Great talk, I really appreciated this Peter! To ur pondering at 52:55, wouldn’t the most evident connection be that, for Zizek, the “original sin” corresponds to our inscription into a (lacking) reality as self-divided subject and hence of our “imaging” the self-divided God?
the trouble with all of this is that it's so self-absorbed, which does come with being traumatized and consequently is understandable, but i can remember being freed from myself during my evangelical days and it was so much better than wallowing in the wounds.
I totally feel you-it can seem from all the hard descriptions like a call to wallow in loss/dissatisfaction, especially when it seems nothing practical is attached, that no answers can be given, just an eternal view from a grey window. However, I think in truth what this perspective is saying is that this is the necessary ground of emancipatory living-that we must go through the darkness to take hold of ourselves more fully. It is saying that we must be careful not to lock ourselves in a bubble or trap ourselves in commiseration, since we can easily slip into the comfort of self-assurance and create enemies out of others rather than really listening thoroughly and engaging with new perspectives more genuinely, more productively. It is _not_ saying “don’t have your own perspective/everything is relative/welcome to nihilism”-it is saying “yes, be passionate _totally_ as that is human-but take that into the world sincerely and be open to the fact that you may be wrong.” If we desire the truth then embracing lack is the only path. As Lacan said, “the truth is that which runs after the truth.” We make mistakes and those mistakes make us. When we give into love (as generative destructiveness) parts of us burst into flames like a phoenix and it hurts initially, but rather than those parts being reduced to ash and blown away, they are preserved in the dialectical process of amalgamation (concretization)-they cease to be but remain in us as living pieces of the foundation of our journey of change through life, they make us robust and dimensional. We can be reconciled to lack, but never over it since it’s a cut-into, so it is a position of tension ultimately, but a tension which understands itself as necessary, thus we become less amorphously anxious and more in control of our development, more able to be okay with self-effacing in the name of truth. I see lack as calling us to become more ethically involved in the creation of the kingdom-after the dark truth shatters us only then can we discover a new light, a new depth in the community of spirit. By opening ourselves (our self-assured aspects of ego) up to destruction by the other we let in new air, new perspective and we heed the call of love, allowing others to teach us things, rather than just waiting for our turn to dominate or to speak out in opposition. One thing I like most about the recognition of lack is that it release us from the modern day injunction to know it all and to establish enemies based on presumption. Lack says, “hate the game not the player, hate the sin not the sinner.” The prosperity gospel’s _logic of exchange,_ positivist psychology’s _true self,_ and scientific determinism’s (scientism) master thinking are all castrated by the insight into the contradiction at the heart of reality. We are driven because we are free not determined, because identity is the identity of identity and non identity, because A doesn’t just equal A. Lack says, “hey no need to lose your mind hunting for the answer, because the answer is in interaction, it is in embracing the eternal process of becoming in life.” Lack is an anti-answer, it is a cut that generates desire, it is recognizing that I can’t be what I am and that’s ok because I am becoming. We are free, thank God there is no one pulling the strings.
Fantastic talk thx Peter. I am presently doing a university unit in Post Modernism & A/theology. Your words filled some of my gaps in understanding. Lol. When I looked at some of your other videos I thought you were some sort of intelligent religious whacko but now I know there you are coming from. All the best.
Hi Peter, couple questions for you, You had begun to describe Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’s narrative and how it related to Caputo but then said you were going to further relate it to Zizek because it fit better. So my first question is could you elaborate on that point? Second, Todd McGowan used the same film as an example in his video Theories of Ideology on UA-cam as well. I was hoping you might be able to explain how Eternal Sunshine fits from the perspective of how you were using it for Caputo (and Zizek) into McGowans work (perhaps it’s the same way he was using it in his video; but I don’t know how you were going to convey it with Zizek so I figured I’d ask anyways.) And then McGowan claims that he differentiates his theory from Zizek’s. So I suppose, in terms of “the ground” example could you tell me how McGowan’s view settles amidst the other three? Tillich sees contradiction in reality but not in the ground; for Caputo, contradiction in reality but no ground; for Zizek, contradiction in reality and the ground (which is part of reality); and for McGowan...? Thanks so much!
Thanks for the video Peter. Is there room in any of these philosophies for mystical or unity experiences? Something like the atonement (at-one-ment) or non-dualistic awareness of oneself and the universe?
I don't know about Caputo or Zizek, but there is for Tillich. He has a great lecture "Symbols of Eternal Life" where he talks about his view of mystical experience and non-dualism.
Why not both? The ground is what God's team has successfilly defended against the worst ideas the adversary can throw at them. A better set of gaps is where more responsible creators play. Folks need to grok that God is the spiritual scientist that invented the sciences of both creation and evolution, after being thoroughly tested by Lucifer and company. We just need identify and throw out the Lilithian trash. That takes the best Karma we ever created
Brilliant. Motivational.
Got a copy of The Folly of God because of this video, so far it's an excellent read. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Great talk, I really appreciated this Peter! To ur pondering at 52:55, wouldn’t the most evident connection be that, for Zizek, the “original sin” corresponds to our inscription into a (lacking) reality as self-divided subject and hence of our “imaging” the self-divided God?
