zizek, violence — counter
0: zizek's work starts with the profession of the contemporary common sense thing to do with violence nowadays giving his starting trajectory and all our starting trajectories of dichotomies between visibility, clarity, structurality, conditionality, causality, impact and so on, by the postulation of various forms of undiscovered chains of violence, each with their own coded logic, and beyond that point, the idea of a set standard of reproductive logics that permeate specific acceptances of what symbolic violence is in retrospect to mechanical causes that are off-set as a base standard, a common constructual division to be found in todays correlationist ethos. it begins with the criticism of neoliberalism through robspierre's revoltion about the standards of the tyrant or what is accepted as such, following through with his boomer admittance of a base level of pre-conducted violence that renders certain witness testimonies as subjectively contaminated by the trauma of a broader real, through which he flips adornos saying about poetry back on its head, that prose becomes unrendered, even though adorno was obviously codifiying poetry as a "lost beautiful" not as a shattering of linguistic norms. at no point in time to this day, has a single theorist failed to dissapoint with their rendering of poetry, always at once overly pretentious of its inessensialistic charms yet of its constructively political character, and yet of its own self-undermindedness as such, or vice-versa, of its shattering criterial relations. best to never mention that ugly term again, or at once for them to realize it doesn't exist apart from any derridian logic of contaminated architectures of language whatsoever. following that, the peak of boomerism is achieved when zizek tackles neoliberal logic through the concept of the ethical decision and empowerement, where he reaches a conclusion that violence must precisely be analyzed or rather learned in the face of virtue-signalling calls towards immediacy, in order to relinquish itself from the terror of its own exposed choices, or its inability to properly "consider its own subjectivity" (the current dilemma in post leftist discourse, that has been continuing since the book into the present age) but, truly, violence is not a thing at all, if it's the case that the alienation of the subject of ethical consideration and duty reaches the point where they themselves must self-asses and learn of the causes of the problem before they can even make a venture, or even worse be met with the contradiction of having a choice to a call to action, but abstracted by so many degrees that even the representation towards the call to action is an abstracted ideal that somehow frustrates both the announcing agent and those caught in the exposure of its imposition?
1-1: the world of society (you heard that right, the world, then that is painted by society, and yes, it is a society of world but nontheless takes a shape of "world" before that of society, although its causal agent is the social complex) may be blind to its own mechanisms now, where its own calls are constantly reflected and thrown back to it, thus its repressed representations return in this blinding cacophany that in fact return-signals various calls and transforms them on accident in the face of its acts, so the way the world of society constantly triggers itself into accidentally novel directions trying to chase that same direction, is what roughly happens when you consider that
subjective violence truly is the most visible of the three, and [that] revolutions accelerate the rate of change of transformations that reccur as a result of sudden objective forms of violence (encoded under the logic of such) as well as a latent mechanism of trauma-adjacent replies concerning symbolic forms of violence
yet, outside of the blinding, it may be that there is a secret spirit that returns abject forms of conflict that toggles between forms of violence and their faces, that essentially does in fact mediate between the unnoticed forms of violence in certain difficult to explain ways, what we may consider latent forms of social determinism, or the true field of the never-reachable political underlining, the reoccurance of base results unretrivable to us may actually return rates of violence into harmony
unless of course, that blinding rhetoric from earlier causes build-ups that unleash not in fractures of violence (the example with the russian reactionaries suddenly met with the soviets, or icelandic pagans suddenly met with imposed christian moralism), but something far worse, that appears as a process of distortion and transmugalism, transmutilation, that bashes the social charicature to half-death using its own devices, that we may only recently truly be subjected to, something still developing