯囟鈥屬囏й� 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 賲賮賴賵賲 鬲爻丕賴賱 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�.
倬賳噩賲 禺卮賵賳鬲 禺丿丕蹖诏丕賳蹖. 禺卮賵賳鬲蹖 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 亘乇賳丕賲賴 讴賴 賲毓賳丕蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 亘蹖鈥屬呚官嗀й屰� 賲蹖鈥屭屫必�. 賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 丨囟乇鬲 丕蹖賵亘 (毓) 丿趩丕乇 亘賱丕賴丕蹖 賲鬲毓丿丿蹖 卮丿 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 爻毓蹖 讴乇丿賳丿 賵蹖 乇丕 賲鬲賯丕毓丿 讴賳賳丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 亘賱丕賴丕 丿賱蹖賱蹖 丿丕乇丿. 丕賲丕 丕蹖賵亘 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀池� 讴賴 丿賱蹖賱 丕蹖賳 亘賱丕賴丕 丿乇 亘蹖 丿賱蹖賱蹖 賳賴賮鬲賴 丕爻鬲. 诏丕賴蹖 賳蹖夭 禺卮賵賳鬲 賲乇丿賲 氐乇賮丕 丕夭 毓丿賲 丿賱蹖賱 亘乇 賲蹖鈥屫③屫� 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲 丿賯蹖賯 丌賳 禺卮賵賳鬲 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 蹖讴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 讴賱丕賳鈥屫� 乇噩賵毓 讴乇丿 讴賴 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 丿乇 丌賳 夭賲丕賳 丿乇 丿爻鬲乇爻 賲丕 賳亘丕卮丿.
October 23, 2023
Esse livro 茅 cheio de ideias geniais e cita莽玫es maravilhosas e oportunas 脿 poesia, cinema, teatro e excertos de fil贸sofos que provavelmente nunca irei ler na vida como Walter Benjamin e Derrida.
脡, portanto, uma leitura muito prazerosa. Mas o estilo liter谩rio 茅, ao mesmo tempo, a grande virtude e a grande trag茅dia dessa colet芒nea de ensaios sobre viol锚ncia. 脡 a grande trag茅dia porque claramente as li莽玫es dos textos seriam mais f谩ceis de apreender se o livro fosse mais organizado. Estilo demais sempre fere conte煤do. 脌s vezes de morte. N茫o 茅 o caso, contudo.
De todo modo, consola o fato de que essa organiza莽茫o do livro, que deixa o leitor com mais d煤vidas que respostas, 茅 proposital.
N茫o h谩 necessidade de ler todo o texto para capturar algumas ideias interessantes. Se um dia voc锚 topar com esse livro e n茫o puder ler tudo, recomendo a leitura dos ensaios: "SOS Violence", que distingue viol锚ncia subjetiva e objetiva; e "Divine violence", que trata da viol锚ncia n茫o teleol贸gica
脡, portanto, uma leitura muito prazerosa. Mas o estilo liter谩rio 茅, ao mesmo tempo, a grande virtude e a grande trag茅dia dessa colet芒nea de ensaios sobre viol锚ncia. 脡 a grande trag茅dia porque claramente as li莽玫es dos textos seriam mais f谩ceis de apreender se o livro fosse mais organizado. Estilo demais sempre fere conte煤do. 脌s vezes de morte. N茫o 茅 o caso, contudo.
De todo modo, consola o fato de que essa organiza莽茫o do livro, que deixa o leitor com mais d煤vidas que respostas, 茅 proposital.
