Trends in counter-culture?

by Narkissos 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  Hey who you calling a conspiracy theorist?

  Personally I think we may be facing a catastrophic event of some kind in the next few years, but not by design. Humanity is fragile and history is full of catastrophe. The 1945- postwar generation never knew they had it so good. I have a bad feeling we may be about to revert to "normal service" of abject misery for the majority.

  But on topic: I was reading a book about Zizek last night that said the rise of conspiracy thinking has to do with the demise of "the big Other" (in Lacanian gobbledespeak). I'll make of that what I will, which is not much because I haven't decided yet whether Lacan was a great thinker, a big joker, or a bit insane. He could be the lot I suppose. Why not?

  More intelligibly, for me at least, it also said that Frederic Jameson argued that the dominant pathology of postmodernity/late capitalism is paranoia, and that the proliferation of films and novels about secret organizations, covert government control/manipulation and so on is a manifestation of this.

  I thought this comment about the apparent ability of cynicism and conspiracy thinking to inhabit the consciousness side by side was interesting because it is something I have sometimes wondered about: like how you will get people who will say Gordon Brown was an incompetant chancellor who led us into economic crisis, yet at the same time on some level believe the economic crisis has been "orchestrated" by the powers that be.

  Paradoxically, then, Zizek argues that the typical postmodern subject is one who displays an outright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time firmly believes in the existence of conspiracies and an unseen Other pulling the strings. This apparentlt contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly correlative to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes you to construct an Other of the Other in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss encumbers you with. Conversely, there is, in effect, no need to take the big Other seriously if you believe in an Other of the Other. You therefore display cynicism and belief in equal and sincere measure. Slavoj Zizek: Routledge Critical Thinkers by Tony Myers, page 57.

  As someone who is coming to terms with no longer believing as a Jehovah's Witness, I can identify with the "unbearable freedom" of a world not made coherent by some outside organizing force outside my control. For some who leave the Witnesses I get the feeling that the strain is too great, and the desire for meaning so powerful that they are inclined toward accepting conspiracy theories almost as a substitute for Jehovah. To a lesser extent than what a JW might personally feel, society as whole is of course still trying to come to terms with Nietzsche's proclamation that God is dead.

  (please notice that I'm not discussing whether any particular theory is "right" or "wrong")...

  Why? Surely you must be interested in the real too. I can't help but find the exclusions in your posts interesting in themselves Narkissos. It's a bit like the room in the big house that has a special key you are not supposed to enter under any circumstance. I guess I am just curious whether this room is simply reserved for a better class of company, or whether you never even open the door yourself these days. I feel a bit naughty bringing it up actually, like an impertinent tweenager in an Enid Blyton story.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  explaining one's ideas always calls for more explanations. Its better to formulate your own whilst taking note of other people's. Imo that is what Narkissos seems to be saying.

  Narkissos thanks for committing your time to JWN once again

  ql
• 

  Narkissos

  slimboyfat,

  In cauda venenum, as ever!

  Great post however, which clarifies and illustrates the point I have been trying to make.

  I would not equate (non-designed) catastrophism -- to which I am somewhat inclined myself (cf. the "morality" thread), and which can be optimistic from a broader perspective: if mankind urgently needs to reduce its footprints, limited catastrophes in the near future can be seen as a lesser evil -- with conspiracy theories. In a sense they are often opposite, inasmuch as the latter, these days, tend to diabolise political solutions rather than predict their failure...

  I'm not trying to refute conspiracy theories because (1) I think they are already doing a good job at refuting each other, and (2) I'm more interested in what they have in common (as you excellently pointed out). More generally -- and to borrow from another Lacanian distinction since you seem to be fond of them -- I am more interested in the real (the "symptom" which occurs and recurs before it is named and "figured out") than in reality (the consistent picture of the world which is constantly reframed in our imagination through interpretation). Conspiracy theories, like all ideologies, are all about the latter, but they themselves happen as part of the former...

  Now -- to spare you another reply -- I am working out my own reality along the way, of course...
• 

  slimboyfat

  Narkissos who says your conspiracy theory is any better than anyone else's? (There I got the sting out first this time)

  I often have a strong reaction to your posts Narkissos because I find myself agreeing strongly with them - then later on I find something in my agreement with which I am uncomfortable, and this self-doubt grows until I can express the disquiet, yet often haphazardly: not your fault, but it gives me an opportunity to repudiate some "beliefs" I have inadvertently acquired.

  What I like about your perspective above is easy to identify. It is dismissive of conspiracy theories as not worthy of talking about on their own terms, but only as a "phenomenon". It characterises current conspiracy thinking as having essentially a right-of-centre political ideology. It historicises conspiracy thinking, placing it in context with other systems of thought, and thereby neutering special claims to original insight.

  That's fine, but then there are some things I don't like (at least in my own reaction, this may not be fairly attributed to your text or intention) on further reflection. Firstly I find myself feeling a bit guilty about my initial relish at your somewhat brutal dismissal of conspiracy theories as not worthy of tackling on their own terms, but only as a phenomenon. I don't get involved in such threads myself either and there was a little cheer inside me when you talked about, "amusement, consternation, boredom and irritation" with them. But then I gasped. What does this say about me? I used to believe what JWs teach. Is what conspiracy theorists argue any stranger than that? So how can I have this mixture of emotions toward people who simply see the world differently than I do? It's like laughing at myself. Who says my beliefs about the world are any less amusing, tedious or irritating?