Ah u basically ended up saying the same thing. Thanks again for the talk. Cheers!
Oh my, what a brilliant breakdown. I have been a kind of Existentialist theist for some time now, i just came across Tillich which led me here
Thank you!
the trouble with all of this is that it's so self-absorbed, which does come with being traumatized and consequently is understandable, but i can remember being freed from myself during my evangelical days and it was so much better than wallowing in the wounds.
I totally feel you-it can seem from all the hard descriptions like a call to wallow in loss/dissatisfaction, especially when it seems nothing practical is attached, that no answers can be given, just an eternal view from a grey window. However, I think in truth what this perspective is saying is that this is the necessary ground of emancipatory living-that we must go through the darkness to take hold of ourselves more fully. It is saying that we must be careful not to lock ourselves in a bubble or trap ourselves in commiseration, since we can easily slip into the comfort of self-assurance and create enemies out of others rather than really listening thoroughly and engaging with new perspectives more genuinely, more productively.
It is _not_ saying “don’t have your own perspective/everything is relative/welcome to nihilism”-it is saying “yes, be passionate _totally_ as that is human-but take that into the world sincerely and be open to the fact that you may be wrong.” If we desire the truth then embracing lack is the only path. As Lacan said, “the truth is that which runs after the truth.” We make mistakes and those mistakes make us. When we give into love (as generative destructiveness) parts of us burst into flames like a phoenix and it hurts initially, but rather than those parts being reduced to ash and blown away, they are preserved in the dialectical process of amalgamation (concretization)-they cease to be but remain in us as living pieces of the foundation of our journey of change through life, they make us robust and dimensional.
We can be reconciled to lack, but never over it since it’s a cut-into, so it is a position of tension ultimately, but a tension which understands itself as necessary, thus we become less amorphously anxious and more in control of our development, more able to be okay with self-effacing in the name of truth. I see lack as calling us to become more ethically involved in the creation of the kingdom-after the dark truth shatters us only then can we discover a new light, a new depth in the community of spirit. By opening ourselves (our self-assured aspects of ego) up to destruction by the other we let in new air, new perspective and we heed the call of love, allowing others to teach us things, rather than just waiting for our turn to dominate or to speak out in opposition.
One thing I like most about the recognition of lack is that it release us from the modern day injunction to know it all and to establish enemies based on presumption. Lack says, “hate the game not the player, hate the sin not the sinner.” The prosperity gospel’s _logic of exchange,_ positivist psychology’s _true self,_ and scientific determinism’s (scientism) master thinking are all castrated by the insight into the contradiction at the heart of reality. We are driven because we are free not determined, because identity is the identity of identity and non identity, because A doesn’t just equal A.
Lack says, “hey no need to lose your mind hunting for the answer, because the answer is in interaction, it is in embracing the eternal process of becoming in life.” Lack is an anti-answer, it is a cut that generates desire, it is recognizing that I can’t be what I am and that’s ok because I am becoming. We are free, thank God there is no one pulling the strings.
Fantastic talk thx Peter. I am presently doing a university unit in Post Modernism & A/theology. Your words filled some of my gaps in understanding. Lol. When I looked at some of your other videos I thought you were some sort of intelligent religious whacko but now I know there you are coming from. All the best.
I watched live yesterday and really appreciated the talk and the unique differences between each thinker.
Thanks. A couple of people mentioned that they found it helpful, so I thought I would make it public.
Hi Peter, couple questions for you,
You had begun to describe Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’s narrative and how it related to Caputo but then said you were going to further relate it to Zizek because it fit better.
So my first question is could you elaborate on that point?
Second, Todd McGowan used the same film as an example in his video Theories of Ideology on UA-cam as well.
I was hoping you might be able to explain how Eternal Sunshine fits from the perspective of how you were using it for Caputo (and Zizek) into McGowans work (perhaps it’s the same way he was using it in his video; but I don’t know how you were going to convey it with Zizek so I figured I’d ask anyways.)
And then McGowan claims that he differentiates his theory from Zizek’s.
So I suppose, in terms of “the ground” example could you tell me how McGowan’s view settles amidst the other three?
Tillich sees contradiction in reality but not in the ground; for Caputo, contradiction in reality but no ground; for Zizek, contradiction in reality and the ground (which is part of reality); and for McGowan...?
Thanks so much!
Thanks for the video Peter. Is there room in any of these philosophies for mystical or unity experiences? Something like the atonement (at-one-ment) or non-dualistic awareness of oneself and the universe?
I don't know about Caputo or Zizek, but there is for Tillich. He has a great lecture "Symbols of Eternal Life" where he talks about his view of mystical experience and non-dualism.
Caputo's idea of no guarantees sounds a lot like Simone Weil's thought.
How do these ideas of God relate to the 'Tao'?
Silence speaks?
Pascal's Wager !!!
It's like a Venn diagram
Why not both? The ground is what God's team has successfilly defended against the worst ideas the adversary can throw at them. A better set of gaps is where more responsible creators play. Folks need to grok that God is the spiritual scientist that invented the sciences of both creation and evolution, after being thoroughly tested by Lucifer and company. We just need identify and throw out the Lilithian trash. That takes the best Karma we ever created