N茫o h谩 necessidade de ler todo o texto para capturar algumas ideias interessantes. Se um dia voc锚 topar com esse livro e n茫o puder ler tudo, recomendo a leitura dos ensaios: "SOS Violence", que distingue viol锚ncia subjetiva e objetiva; e "Divine violence", que trata da viol锚ncia n茫o teleol贸gica
May 24, 2011
賵丕賯毓丕 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿貙 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵卮賲 丕賵賲丿 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 噩賲毓鈥屫ㄙ嗀� 丌禺乇卮 鬲賵 "倬爻鈥屭佖ж�". 丕賵丕爻胤 賵 丕賵丕禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 賯氐丿 丿丕卮鬲賲 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 囟毓蹖賮卮 4 亘丿賲 賵賱蹖 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 賯爻賲鬲 丌禺乇 丿蹖丿賲 賵丕賯毓丕 亘丕蹖丿 5 亘丿賲 丨鬲蹖 亘丕 丕蹖賳 鬲乇噩賲賴.鈥�
February 10, 2009
It feels more than a little strange to be reading and enjoying a book calling for the violent overthrow of capitalism and liberal democracy when my most fervent political hope of the moment is that Barack Obama will re-start the American economy by passing an effective stimulus bill, and humanize American capitalism by re-regulating big business and enacting some form of universal health care legislation. But I did enjoy the book and that is what Zizek is calling for here isn't it? Or is it?
The fact is he's a little cagey about that. On the one hand the book takes the idea that capitalism desperately needs to be abolished as its premise. There's no attempt to argue with those who believe that it really needs to be reformed, perhaps drastically so, but reformed nevertheless. Zizek takes it's irredeemability as a given, and for the most part he's preaching to a choir of readers who hold the same conviction. But this reader was left with some confusion as to just what he means by violence and just when it might be justified. And just what kind of society is to follow in its wake.
Zizek claims that there are two kinds of violence: objective and subjective. Counterintuitively, Zizek terms physical violence subjective violence, while objective violence is the set of invisible but nonetheless coercive social/cultural/political structures (norms, habits, laws, conventions etc.) that govern the way we think and act. All people, in other words, are subject to coercion, to "violence," all the time. All of us are forced, or strongly encouraged, to act and think a certain way "against our will," not in the sense that we consciously and openly object to the way things are, but because we are thrown into a world not of our own making, and are unable to imagine, much less bring into being, a radically different state of things. We can't see beyond the limits set by ideology, and indeed our very subjectivities (which are as fluid as they are fixed) are created and defined by ideology. Physical/subjective violence is just the tip of the iceberg. By declaring physical violence the only form of violence worthy of the name, ideology masks all the other more fundamental forms of coercion, of violence, that we are all subject to every moment of our lives.
So, in other words, Zizek defines violence quite broadly, and this does three things: 1) softens the readers resistance to his claim that violence is a legitimate, indeed necessary, political tactic 2) allows him to call lots of things violence that one wouldn't necessarily think of as violence--like "nonviolently" withdrawing consent from a given political regime and 3) blurs the line between nonviolent resistance and the kind of violence that leads to the direct loss of human life, or that has the taking of human life as one of its primary tactics (although, admittedly, classic forms of nonviolence rely on the willingness of their opponents to use violence as part of their political effectiveness).
If I'm reading him correctly (and I'm by no means sure I am, so someone correct me if I'm wrong), Zizek endorses "emancipatory" violence, by which he means violence that aims at "a radical upheaval of the basic social relations." He cites the terror that followed the French Revolution and the killings carried out by during and after the Cuban Revolution as acceptable instances of genuinely revolutionary violence. Hitler's and Stalin's killings, by contrast, do not qualify as revolutionary violence because they don't effect "a radical upheaval of the basic social relations" (though I think at one point he says that Stalin's forced collectivization was closer to genuine revolutionary violence than the terror that accompanied the Moscow show trials). At the same time he seems to argue that the most effective form of violence at the moment is some form of passive violence, some form of withdrawal of consent from the system. He cites the Saramago novel Seeing, where the majority of the citizens of a country cast blank ballots, creating a crisis of legitimacy. He quotes Lenin to the effect that the best thing to do is not to act but to hunker down and study, to "learn, learn and learn." The final paragraph of the book reads: "If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do."
How does one read this statement? Does it mean that if Hitler and Stalin had slaughtered millions AND effected a "radical upheaval of the basic social relations", then those deaths would be justified? Because, theoretically at least, one could abolish capitalism AND kill 6 million Jews. The two are not mutually exclusive. Or does it mean that more classically nonviolent means are a more effective form of "violence"?