  Next thing that troubles me is that you don't name who you're talking about or cite specific threads. On the one hand it might have been rude to do so. On the other hand it is arguably worse to talk about some others causing "amusement, consternation, boredom and irritation", but saying so behind their back. If it was my forum contribution you were saying provoked that reaction I would want you to tell me to my face. I tried to tease something out by making a joke (of sorts I not big on jokes) that you might be referring to me as a conspiracy theorist. I did not really think you had the likes of me in your sights, but that saying so might provoke you to reveal a bit more: "oh no I didn't mean you, I meant them". Yeah nice try slimboyfat, but no luck. Hamilcarr also expressed some doubt about what threads specifically you had in mind. I suspect I might know some threads you have in mind, but I am also unsure precisely because in a certain sense one person's conspiracy theory is another person's presentation of reality.

  This, on reflection, brings me to the biggest difficulty I have with your argument. It assumes that there is a clear divide between "conspiracy thinking" over there, that they engage in, and sensible perceptions/representations of the world over here, that we engage in. It is a very seductive way of presenting the situation, and I am almost right in there with you, ready to scorn all those silly right-wing nutters, and analyse what sort of madness accounts for the "phenomenon". It would be the most natural thing in the world for me because at a most basic level I find myself agreeing with your perspective including your political prejudices. But then I must stop myself! What am I doing?

  Reality is a so big and complex there simply is no reliable way of representing it. I can see the sense obviously in separating out some views of the world and how it works and labelling them "conspiracies", but it's problematic too because there is no clear divide. What appears a sensible distinction from one angle can be viewed as a mere expediency from another. All presentations of reality are constructed. The "sensible" view of the world and how it operates implicit in your criticism of conspiracy theories is no less constructed through the lens of language than the very theories you would have us dismiss. (For instance it was quite warm today and a "sensible" response might be to say: "It is starting to get milder because spring is gathering pace". That's a conspiracy theory of sorts! What is this weird agency called "spring"? How does it cause milder weather? And what strange secret machanism is hidden behind the phrase "gathering pace"? Another might say the weather is a sign of global warming. Another might argue there is evidence the government is manipulating the weather for some obscure reason. I see these as sitting on a slippery continuum rather than operating on either side of a chasm.) All presentations of the world are conspiracy theories in a sense because they all rely on selectivity, simplification and dubious attribution of causation. At best you may argue there is a difference of degree between ordinary "sense making" of the world that everyone engages in and the process by which conspiracy theorists formulate their elaborate explanations of the world. But on reflection I find I cannot assent to the hidden assumption in your text that there is a neat distinction between a conspiratorial view of the world and the rest.

  So Narkissos you say threads about conspiracies provoke in you, "amusement, consternation, boredom and irritation". The maligned unnamed conspiracy theorist might retort: punk you talking to me? What makes your conspiracy theory any better than mine anyway?

  In a certain sense conspiracy theorists are at least to be commended about being out in the open about how they see the world and why. It makes them an easy target but at least they are transparent. For some others it's frankly difficult to tell precisely what reality lurks in their secret room. (oops I think I did go and save the worst for last again)

  (I hope all this is taken as it is meant by the way: as a friendly thought exercise. Above I get the sense quietlyleaving fears you might have taken offense at what I wrote above. Truly I would not have spent my time writing this with the intention merely of causing offense. If we were all chatting in person all my words would be spoken with a twinkle in my eye to acknowledge that while I may be forthright in my opinions they are always produced with a due degree of scepticism about what I am saying and self-doubt even while the words are still in my mouth, and above all to indicate regard for whatever your thoughtful response might be. )
• 

  quietlyleaving

  I was reading Faust when I made that comment Slim. I had misplaced the quote from my study material and made a botch up of applying it to Narkissos' ideas. I still can't find it. But in essence Goethe was supposed to have said (when he was asked for explanations about his ideas) `how should I know I'm only the writer'. Something like that.

  edit: but I did think you were being a lil cheeky

  This is a question for narkissos.

  I was reading about Derrida's ideas about democracy and messianicity without messianism. Very interesting. Does that form any part of what you mean when you say "symptom" before it is figured out.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sorry for misunderstanding quietlyleaving, I should have read what you wrote more carefully rather than connecting it to what I had written. I agree with your sentiment it is good to have Narkissos around.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Was I being too cheeky quietlyleaving? That is always my problem.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  well it was, in a way connected to what you had written slim but I need to stop and think a little more before hitting the submit button. I'm a very jumbled thinker I'm afraid.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  Was I being too cheeky quietlyleaving? That is always my problem.

  I sensed a note of frustration
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think you have curiosity combimed with a healthy dose of self-doubt, which is no bad thing. It's a shame we only get half an hour to edit now isn't it? I could have deleted my post before Narkissos saw it.