在杂志《周刊》(L'Hebdo) 看见一篇对这位斯洛文尼亚哲学家心理分析家题为“允许不愿享受”的采访,称之为继拉康,福柯,德里达之后深受美国学界热忱推崇的学术新星,说是人们对其讲座趋之若鹜, 被纽约时报称为哲学界的 Matrix Brother。
我连这名字怎么发音都不知道,甚是好奇,搜来这个。有谁能鉴定一下,先谢。
----------
Slavoj Zizek is a professor at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana and at the European Graduate School EGS who uses popular culture to explain the theory of Jacques Lacan and the theory of Jacques Lacan to explain politics and popular culture. He was born in 1949 in Ljubljana, Slovenia where he lives to this day but he has lectured at universities around the world. He was analysed by Jacques Alain Miller, Jacques Lacan's son in law, and is probably the most successful and prolific post-Lacanian having published over fifty books including translations into a dozen languages. He is a leftist and, aside from Lacan he was strongly influenced by Marx, Hegel and Schelling. In temperament, he resembles a revolutionist more than a theoretician. He was politically active in Slovenia during the 80s, a candidate for the presidency of the Republic of Slovenia in 1990; most of his works are moral and political rather than purely theoretical. He has considerable energy and charisma and is a spellbinding lecturer in the tradition of Lacan and Kojeve.
Zizek has cast a very long shadow in what can only be termed "cultural studies" (though he would despise the characterization). He is an effective purveyor of Lacanian mischief, and, as a follower of the French "liberator" of Freud, Zizek's Lacan is almost exclusively transcribed in mesmerizing language games or intellectual parables. That he has an encyclopedic grasp of political, philosophical, literary, artistic, cinematic, and pop cultural currents — and that he has no qualms about throwing all of them into the stockpot of his imagination — is the prime reason he has dazzled his peers and confounded his critics for over ten years.
Primarily the goal appears to be to demolish the coordinates of the liberal hegemony that permit excess and aberration insofar as it does not threaten the true coordinates. He suggests as well that the true coordinates are much better hidden than we realize. The production of cultural difference is to Zizek the production of the inoperative dream — a dream that recalls perhaps Orwell's 1984 or even Terry Gilliam's Brazil where a kind of generic pastoralism or a sexualized nature substitutes for authentic freedom — the flip side of this is film noir. Zizek has determined that late-modern capitalism has engendered a whole range of alternative seductions to keep the eye and brain off of the Real. The Real only exists as a fragment, fast receding on the horizon as fantasy and often phantasm intercede. These dreams and nightmares are systemic, structural neuroses, and they are part of the coordinates of the hegemonic. The hegemony — the prevailing set of coordinates — always seeks to "take over" the Real, and, therefore, this contaminated Real must be periodically purged.
In his essay "Repeating Lenin" (1997) — ever the trickster, he convened a symposium on Lenin in Germany in part to see what the reaction would be — Zizek sets up a deconstruction of the idea of form to effectively liberate the idea of radical form:
"One should not confuse this properly dialectical notion of Form with the liberal-multiculturalist notion of Form as the neutral framework of the multitude of 'narratives' -not only literature, but also politics, religion, science, they are all different narratives, stories we are telling ourselves about ourselves, and the ultimate goal of ethics is to guarantee the neutral space in which this multitude of narratives can peacefully coexist, in which everyone, from ethnic to sexual minorities, will have the right and possibility to tell his story. The properly dialectical notion of Form signals precisely the impossibilty of this liberal notion of Form: Form has nothing to do with 'formalism,' with the idea of a neutral Form. Independent of its contingent particular content; it rather stands for the traumatic kernel of the Real, for the antagonism, which 'colors' the entire field in question.Ö"
He is interested in discerning the Lacanian Real amid the propaganda of systems. In appropriating "Lenin" he is also looking for the moment when Lenin realized that politics could one day be dissolved for a technocratic and agronomic utopia, "the [pure] management of things". That Lenin failed is immaterial, since Zizek is extracting the signifier "Lenin" from the historical continuum, which includes that failure — or the onslaught of Stalinism. The version of Lenin that Zizek often chooses to re-enscribe into radical political discourse is ostensibly (by his own admission) the Lenin of the October Revolution, or the Lenin that had the epiphany that in order to have a revolution "you have to have a revolution."
