Should I really read Zizek? Someone tells me to do so!!

Zizek was "hip" in the early 90s when my high school best friend was hanging out with Zizek at University of Minnesota (where he was a guest professor). I did directed research with the chair of the cultural studies program at University of Minnesota and the chair told me that when Zizek was there then Zizek was just real pompous. So I spent a few years studying Zizek and I wrote a critique of him in 1996, with my manifesto called, "The Fundamental Force." I mailed it to Zizek and he responded with a postcard in summer of 1996 stating that "After a quick glance it looks very interesting and I will read it and get back to you." So instead of responding directly to my lengthy detailed critique of Zizek, he made me the "strawman" of his next book published in 1997 called - "The Plague of Fantasies" - if I remember that title. Yep - I remembered it correctly. So if you read that book, he zeroes in on the same issues I wrote about - specifically music theory in the context of Platonic philosophy and also ecofeminism and supposed "New Age" beliefs in the paranormal or spiritual energies, etc.

As for you view of "Nature always changing" and that the Anthropocene is "egocentric" - well all I can say is just do more study in this area. My undergraduate degree at UW-Madison was in a "new option" of International Relations, focused on "sustainability" - so a third of my degree was in biology related classes like ecology, ornithology, limnology and environmental economics. But I also did a semester in Costa Rica with the School for Field Studies, completing a certificate in sustainable development and conservation biology in 1992. So then my master's degree was in Liberal Studies (which is really an old aristocratic degree) but I focused on "radical ecology." My 2000 master's thesis included much of my same critique of Zizek as I had sent him in 1996 (as that manifesto was a main reason I was accepted into graduate school).

First of all Zizek tries to cling to cutting edge science for his radical views but the problem is that he is not scientific enough! Although I was just thinking of Zizek before I read your comment, as I read an op-ed critiquing a new book about anti-racism, exposing a supposed "tautological" error that the author made. It would seem the reviewer has not read Zizek's points about tautologies and racism. So I certainly agree that Zizek is worth the time of reading and studying, as I said, I devoted several years in doing so. I also devoted several years in reading and studying Noam Chomsky and I corresponded with Chomsky in a much more friendly manner around 2001.

In the end though we need to move beyond the limitations of both Chomsky and Zizek - and my 1996 "manifesto" was a step in this direction. Since then I have zeroed in my analysis and I have also corresponded more with actual scientists, mainly quantum physics professors. In my first year of college I took quantum mechanics from Professor Herbert Bernstein who teaches at Hampshire College. So he emphasized that science studies need to study quantum mechanics FIRST before classical physics since quantum physics has been the foundation of science since the beginning of the 20th century.

Unfortunately Zizek is still stuck in the classical physics realm of science without enough study of quantum mechanics. But as Professor Basil J. Hiley has emphasized even most quantum physics professors are not willing to realize the truth of nonlocal reality at "zero" time before any measurement is made. Aharonov's recent research - Yakir Aharonov of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect - his recent empirical research using "weak measurements" on the double slit experiment have newly corroborated the de Broglie pilot wave model that Bohm had rediscovered. So I highly doubt that Zizek is even aware of this new science. I'm certainly not going to be "held back" by waiting for Zizek to get off his "fame" pedestal and then hunker back down to re-wiring his hard-wired neuron delusions. haha.

 So on your claims about the Anthropocene and Nature always changing, etc. you can read the blog http://arctic-news.blogspot.com which is the work of Dr. Carmen Solana (I'm pretty sure) - using the name "Sam Carana" or you can go to the "arctic ice sea forum" and another great source is conservation biology professor GEE McFearSun (he uses a different spelling of his name but he's very litigious).

So McFearSun relies on Dr. Natalia Shakhova researching the ESAS methane bomb. I have contacted DemocracyNow about doing news on the ESAS Methane Bomb - but apparently science articles in the top science journal Nature are not readibly understandable to "leftist" journalists or whatever. I'm not sure what's holding them back (except of course they are overworked). It's a matter of priorities.

People don't realize that the ESAS Methane Bomb is likely already going off - as "arctic news" points out in her latest blog post.

Carmen Solana is a professor in Europe where they have different standards for tenure - so hence her blog news under Sam Carana. Also the BBC 2005 doc on the "Global Dimming" effect means that the more renewables we use then the hotter the earth will get - as about 50% of global warming is being held back due to sulfur aerosols cooling the earth (from mainly coal plants).

So this effect is localized also. For example after 9/11 with planes grounded then the US warmed by 1 C due to lack of sulfur aerosol emissions. Similarly China and India are "artificially cooler" due to their coal plant use being much more. So this means we've created a "locked in"

Doomed if you do or Doomed if you don't effect.

