# zizek's empty world re-deconstructing zizek's deliciously odd opening statement in the 2005 documentary about ir not despite but because of appearances - the world often seems empty and devoid on listening to the opening remarks of the "zizek!" documentary one would like to explore zizek's unusual theoretical viewpoints or coordinates which sounds like a form of that old speculative realist fanfiction > what would be my how should i call it spontaneous attitude towards the universe? it's a very dark one **+** what a strange interesting thing to say nobody asks this of anybody at a party. imagine asking someone what ir spontaneous attitude is towards someone who asks about ir spontaneous attitude toward the universe it's often a bad idea to answer your own questions; it's often not possible to do anything but all-too conveniently answer your own questions - you often have to answer your own questions because nobody else is asking them perhaps they're not asking them because they're not worth asking and-or answering > there's nothing spontaneous in or about humans - nor such as thing as a spontaneous attitude **+** what does ey even mean by the universe what humans tag "the universe" could well be just another big other in which "the universe" is no less dark than anyone's pseudo spontaneous anything > the first one the first thesis would have been: a kind of total vanity **+** there is no first thesis'; to think so as the truer only vanity ascribing the term vanity to the universe seems interesting; as though it's displayed for it's own amusement it's more certain that zizek displays to irself for ir own amusement > there is nothing basically. i mean it quite literally **+** the word is acts in direct contrast to any attempt to describe nothingness re: the word basically - even nothingness as an exaggerated overwrought term 'literally nothing': hyperbole intended for emphasis - again a connection to vanity? 'literally nothing is akin to the term ninja assassin'; each of these phrases contains an obsolete word > like ultimately ultimately there are just some fragments some vanishing things if you look at the universe it's one big void **+** if there's just void there is no ultimately nor any fragments. nothing vanishes "if you look (..]" - it's possible to read this as looking itself is the void re one big void; there is no one - nor even zero > but then how do things emerge? here i feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics **+** the moment quantum is mentioned zizek is exposed to a sokal reversal (if not already - by default) what makes zizek think things emerge? from where does this idea of a void having to always be pregnant with potential forms emerge? why not the reverse as well - to emerge into/as voidness > i feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics **+** don't we all dahlink? this phrase would make a great t-shirt idea (though for an extra dimensional twist some would add the prefix bio to quantum) where you know the idea there is that the universe is kind of a void - but a positively charged void re "you know" - as if to say in passing casually as though commonly understood 'positively charged void'; poppycock - all this talk of positive and negative polarities should have died with (er jung's?) enivitable misreading of the i-ching / taoism > but then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed and i like this idea spontaneously very much **+** no things no void no / just disturbance (primal unmanifesed chaos) what zizek really likes (unconsciously) is the idea that ir's able to be spontaneous > the fact that it's not just nothing things are out there it means something went terribly wrong **+** it is not an it 'just is a telling word; as though nothing - if it's all there is - isn't already more than enough since nothing happened one might simply conclude terrible wrongness and void as the same nonthing > that what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance cosmic catastrophe. that things exist by mistake **+** perhaps there's someone who doesn't go around calling creation creation in which even the void notexists by mistake in which even voidness is arbitrary that we call things (which do not exist) things mistakenly there is no cosmic merely exteremly local fragmentation'; hyper-pointilism; nodality language as the truer catastrophe > and i'm even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counteract it is to assume the mistake and go to the end and we have a name for this; it's called love **+** zizek wants to go to the end but perhaps ey hasn't even begun to tackle the (nonexistent) beginning to counteract something is too often to falsely assume there's anything there to act against 'assume the mistake? why not just assume that every philosophical assumption is mistakenly philosophical? 'we have a name for this'; sounds like cheesy dialog spoken by some unlikely female alien in an old episode of star trek > isn't love precisely this kind of a cosmic imbalance? **+** probably going from the alleged universal as other to the actually private (ie. public) and yet unconscious as a zizekian trademark > i was always disgusted with this notion of "i love the world" "universal love". i don't like the world. i don't know how i - uh - i'm basically somewhere in between "i hate the world" or "i'm indifferent towards it". but the whole of reality it's just it - it is stupid it's out there i don't care about it **+** nobody says "i love the world" except imaginary 60's dropouts in the mind of jeffrey lebowski the world world is already a fragmentary abstraction to hate the world or to be entirely indifferent toward it however (not that it's an it anyhow) is to be like virtually everybody else 'the universe is not indifferent toward zizek or anyone else; another example of humans ascribing dubious human values to some imagined (profoundly empty and mysterious) whole / hole > love for me is an extremely violent act. love is not "i love you all". love means i pick out something and - you know it's again this structure of imbalance. even if this something is just a small detail a fragile individual person i say "i love you more than anything else." in this quite formal sense love is evil **+** despite what ey says about lacan's own historical appearance on tv in france consider zizek's opening statement is a thin strongly egotistic display of ir attempt to appear shocking provocative or edgy as though what ir's saying is something new or profound "love is evil" as a cool t-shirt idea though some prefer "love makes you fat" or "live evol" private selfish love and universal love as one and the same bad ideology // republic of bob