In his critique of contemporary capitalism Zizek finds not simply the conditions that Marx anathematized but those same conditions reified and made nearly intangible:
"A certain excess which was as it were kept under check in previous history, perceived as a localizable perversion, as an excess, a deviation, is in capitalism elevated into the very principle of social life, in the speculative movement of money begetting more money, of a system which can survive only by constantly revolutionizing its own conditions, that is to say, in which the thing can only survive as its own excess, constantly exceeding its own 'normal' constraints […] Marx located the elementary capitalist antagonism in the opposition between use- and exchange-value: in capitalism, the potentials of this opposition are fully realized, the domain of exchange-values acquires autonomy, is transformed into the specter of self-propelling speculative capital which needs the productive capacities and needs of actual people only as its dispensable temporal embodiment."
In the era of globalization, then, the main question is: "Does today's virtual capitalist not function in a homologous way — his 'net value' is zero, he directly operates just with the surplus, borrowing from the future?"
"In a proper revolutionary breakthrough, the utopian future is neither simply fully realized, present, nor simply evoked as a distant promise which justified present violence -it is rather as if, in a unique suspension of temporality, in the short-circuit between the present and the future, we are — as if by Grace — for a brief time allowed to act AS IF the utopian future is (not yet fully here, but) already at hand, just there to be grabbed. Revolution is not experienced as a present hardship we have to endure for the happiness and freedom of the future generations, but as the present hardship over which this future happiness and freedom already cast their shadow — in it, we already are free while fighting for freedom, we already are happy while fighting for happiness, no matter how difficult the circumstances. Revolution is not a Merleau-Pontian wager, an act suspended in the futur anterieur, to be legitimized or delegitimized by the long term outcome of the present acts; it is as it were its own ontological proof, an immediate index of its own truth."
Zizek's agenda is to foster and engender a withering critique of the structural chains that enslave late-modern man. His nostalgia is for very large gestures: the meta-Real, the Universal, and the Formal. "This resistance is the answer to the question 'Why Lenin?': it is the signifier 'Lenin' which formalizes this content found elsewhere, transforming a series of common notions into a truly subversive theoretical formation."
Zizek was a visiting professor at the Department of Psychoanalysis, Universite Paris-VIII in 1982-3 and 1985-6, at the Centre for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Art, SUNY Buffalo, 1991-2, at the Department of Comparative Literature, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1992, at the Tulane University, New Orleans, 1993, at the Cardozo Law School, New York, 1994, at the Columbia University, New York, 1995, at the Princeton University (1996), at the New School for Social Research, New York, 1997, at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1998, and at the Georgetown University, Washington, 1999. He is a returning faculty member of the European Graduate School. In the last 20 years Zizek has participated in over 350 international philosophical, psychoanalytical and cultural-criticism symposiums in USA, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Netherland, Island, Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Brasil, Mexico, Israel, Romania, Hungary and Japan. He is the founder and president of the Society for Theoretical Psychoanalysis, Ljubljana.
- Re: Slavoj Žižek: a rising star of philosophy and psychoanalysis?posted on 03/18/2008
这大概只有秃邪教授可以回答,可敬爱的他老人家最近不知到那里溜达去了。 - Re: Slavoj Žižek: a rising star of philosophy and psychoanalysis?posted on 03/18/2008
这个名字不难啊。叫他齐在客就好了。
这样的才是难发音的:Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
有人问起一个名字她妈地发不出来的心理学家,我就知道是他。;)
齐在客早就知道了。耍贫嘴的,不是很感兴趣。拉康再加心理分析,能不倒胃口?;) - posted on 03/19/2008
touche wrote:
这个名字不难啊。叫他齐在客就好了。
这样的才是难发音的:Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
有人问起一个名字她妈地发不出来的心理学家,我就知道是他。;)
齐在客早就知道了。耍贫嘴的,不是很感兴趣。拉康再加心理分析,能不倒胃口?;)
谢了。要不管他叫齐宰客?我还以为附庸风雅,飞机上瞎翻杂志,结果一不小心,逮着一颗冉冉升起的学术红星呢!:)
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi 不难,叫米哈里(或丽,看性别而定)色死刻噌踢米哈里。:)
这名字有点象藏缅语系人的子承父名。是谁啊? - posted on 03/19/2008
齐宰客好,宰了好!