There's lots of dazzling analysis in Zizek, but if one treats it as something more than just a politics of the academy, as a call to action of sorts, it becomes extremely problematic. The first and most obvious objection is that if the main criteria for the use of violence is that it aim at a "radical upheaval of the basic social relations", then violence deployed in the service of dystopian political aims is just as justifiable as violence deployed for laudable aims. Zizek argues that Hitler did not actually aim at a "radical upheaval of the basic social relations", but in principle there's no reason why one can't imagine a fundamentally reordered society based on white supremacy, or some other equally despicable ideology. This criteria is too value neutral about the society that is to follow.
Next, if everyone's psyche/self is fundamentally distorted by ideology, then everyone is both guilty and innocent at the same time. Zizek is fond of chiding leftists who believe that you can make a revolutionary omelette without breaking a few counterrevolutionary eggs. So he's a bit more honest than the revolutionary beautiful souls who believe you can have a total socio-economic transformation without some equivalent of the secret police. But if we are all more or less bamboozled by ideology all the time, it would be well nigh impossible to sort out the guilty from the innocent in any event.
Zizek seems to be striving for something more than a politics of the academy, but for a social democrat like me his writings are interesting as literature, but less than useful as a spur to political action. Maybe the best way to describe his appeal, to me at any rate, is that he is a useful person to think against. Personally I am morally committed to an extremely pragmatic politics focused on technocratic and incremental solutions to small and manageable problems. Or more sweeping solutions to not-so-small and manageable problems, as in the case of the current economic collapse, or larger injustices like botched wars of choice, or equal rights for gay people. I think the individual dignity and flourishing of ordinary people should be the main goal of governing, and that people ought to be able to decide for themselves what the conditions of their dignity and flourishing are (one way Zizek is useful is in exploring the psychological and ideological barriers to even imagining such conditions). And I think that听too often political theorists of a certain stripe are intoxicated听by ideas of total emancipation, and individual lives, and the modest expectations that govern them, get discounted in favor of totalizing visions of the good society.听I enjoy reading Zizek, but I don't think I'd want him running the world.
On the other hand, what's probably more accurate is that when people like Zizek start running the world, they necessarily become pragmatists!
The fact is he's a little cagey about that. On the one hand the book takes the idea that capitalism desperately needs to be abolished as its premise. There's no attempt to argue with those who believe that it really needs to be reformed, perhaps drastically so, but reformed nevertheless. Zizek takes it's irredeemability as a given, and for the most part he's preaching to a choir of readers who hold the same conviction. But this reader was left with some confusion as to just what he means by violence and just when it might be justified. And just what kind of society is to follow in its wake.
Zizek claims that there are two kinds of violence: objective and subjective. Counterintuitively, Zizek terms physical violence subjective violence, while objective violence is the set of invisible but nonetheless coercive social/cultural/political structures (norms, habits, laws, conventions etc.) that govern the way we think and act. All people, in other words, are subject to coercion, to "violence," all the time. All of us are forced, or strongly encouraged, to act and think a certain way "against our will," not in the sense that we consciously and openly object to the way things are, but because we are thrown into a world not of our own making, and are unable to imagine, much less bring into being, a radically different state of things. We can't see beyond the limits set by ideology, and indeed our very subjectivities (which are as fluid as they are fixed) are created and defined by ideology. Physical/subjective violence is just the tip of the iceberg. By declaring physical violence the only form of violence worthy of the name, ideology masks all the other more fundamental forms of coercion, of violence, that we are all subject to every moment of our lives.
So, in other words, Zizek defines violence quite broadly, and this does three things: 1) softens the readers resistance to his claim that violence is a legitimate, indeed necessary, political tactic 2) allows him to call lots of things violence that one wouldn't necessarily think of as violence--like "nonviolently" withdrawing consent from a given political regime and 3) blurs the line between nonviolent resistance and the kind of violence that leads to the direct loss of human life, or that has the taking of human life as one of its primary tactics (although, admittedly, classic forms of nonviolence rely on the willingness of their opponents to use violence as part of their political effectiveness).
