zizek in seperating from nature

[SoulShock]

(pulled an all nighter and was starting to get really tired through this. If it gets a little sketchy, sorry. Just ask an i'll clarify)
Hello forum, just joined. Joining because someone linked me a video of sizek from a film called Examining Life, watched it and i'm looking for some inquires on some things he said. Figured this would be a good place to start.

"Slavoj Zizek in Examined Life" is the youtube video, and around the end (8:27-9:09,) zizek says "What i think we should do to properly approach the track of ecological catastrophy, is not all this newage stuff to break out of all this technological manipulative mould, to found our roots in nature, but on the contrary, to cut off even more these roots in nature", and " we need more alienation from our life world. From our, as it were, spontaneous nature. We should become more artificial" I don't know why he says this. He was only allowed 10 min in the film so he didn't have the time to expand on that. Would anyone know something where he expands more so on the topic? or better yet the statement specifically? That'd be great lol. Or maybe someone could expand on it a bit for me?

And just to give some context of how i see the words idiological and ecological since they are words i rarely use(i'm a bit of a hermit and havent delved into any formal system or community or philosophy, or sociality...heh. I've more so developed explaining how i came about views. I'm skeptical of calling myself anything because of that, (maybe because the process of coming about views has no label? idk). Try to go about things my own way, and/or more so attempt to adhere to and have decency to something common among people and planet, or right in front of me).

-Ecology: "is the study of communities of living organisms and the relationships among the members of those communities and between them and the physical and chemical constituents of their surroundings." Definition off the list on google. If there is a more widely accepted and known one feel free to correct me. As far as my view of it, it is what it's defined. A way to come about perspective, although i'm skeptical of a way to come about perspective. Especially a way man made. Sounds like following christianity or something...

-Ideology: "Political Orientation:an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation" (Again off the list) Well thats revealing in and of itself. I could see in a way why he would come to those conclusions, being if a political system or organisation (or corperation in that case) at falt attempted to fix the problems (often being the source of the problem), creating energy efficient lightbulbs and stuff, while maintaining the system which is the cause of the problem. There was another slavoj perspective i saw in another video (think it was in one called what does it mean to be a revolutionary toda) he had on the politicians about "cutting politicians balls off" or something. (Looks like slavoj believes development and technology made with a mantality developed seperate from nature will improve the inflicted conditions?) Can't remember my point of stating those 2 things.. getting to tired.

Although that definition of ideology is one of many off google. Feel free to correct me.

Saying alienating ourselves from nature sounds really odd to me. You wouldn't need nature anymore. You wouldn't need food, water, internal processes which keep you alive. If we could intirely create our own bodies so as to not require her anymore, then maybe, but till then were still here and living off the planet. And then to speak of improving things while being alienated? How would the natural system be a part of whats being improved if you consider yourself seperate from it? I can only see someone with that mantality focusing on their own artificial system and environment. Obviously using the original system to fuel it, which is ironic. Maybe i'm missing something.

I don't know if it's a good idea to post this in opposing ideologies as well I'm not really looking for an argument to erupt after some things have been stated. Discussion on it would be nice, some common ground among it.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Zizek's idea is not really that we should completely "cut ourselves off", but that we should scrap that whole dichotomy of humans vs. pure, untainted nature altogether. We need to move away from the moralistic, bourgeois conception of "Mother nature" as some sort of balanced, harmonious, mystical force. There is no such thing as nature in this sense. The human project of seeking sustainability, stability, security, is inherently artificial and we should embrace this as making a step forward, not as going back to "nature".

P.S. This should be in "Learning" or "Environment"

[SoulShock]

Sorry for the long time till a reply.

Zizek's idea is not really that we should completely "cut ourselves off", but that we should scrap that whole dichotomy of humans vs. pure, untainted nature altogether. We need to move away from the moralistic, bourgeois conception of "Mother nature" as some sort of balanced, harmonious, mystical force. There is no such thing as nature in this sense. ya i can see that. Condidering the term bourgeois and the word conceptualising. If it's ok that i do that.


The human project of seeking sustainability, stability, security, is inherently artificial and we should embrace this as making a step forward, not as going back to "nature".

P.S. This should be in "Learning" or "Environment" So making a step forward as in doing more of that which got us here in the first place? and "not as going back to "nature" as in doing whats needed?
or
Forward as in seeking a man made form of balance and sustainability sort of seperate from nature? and not as going back to nature as in a form that is a bit chaotic?

In these progressively degrading times as well as a high chance of environmental chaos, wouldn't it be better to do both then?

