# 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 himself 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