If I'm reading him correctly (and I'm by no means sure I am, so someone correct me if I'm wrong), Zizek endorses "emancipatory" violence, by which he means violence that aims at "a radical upheaval of the basic social relations." He cites the terror that followed the French Revolution and the killings carried out by during and after the Cuban Revolution as acceptable instances of genuinely revolutionary violence. Hitler's and Stalin's killings, by contrast, do not qualify as revolutionary violence because they don't effect "a radical upheaval of the basic social relations" (though I think at one point he says that Stalin's forced collectivization was closer to genuine revolutionary violence than the terror that accompanied the Moscow show trials). At the same time he seems to argue that the most effective form of violence at the moment is some form of passive violence, some form of withdrawal of consent from the system. He cites the Saramago novel Seeing, where the majority of the citizens of a country cast blank ballots, creating a crisis of legitimacy. He quotes Lenin to the effect that the best thing to do is not to act but to hunker down and study, to "learn, learn and learn." The final paragraph of the book reads: "If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do."
How does one read this statement? Does it mean that if Hitler and Stalin had slaughtered millions AND effected a "radical upheaval of the basic social relations", then those deaths would be justified? Because, theoretically at least, one could abolish capitalism AND kill 6 million Jews. The two are not mutually exclusive. Or does it mean that more classically nonviolent means are a more effective form of "violence"?
There's lots of dazzling analysis in Zizek, but if one treats it as something more than just a politics of the academy, as a call to action of sorts, it becomes extremely problematic. The first and most obvious objection is that if the main criteria for the use of violence is that it aim at a "radical upheaval of the basic social relations", then violence deployed in the service of dystopian political aims is just as justifiable as violence deployed for laudable aims. Zizek argues that Hitler did not actually aim at a "radical upheaval of the basic social relations", but in principle there's no reason why one can't imagine a fundamentally reordered society based on white supremacy, or some other equally despicable ideology. This criteria is too value neutral about the society that is to follow.
Next, if everyone's psyche/self is fundamentally distorted by ideology, then everyone is both guilty and innocent at the same time. Zizek is fond of chiding leftists who believe that you can make a revolutionary omelette without breaking a few counterrevolutionary eggs. So he's a bit more honest than the revolutionary beautiful souls who believe you can have a total socio-economic transformation without some equivalent of the secret police. But if we are all more or less bamboozled by ideology all the time, it would be well nigh impossible to sort out the guilty from the innocent in any event.
Zizek seems to be striving for something more than a politics of the academy, but for a social democrat like me his writings are interesting as literature, but less than useful as a spur to political action. Maybe the best way to describe his appeal, to me at any rate, is that he is a useful person to think against. Personally I am morally committed to an extremely pragmatic politics focused on technocratic and incremental solutions to small and manageable problems. Or more sweeping solutions to not-so-small and manageable problems, as in the case of the current economic collapse, or larger injustices like botched wars of choice, or equal rights for gay people. I think the individual dignity and flourishing of ordinary people should be the main goal of governing, and that people ought to be able to decide for themselves what the conditions of their dignity and flourishing are (one way Zizek is useful is in exploring the psychological and ideological barriers to even imagining such conditions). And I think that听too often political theorists of a certain stripe are intoxicated听by ideas of total emancipation, and individual lives, and the modest expectations that govern them, get discounted in favor of totalizing visions of the good society.听I enjoy reading Zizek, but I don't think I'd want him running the world.
On the other hand, what's probably more accurate is that when people like Zizek start running the world, they necessarily become pragmatists!
February 19, 2021
what a truly superb and insightful book - loved the imagery at the end of the state almost being an insolent child relying on democratic participation of the masses , concluding on inaction being the most violent thing to do!
it鈥檚 cynical and gives you some proper good thinking points and even makes you laugh !!! creasing 24/7 at this hew
it鈥檚 cynical and gives you some proper good thinking points and even makes you laugh !!! creasing 24/7 at this hew
August 3, 2023
This is like the political theory version of good quality cocaine.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 424 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.