那天来了朋友,本来不知道咖啡,只知道西恩地。和我说起老氓,说是不见了很久。。。我才明白,老氓原来和国际歌一样,能把美国的中国人联合起来 :-)
鹿希 wrote:
touche wrote:谢了。要不管他叫齐宰客?我还以为附庸风雅,飞机上瞎翻杂志,结果一不小心,逮着一颗冉冉升起的学术红星呢!:)
这个名字不难啊。叫他齐在客就好了。
这样的才是难发音的:Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
有人问起一个名字她妈地发不出来的心理学家,我就知道是他。;)
齐在客早就知道了。耍贫嘴的,不是很感兴趣。拉康再加心理分析,能不倒胃口?;) - Re: Slavoj Žižek: a rising star of philosophy and psychoanalysis?posted on 03/19/2008
July wrote:Who is 老氓? 也是一个齐宰客?
齐宰客好,宰了好!
那天来了朋友,本来不知道咖啡,只知道西恩地。和我说起老氓,说是不见了很久。。。我才明白,老氓原来和国际歌一样,能把美国的中国人联合起来 :-)
- Re: Slavoj Žižek: a rising star of philosophy and psychoanalysis?posted on 03/19/2008
老氓==秃斜
鹿希 wrote:
Who is 老氓? 也是一个齐宰客? - Re: Slavoj Žižek: a rising star of philosophy and psychoanalysis?posted on 03/19/2008
July wrote:
老氓==秃斜
??? 原来如此。网上咖啡就是好,化装舞会,越开越乐。 - posted on 03/19/2008
根据维基百科,此公名字的匈牙利语发音为“米哈依*齐克三特米哈依”。
此公是提出“流感”(flow,不是flu)并用此说事的心理学家,很有点道家味道。
Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (pronounced [ˈmihaːj tʃiːkˈsɛntmihaːji] in Hungarian), born on September 29, 1934, in Fiume, Croatia. He is a psychology professor at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California and is the former head of the department of psychology at the University of Chicago and of the department of sociology and anthropology at Lake Forest College. He is noted for his work in the study of happiness, creativity, subjective well-being, and fun, but is best known as the architect of the notion of flow and for his years of research and writing on the topic. He is the author of many books and over 120 articles or book chapters. Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, described Csikszentmihalyi as the world's leading researcher on positive psychology.[1] He is one of the most widely cited psychologists today,[citation needed] in a variety of fields related to psychology and business.
He received his B.A. in 1960 and his Ph.D. in 1965, both from the University of Chicago. He is the father of MIT Media Lab associate professor Christopher Csíkszentmihályi and University of Wisconsin at Madison professor of philosophical and religious traditions of China and East Asia, Mark Csíkszentmihályi.
鹿希 wrote:
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi 不难,叫米哈里(或丽,看性别而定)色死刻噌踢米哈里。:)
这名字有点象藏缅语系人的子承父名。是谁啊? - posted on 03/20/2008
touche wrote:
根据维基百科,此公名字的匈牙利语发音为“米哈依*齐克三特米哈依”。
此公是提出“流感”(flow,不是flu)并用此说事的心理学家,很有点道家味道。
Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (pronounced [ˈmihaːj tʃiːkˈsɛntmihaːji] in Hungarian), born on September 29, 1934, in Fiume, Croatia. He is a psychology professor at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California and is the former head of the department of psychology at the University of Chicago and of the department of sociology and anthropology at Lake Forest College. He is noted for his work in the study of happiness, creativity, subjective well-being, and fun, but is best known as the architect of the notion of flow and for his years of research and writing on the topic. He is the author of many books and over 120 articles or book chapters. Martin Seligman, former president of the American Psychological Association, described Csikszentmihalyi as the world's leading researcher on positive psychology.[1] He is one of the most widely cited psychologists today,[citation needed] in a variety of fields related to psychology and business.
