[sublatio_cum_laude]

Slavoj piše lepo:

There is another possibility: a different reading of Hegel’s dialectical process itself, not as the model of “subject-appropriates-substance.” Already decades ago, in the early years of modern ecology, some perspicuous readers of Hegel noted that the Hegelian idealist speculation does not imply an absolute appropriation of nature. In contrast to productive appropriation, speculation lets its other be; it doesn’t intervene into its other. As Frank Ruda pointed out,[7] Hegel’s Absolute Knowing is not a total Aufhebung – a seamless integration of all reality into the Notion’s self-mediation. It is much more an act of radical Aufgeben – of giving up, of renouncing the violent effort to grab reality. Absolute Knowing is a gesture of Entlassen, of releasing reality, of letting it be and stand on its own, and, in this sense, it breaks with the endless effort of labor to appropriate its otherness, the stuff that forever resists its grasp. Labor (and technological domination in general) is an exemplary case of what Hegel calls “spurious infinity,” since it is a pursuit that is never accomplished because it presupposes an other to be mastered, while philosophical speculation is at ease, no longer troubled by its Other.

What such a reading of Hegel implies is that Hegel’s dialectics cannot be reduced to a total sublation of all contingency in the self-mediation of the concept. This brings us back to ecology: Saito opposes Hegel, since Hegel is, for him, the very model of the negation of the autonomy of nature. Does Hegel’s Idea not stand for a productive process, which no longer needs to rely on a metabolic exchange with otherness but reduces every otherness to a subordinate moment of the Idea’s self-mediation? But if we accept our reading of Hegel, then Hegel not only tolerates but demands that we allow the irreducible otherness of nature remain other. This respect for the contingency of nature means that we should avoid the trap of reading ecological catastrophes as signs which point in an unambiguous linear way towards a final catastrophe.

Precisely insofar as we should take ecological threats extremely seriously, we should also be fully aware of how uncertain analyses and projections are in this domain. We will know for sure what is going on only when it is too late. Fast extrapolations only give arguments to global warming deniers, so we should avoid at all costs the trap of “the ecology of fear,” a hasty morbid fascination with doom and catastrophe. Only a thin line separates the correct perception of real dangers from the fantasy-scenarios about a global catastrophe that awaits us. There is a specific kind of enjoyment of living in the end times, in the shadow of a catastrophe, and the paradox is that such a fixation on the forthcoming catastrophe is, precisely, one of the ways to avoid really confronting it. To maintain a minimum of credibility, such a vision has to cling on to any bad news that come along: a melting glacier here, a tornado there, a heat wave somewhere else. They are all read as signs of a forthcoming catastrophe…

#zizek

[CzerstwaBulka]

@sublatio_cum_laude: brakuje 30 pociagniec nosem

[sublatio_cum_laude]

@CzerstwaBulka: Sławoj gdy mówi w języku bojowym Jugosłowiańskiej Armii Ludowej nie ma tego rodzaju zdarzeń tak często [1-3] (choć uczciwie trzeba stwierdzić, że niezbyt długo po wydaniu Wzniosłego obiektu ideologii tej charakterystyki angielszczyzny mówionej i prezentowanej również nie ujawniał [4]), a gdy myśleć Žižekowsko to jedynym, poza obowiązkowym więc domyślnym okłamaniem żony i kochanki by wrócić do pokoju-pseudoermitażu niczym Lenin w Alpach jak w znanym żarcie, jest usiąść i odsuwając się