/lit/ - Literature

>>5126152

1. doesn't fit into his ideology and preconceived notions

2. scientism.

3. they certainly seem better than they are

>>5126173
i think it is scientism as well
and i think they are really quite good but that's cool

>>5126152
Don't know anything about Zizek, but I do have a David Lynch question. Does anybody know if David Foster Wallace ever commented on Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr.? He wrote the essay about visiting the set, and he mentions in his interview with Charlie Rose that Blue Velvet had a sizable impact on him. However, I couldn't find anything where he talks about his opinion of these two movies.

1. Because Zizek doesn't like the fact that he grew up in the brutal slavlands while the kids in the west got to take LSD and fuck and paint and take Jung seriously. He also knows that pissed off 'n' edgy western youths will be displeased with Jung after they realize how much their parents like them
2. Are you shitting me? Jung is hot shit right now, everyone is straining trying to uphold or escape the iron rule of science, and Jung is the perfect exit for the advanced Terence McKenna set. TvTropes/fandom tumblr loves his booshit because it's just like the personality quizzes in Tiger Beat but with big kid words so they feel cool. They can put red noses on it. The lines are being drawn and they will be on one side with the Zizek types being on the other, this will also correlate to some sort of class thing too.
3. I liked Blue Velvet A LOT. The rest of his stuff didn't grab me but I haven't seen it all.

>>5126195
There's an interview where he talks for a while about Lost Highway and gives a totally bullshit description of "Lynchian" means (something about a man murdering his wife because she didn't organise the fridge properly, the investigating detectives look at the fridge and agree with the man) but not sure if that's the charlie rose one or not

>>5126217
yes obviously i will read your sweeping opinionated assessment, angry internet boy

>>5126313
>OH FUCK 141 CHARACTERS NIGGA I AIN'T GOT TIME FO DAT.

Just read it faggot.

>>5126152
>1. why does Zizek dismiss Jung and Jungian theory overall?
Because he's RETARDED

>2. why does Jung and Jungian theory overall seem to be mostly disregarded today?
Because everyone is STUPID

>>5126152
I don't know a lot about Zizek.
If he is actively dismissing it; then the memes must be successful in some way.

>>5126336
Go to bed, Jung.

>>5126341
He often calls Jungian interpretations "obfuscatory" especially in his analysis of Lost Highway in 'Art of the Ridiculous Sublime.'

I like Zizek but I like Jung as well and it's lame that Zizek basically writes him off as just some gibbering loon.

>>5126336
i did it's just you bitching about parts of internet culture you don't like? it's really boring and i don't think it's relevant

>>5126152
i don't know but Mulholland Drive is so rich with emotion that it is almost unwatchable (if that can be a good thing)

1) First I'd say that Zizek creates an artificial Jung for himself as an enemy so he can introduce Jungian theologisms under new terminology to Lacanian theory without betraying the Left in true Hegelian fashion. But if you don't believe that then I'd say it really has to do with the historical conditions that created their thought and how Jung and Zizek portray their relationships to Freud and Lacan respectively and how this relates to their interpretation of the history of philosophical and psychological thought.
2) Neither Jung nor Zizek are really popular in the field of psychology today but both are well-respected in philosophy and other liberal arts fields (such as media and literature studies).
3) Dune was funny.

>>5126152
I don't follow Zizek especially well but Jung is weak philosophy and abysmal psychology. He observes the products of internal forces interacting and contradicting and puts the cart before the horse. Mystic, proto-new age rubbish.

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me has Lynch's highest peaks but it's a noble failure rather than a totally successful work of art. I'd give the edge to Mulholland Drive

Because they can't use Jung to enhance Marxist revolutionary politics, like they do with Freud.

>is a hegelian
>doesn't like Jung
How Zizek? How?

>>5126762
I don't know about philosophy but it seems a lot of Jungs ideas on the unconcious hold up? Both using a Jungian lens to understand works of fiction and real/social events?
What makes it bad, I guess.

>>5126730
> Zizek creates an artificial Jung for himself as an enemy so he can introduce Jungian theologisms under new terminology to Lacanian theory
i agree with that, in his Lost Highway review, when analysing the 'mystery man' he basically describes the Jungiana shadow exactly but then calls out Jung for dancing around the essential essence of the shadow or some such...

>>5126798
and yeh

>>5126152
i always think david lynch is for people who wraps her dreams like something mysterious, ungraspable. people who don´t live too much in he heads. anyway, maybe is erasehead the most simple and plain, for my tastes.
jung was a blown away theorist and zizek just a fashion,

>>5126152
>1. why does Zizek dismiss Jung and Jungian theory overall?
>2. why does Jung and Jungian theory overall seem to be mostly disregarded today?

Because it is eso-mysto-tiedie-organic-vegetable-grateful-dead-thinking

j

>>5126217
Jung may be hot in pop culture, but in academia he is almost forgotten, I think that is what the OP means when he says that he is discarded.

Also, your interpretation on why Zizek hates Jung is awesome, Pure ideology/10.

>>5126798
>>5126800
This

>>5127611
david lynch is not ungraspable brah
he doesn't obfuscate anything, the ideas in any of his movies can be elucidated under lotsa different lenses
eraserheads a lot cooler than blue velvet, don't get the love that film gets

>>5128584
>Jung may be hot in pop culture, but in academia he is almost forgotten
yeah what is that
if you want to even quote jung in an undergrad essay you have to vigorously explain yourself