And asking that i find myself stuck between 2 arguements now. Firstly i find society unsustainable and highly absurd in our beliefs and approach to life. An ignorant bliss which the people accept and a system entirely built on such midirection and misperception. Maintained in order to protect themselves and their way of life which by all accounts is destructive to themselves, others, and the things around them. When i think about using the end to define the means in this case in an attempt to achieve man made sustainability and balance (which i'd definetly say i'm for), i'd guess, attempting to use the previous tools and materials of the system, seems a bit against my grain. But then thats personal really.

If there is any danger to the belief of "man made sustainability and balance" it's that this system has been thinking the very same thing in a contorted manner. An example i guess of our own form of attempted perfection would be economy, growth, and security. You work a bit and go back to your house which i would say people think is in balance. Sustainable. We created a severly falted system that destroyed and destroys everything and every country around it for these things. Would have to be careful not to fall back into such an ideal.

Sorry if i write a bit obscure.


And a speculation. Nature has sustained itself for quite a long time, i think that significant. If a major change happens on the planet, we have no choice but to go with the flow i'd think regardless of how sustainable and balanced our own habitat is. We are synonymous with our environment. But ultimately within those times of chaotic change, there is balance.

And i wrote something called Secondary to Nature', being: Anything which is secondary to nature, which is something that is created by something that was created by nature, has no place in the original system, or function in the original system which spawns life. Take a bird and bird nest for example. The bird takes some from sticks from the forest to create a nest. This purpose of this nest serves no purpose in the original system, it only goes to serve the bird. Once the bird is done, the next breaks down where it goes back into the original system. We have this in common. But picture if the bird and a few other birds got together, starts populating more so, creating more nests, requiring more from nature. Their area of thing which have to purpose in nature as a whole would get larger. Till eventually they have saped their immidiate area of nature, and now must bring stuff into their area in order to keep it going. This is one hell of a phenomenon.

Actually would it be fine if i ask you what you think about that? Anyone else wouldn't hurt to.

[SoulShock]

and ya sorry about putting it in the wrong category. If anyone can move it, it would be appraciated.

[Skooma Addict]

We need to move away from the moralistic, bourgeois conception of "Mother nature"

I didn't know there was a "bourgeois" conception of nature. You guys should make some kind of list.

To start we have

"Bourgeois Economics"
"Bourgeois Morality"
"Bourgeois conception of Nature."

I know there is plenty I am forgetting off the top of my head so maybe someone could add to this list for me.

[StockholmSyndrome]

There isn't really. I was merely trying to paraphrase Zizek's thoughts and I was in a hurry. Perhaps I should have said "aristocratic" or "Romantic" instead. Of course, the modern bourgeoisie certainly does a lot to propagate the nostalgic romanticism of earlier times for whatever ambiguous reasons. It probably has something to do with the fact that appeals to purity, returning to better times, nationalism, etc. always bode well for the ruling class.

[scarletghoul]

The OP/Zizek is correct
i made a thread with similar views a while ago http://www.revleft.com/vb/liberal-fetishisation-nature-t133841/index.html

There is no such thing as nature, there is only the world which we are a part of and which we should do all we can to improve.

[scarletghoul]

I didn't know there was a "bourgeois" conception of nature. You guys should make some kind of list.

To start we have

"Bourgeois Economics"
"Bourgeois Morality"
"Bourgeois conception of Nature."

I know there is plenty I am forgetting off the top of my head so maybe someone could add to this list for me.
It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it. But when you consider that a person's worldview is largely shaped by their relations with other people and with the world and all its wealth, then its not so crazy to consider that different classes will have different views on many things.

[StockholmSyndrome]

There is no such thing as nature, there is only the world which we are a part of and which we should do all we can to improve.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I agree with Zizek; I don't get the impression that Soulshock does.

[scarletghoul]

oh right, sorry i didnt read properly the OP, low concentration problems

[SoulShock]

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I agree with Zizek; I don't get the impression that Soulshock does.
no, i just don't understand why he said it.The things i've watched about him have looked on the ball, and when i heard this when he was making sense before, i was curious what brought him to it. There is a difference between focusing on what people said to focusing on why they said it.
There is no such thing as nature, there is only the world which we are a part of and which we should do all we can to improve. Which was close to the thought i was having when watching the statements he made. With that thought in mind and hearing that we should disconnect further sounded really insane. We are already disconnected enough, why would we go further in an attempt to improve the situation? In that context it looks as if alienating ourself further into the insanity which is this society and system. But, in the context of, as you said stockholme, aristocratic and/or romantic perspective of nature, i could see why he says such things. I'd say the belief of the system and the belief of nature in that respect fall along the same lines and mantality.

"we need more alienation from our life world. From our, as it were, spontaneous nature. We should become more artificial" The first 2 sentences make sense as far as society. But i don't know how he means to become more artificial. Wouldn't it be the opposite? Is there something in human developement (developement of the individual) he sees to be the answer?