Zizek has highly misunderstood the profound tragedy of Western civilization on the biosphere (the Gaia model). Westernization of Earth has caused a "biological annihilation" on par with an asteroid hitting earth whereas our global warming emissions is an order of magnitude WORSE than any previous mass extinction crisis on Earth. So we can be highly proud of all our Western technology that Zizek likes to promote as the "solution" (his "the spear that smote us" metaphor) but Zizek highly underestimates just how damaging this technology is! Why? Watch physics prof. Albert Bartlett's lecture, "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" - he gave the SAME lecture his whole professional career (so over 1000 times in person) - why?

It's a structural analysis - even the math that Marx relied on is the wrong math. The logarithmic (with the inverse exponential) math is the CAUSE of the problem. So any analysis that relies on that math is still part of the problem. Alain Connes realized this (he got a Fields Medal, much harder than a Nobel prize) - and so his Noncommutative Phase math is the solution (but again you won't find that from Zizek who does not study science enough!!). haha. And Connes noncommutative phase math is from music theory logic - as Connes emphasizes. This is precisely what I had argued in my "Fundamental Force" manifesto that I had sent to Zizek in 1996 - of course I was not aware of the correct terminology for my concepts. That requires another 20 years of study. thanks.

Romijn (2002) proposed that virtual photons—the constituent units of an electromagnetic field—are the essential carrier units of consciousness. Others have suggested zero-energy tachyons (Hari, 2008), or hypothetical particles (Eccles, 1992), both of which are assumed to imbue the biological substrate with the quality of consciousness.

 the sincere interest in grappling with these concepts is admirable. A good book on change in nature is Gregory Bateson's classic, "Mind and Nature: A necessary unity" - his dad coined the term "genetics." I'm not saying that book provides answers but Bateson is sincerely grappling with some logical paradoxes about change.

I think Chomsky is under-estimated also as I pointed out in my master's thesis in 2000. So recently Chomsky has been emphasizing that it is the non-western indigenous cultures that are at the leadership of addressing global warming. So as Westerners or Westernized people we tend to naively dismiss our ancestral origins, our common human culture of the San Bushmen, as being backwards, etc. and yet their culture still exists (from before 70,000 BCE). So it would be good to study what has worked for 90% of our own human history instead of ignoring the part of the ice berg that is below the surface. Ironically in our so-called high tech era hardly anyone knows the details of the San Bushmen culture - a good person to turn to is Dr. Bradford Keeney as a rare exception.

So when you say "Let's face it" - all I can say is try digging deeper. So our current situation is actually a deeply physiological and psychophysiological - and "ontological" - or existential situation. As I pointed out about Zizek, he does not study science enough. There is a certain level of "scientist's scientists" that does not get promoted by book publishing markets, etc. And also a lot of science gets turned top secret by the military.

So for example "quantum biology" is still dismissed as woo woo by most physicists even though "quantum biology" was the cover article of SciAm in 2011 and in 2016 the book "Life on the Edge" won a science book award - it's all about quantum biology. Here is a recent article on the topic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4224074/#B63

 So when you talk about integration as sustainability, as I mentioned that actually was my undergraduate degree - as a "new" option. So a third of my classes were in economics, a third in political science and a third in biology - with the goal of integrated the three areas as sustainability. A good early textbook on the topic of sustainability is by Michael Redclift - a book we read for my 1992 certificate in sustainable development and conservation biology from School for Field Studies in Costa Rica.

So I actually worked in half a dozen nonprofits and also organic farming businesses, etc. while I also did organizing activism and civil disobedience for over 20 years. So the problem with this integration goal that you call for is that political science lies about biology to justify bad economics and Economics lies about ecology as well to justify bad political science! I experienced this first hand on the academic level!! And so your goal is admirable but unfortunately naive. So I have been arrested nine times doing civil disobedience.

I am aware of false flag operations and various other genocidal schemes and tactics. I have had some success in policy changes. But first of all we need to face the empirical facts of our situation - based on the links I already gave you. So you do not want to even engage with the evidence on a primary level and so you remain in psychological denial of two things: The ESAS methane bomb and the Global Dimming Effect.

Now let's consider that we are a priori Doomed - then what? What if Western civilization has misconstrued reality on a fundamental level? As I mentioned certain scientists have figured this out through noncommutative phase logic. Zizek has no idea what he is even missing!! haha. So I presented the red pill to you and you chose the blue one. That is fine. My research is all free through my youtube channel uploads and links to my blog, etc.