Probably the best of Zizek's talks I've listened to here.

Zizek talking about Yu-gi-oh, never knew i needed that in my life, but i did

This video ends not with the applause of the people in the room,but with zizek ending his speech,and saying "...ok i talked too much."

Thanks for uploading man!

great upload many thanks!

"The other is primordially not the other in whom I can recognize myself, but it's this ontological paradox of another absolute." That is so dead fucking on I need to extrapolate this

formulas of sexuation start at 18:20

"... Lacan's achievement: He reasserts the ontological status of sexual difference. The problem is: How can he -- in a way -- re-sexualize the Universe, without regressing into a pre-scientific mythology...?"

I claim, nonetheless, it's crucial...preceisly

this is very good.

Exercise some self-control and hear it all the way through to the end-Slavoj's sense makes most sense in discursive macroscopic arcs... which means he will contagiously infect your youtube recommendations.

I have noticed when he does lectures in his own language it actually sheds so much more light on his concepts, I think you are correct in saying it has to do with his english.

Eight years later, October 2020, Bolivia is in fact displaying that the ancient and ultimate modern is functioning much better than the fictional 'modern' into which we in the west were born in the late 1940s and 50s. Class antagonism has indeed produced a semblant that functions well for the quality of life of the majority of the people who live in the region.

my great friend, haha, G K Chesterton...

holy fuck this is blowing my fucking mind right now

We can distingish what is fiction and what is reality. But if we take away the fiction we lose reality itself.

Date and location?

I listened to the whole thing, but I'm not much closer to understanding Lacan's take on sexual difference.

1:45:46 Crazy how he brings this up presumably *right* before scientists actually literally discovered the Higgs Boson (on July 4, 2012). At any rate, this lecture was posted on KZfaq in September of that year, so I’m assuming he delivered it at least a few months before then. Dang, pretty wild :)

I can't find the swan diagram, but I do believe a Venn diagram can represent this idea :)

name of the book?

The Hopi (in what is now the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona), according to Alice Schlegel, have as a "gender ideology ... one of female superiority, and it operated within a social actuality of sexual equality."[6] According to LeBow (based on Schlegel's work), in the Hopi, "gender roles ... are egalitarian .... [and] [n]either sex is inferior."[7] LeBow concluded that Hopi women "participate fully in ... political decision-making."[8] According to Schlegel, "the Hopi no longer live as they are described here"[9] and "the attitude of female superiority is fading".[9] Schlegel said the Hopi "were and still are matrilinial"[10] and "the household ... was matrilocal".[10] Schlegel explains why there was female superiority as that the Hopi believed in "life as the highest good ... [with] the female principle ... activated in women and in Mother Earth ... as its source"[11] and that the Hopi "were not in a state of continual war with equally matched neighbors"[12] and "had no standing army"[12] so that "the Hopi lacked the spur to masculine superiority"[12] and, within that, as that women were central to institutions of clan and household and predominated "within the economic and social systems (in contrast to male predominance within the political and ceremonial systems)",[12] the Clan Mother, for example, being empowered to overturn land distribution by men if she felt it was unfair,[11] since there was no "countervailing ... strongly centralized, male-centered political structure".[11] Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America

Is the limits of hegel uploaded anywhere? The one he mentions at the beginning of the talk

I'm trying to comprehend sexual universality. How can a subjectively deviant sexuality find peace with fiction and reality, in order to fulfill intimate relationships. These differentials may be empathized and accepted, but, may not be mutually expressed in reality.

58:30 - 1:02:30 funny, v funny, and v v good

at @20:00 mn the dude is talking about yugioh hhh

Why is not possible subtitles, legends?

Maybe this is a standard Cartesian graph, with four quadrants ?

25/3/11 The Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities

1:50:42 LESS THAN NOTHING 😵‍💫🥰

Trollolol :D Define "This".

Aaaa yes Pokemon cards a classic example of Kantian logic with its set rules in visible and invisible variables, but if i do say so i much prefer the speculative mixed Hegelian ontology of Yu-Gi-Oh where every card is its own let of laws and objectives. ... In essence Pokemon is for evil authoritarian totalitarians and Yu-Gi-Oh is good radical and based, and anyone whom plays pokemon is dumb and we cut there heads off lol!

01:11:10

DAFFY DUCK Read Lacan.

Just going to hear this speech-have not done it yet (my guesse as ti its content;) This analysis is timeless so to speak, sorry guys (n gals) your roles change as "time goes by" - I think Hegel is right and I think sex changes (is different in different eras) Try finding eras of femininity (1700s), before that masculinity, and after as well. You can read my stuff at Medium (text called You are Crazy I know) by J Andersson

HARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

...the whole thing about, there is no sexual relationship, and then, .. the symbolic of gender, and how it is used is in itself wrong. Need to understand that... According to Lacan....and how to change the thought today?

Man and woman shouldn't have as much weight as they do, all humans are the same apart from a few pieces of physical matter, to put it cold and scientifically. I feel like Zizek is close, but is missing the point in that the difference between the sexes is meaningless, it can be reversed either way and it's not a strong binary, there are many humans who associate with neither. Both ideas of man and woman are virtual, some people have brown hair some have blonde, some people have one type of sexual organ, some people have another. it's just heavily enforced to choose one or the other, when really it is meaningless when it comes down to love.

This sounds like gibberish.

Love Zizek, but in this lecture he's at his most confused and confusing, by far. I guess it has to do with his English, because precise formal logic requires precise language. At any rate, I vastly prefer other lectures of his, where he's much more clear.

He is so wrong when it comes to his entire "woman is unman" point. Female is always the prototype of a species and male is the abstraction/perversion. Look at bees: drones serve only the purpose of flying semen carryier then die. If you want to see the interesting parts of bee life you have to study the females. Look at humans. We are all first women physiologically then the testosteron forms a sack out of the would be labia and the would be clitoris grows on a stick. There is no species that is an exception to this by definition. Female is always the nature of a species and male an abstraction. Man are unwoman and woman are not man. Not the other way around. Another example for this is this argumentation in itself. A woman does not have to justify her existance by putting everything into categories. A man has to prove himself beyond semen carryier and find an artifical meaning of life. Thats why female philosophy is much more pragmatic and real world oriented. Only men need these fantasies. I say this as a non feminist man.