He received his B.A. in 1960 and his Ph.D. in 1965, both from the University of Chicago. He is the father of MIT Media Lab associate professor Christopher Csíkszentmihályi and University of Wisconsin at Madison professor of philosophical and religious traditions of China and East Asia, Mark Csíkszentmihályi.
我孤陋寡闻,又不修心理学,不知道这位大腕。这么说他是 Croatian born Hungarian, 匈人和北欧人(主要芬兰人,芬匈语同源)也兴父子联名,他爹名米哈依喽。美国教授就是牛,居然能大跃进出百多篇文章,谁读啊? - posted on 03/22/2008
如果 齐泽克=Žižek的话,下面这段影评也是他的了:
《泰坦尼克号》在所有人看来都似乎仅仅只是一部爱情或者灾难大片,但在齐泽克看来却不尽然,他从中看到了传统保守派们看不到的意识形态。在船上的水手发现冰山的前一刻,影片展现的是两个刚刚经过激情的年轻人,Rose对Jack说要离开未婚夫,跟随他,随后便是可怕冰山的出现。传统的影评家会认为,这是典型的好莱坞桥段:两人发生了不正当的关系,一个是拥有未婚夫的年轻女子的出轨,一个是两个不同阶级的结合,这两点都是不允许的,因此出现了自然的灾难。但齐泽克却“执拗”地看到:灾难破坏了永恒的爱情,但如果没有沉船、没有冰山,船抵达纽约,两个月后这对恋人会被世俗的生活拆散,悲剧注定不可避免。爱情是脆弱的,自然灾难的到来却让爱情永恒。
影片最后,躺在木板上的Rose因为答应Jack要好好活下去,在救援队抵达时,Rose放开了已没有知觉的Jack,看着他沉向大海———齐泽克表示,Rose在对救援队说“come back”,实际上是在对Jack说“go away”。作为一个富家女孩,Rose在那一时刻深层次里已经感受到了危机,那一刻她已经不再需要Jack。“Rose在遇到Jack的时候,Jack带给她的是一种对她身份的认同,在三等舱内穷人们的自我娱乐让Rose恢复了活力。这是一种上层阶级从下层阶级那里吸取活力的表现,一旦不需要了,便放开了手。”齐泽克说,Jack在离开前,对Rose说你要生活下去———这是牧师对子民的说教,而不是对爱人要说的话。
- posted on 06/23/2008
Definition of flow from wikipedia. This must feel like heaven.
---
Csíkszentmihályi identifies the following as accompanying an experience of flow:
1. Clear goals (expectations and rules are discernible and goals are attainable and align appropriately with one's skill set and abilities).
2. Concentrating and focusing, a high degree of concentration on a limited field of attention (a person engaged in the activity will have the opportunity to focus and to delve deeply into it).
3. A loss of the feeling of self-consciousness, the merging of action and awareness.
4. Distorted sense of time, one's subjective experience of time is altered.
5. Direct and immediate feedback (successes and failures in the course of the activity are apparent, so that behavior can be adjusted as needed).
6. Balance between ability level and challenge (the activity is neither too easy nor too difficult).
7. A sense of personal control over the situation or activity.
8. The activity is intrinsically rewarding, so there is an effortlessness of action.
9. People become absorbed in their activity, and focus of awareness is narrowed down to the activity itself, action awareness merging.
Not all are needed for flow to be experienced.
touche wrote:
根据维基百科,此公名字的匈牙利语发音为“米哈依*齐克三特米哈依”。
此公是提出“流感”(flow,不是flu)并用此说事的心理学家,很有点道家味道。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation