The idea that there has to be an author of a joke is properly paranoiac: it means that there has to be an “Other of the Other,” of the anonymous symbolic order, as if the very unfathomable contingent generative power of language has to be personalized, located into an agent who controls it and secretly pulls the strings. This is why, from the theological perspective, God is the ultimate jokester. -- Slavoj Zizek, The role of jokes in becoming-man of the apes, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2018.
Been on a bit of a hiatus from writing and reading anything other than noir mysteries and Cthulhu...writing and thinking about the what's going on in the world is just too depressing. Maybe Trump will decide to stop the fires in the Amazon by nuking Brazil. Maybe he'll decide to issue bounties on dead migrants trying to "sneak into" the country. Maybe the next time he leaves the White House he will declare himself King and Captain Underpants simultaneously, and drop his pants in front of the press, not remembering that he went commando that day...
Anyway, I was sitting in a restaurant waiting for the steaks to arrive and ignoring my wife while glancing at my smart phone -- which says a lot about me, her and the world in general, I guess, when I say my bi-weekly copy of the highlights from MIT Press. Glancing at the contents I thought, "I ought to read that, and I ought to read that, and...'5 Jokes from Slavoj Zizek?' Zizek wrote 5 jokes? And a book about them..."
You see, I've been trying to read Zizek for years. I find him incredibly difficult to read...and yet, I continue to read his work. There are just aspects of it that make me want to get what the hell he's talking about and be able to explain it. I've listened to him speak, and it reminds me of the better profs I took philosophy from -- humor, subtlety, madness, commitment, a bit of gentleness and a lot of passion. Then, he gets involved with Kant for 200 pages about 2 pages about 15 or so words. This is why I find it hard to read him. Yet I keep reading.
Well, actually, that's academic philosophy in a nutshell. Crispin disagrees, (as he should, being a tenured professor of philosophy at a school that tried to fire him for complaining about being plagiarized by an academic professor of philosophy at another university in a non-academic philosopher way. He thought, as any rational or "Irrational Man" would think, that his response was not directed at here as a threat but as a cri de coeur about the absurdity of modern academic publishing and reputations and all the rest. If you listen to that song, by Miranda Lambert or by Fred Eaglesmith you don't hear anger -- you hear fear, frustration, and despair. Of course, the other professor felt that this was threatening and degrading and racist and sexist and probably a threat to her own sexuality. Or something. Complained to her chair, who complained to Crispin's Dean who...well, it went on from there. Crispin is still working and still sending out tweets and facebook posts and still muttering under his breath.) Actually, he probably agrees with me...
Face it. Zizek is a highly respected respected academic philosopher who gets away with this stuff because he's a highly respected academic philosopher in Europe, where people know not to take him literally, but seriously. Crispin operates in a world that is bureaucratic and bizarre and does it well for the most part. If Zizek came to spend a semester at Yuppie-Wannabes On the Brandywine with Crispin, they'd both end up in jail. I would definitely send them cake with blocks of C4 in them; and, they would probably eat the C4, being actual philosophers as well as academic philosophers, and having no idea what the hell it was anyway.
Note: Top, Giacometti, Head on a bolt; bottom, Giacometti, Le Chat
