Monthly Archives: August 2025

08/2/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 31 of 33)

0321 What about chatGDP?

Is GDP an acronym for “gross domestic product”?

Do I label the USA’s federal government as a machine of perversion?

Oh, I meant to say.. as “a machine of artificial intelligence”.

0322 Perhaps, the word “foreclose” applies to chatGDP.  “Foreclose” is a legal term.  It is what happens when you cannot pay the interest on your debt.

Some day, it may find its way into the lexicon of Lacanian terminology.

0323 The appropriate Lacanian term is “castrate”.  ChatGDP serves to castrate its citizens, depriving them of any expectation of fully performing the symbolic function of the father.  That is to say, citizens must rely on the big government, rather than their own efforts, in order to actualize jouissance.

0324 Take a look at the interscope for the post-truth condition, and take a guess where ‘jouissance’1c is to be located.

0325 Uh oh, am I starting to confound Zizek’s configuration and the post-truth condition?

The above figure depicts the post-truth condition.

On the content level of the citizen… er… scrappy player, the normal context of my intellect3a brings the dyadic actuality, {what I think [cannot be objectified as] what I say}2a, into relation with the potential of ‘my will’1a.

So, what does the word, “reason3a((1a))“, imply?

Reason3a((1a)) is my intellect3a operating on the potential of ‘my will’1a, rather than the potential of ‘the truth’1a.

Doesn’t the potential of my will1a resonate with the term, “jouissance”?

0326 On the situation level of the expert, the normal context of expertise3b brings the actuality of psychometric valuations2b into relation with the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’1b.  The traditions of capitalism and socialismfuse in the adoption of science as the format for discourse.  Expertise3b is regarded in terms of academic credentials.  The more prestigious the credentials, the more authority granted.  But, as Zizek notes, academic credentials are the scars of castration.  Expertise3b serves a master named “the Relativist one3c“.

0327 On the perspective level of the Relativist one3c, the system3c brings the actuality of an intervention2c, called “an empirio-normative judgment”2c, into relation with the possibility that ‘psychometric valuations offer an opportunity’1c.

For the empirio-normative judgment2c, a relativist intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the intelligibility of expert valuations (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with the universality of ‘what people say’ (what is, firstness).

0328 For example, in a college literature class, a professor accuses a freshman of submitting an essay written by chatGTP.  When challenged, the professor says that he scans all student submissions through proprietary software designed to detect whether AI participated in the construction of a document.  In this case, the expert3b (a visiting assistant professor in literature) takes the word of an expert3b (a computer program designed by full professors in literature and computer science).

0329 It’s all so empirio-normative.  The expert3b (the professor using the proprietary software) says what the one who makes the empirio-normative judgments3c (the academic authorities who granted a doctorate to the now visiting professor) want to hear2c, but this is not the concern.  What is the concern?  The proprietary software2c says that there no way that what the student thinks [can be objectified by] such well-elucidated statements2a.

Why does the student use chatGTP?

Oh, the class assignment2b clearly asks the student to write what the visiting professor wants to hear2b.  Who knows more about what the professor wants to hear2b than chatGTP?

May I scale that type of scenario up to chatGDP?

Or, maybe down to chatGDP?

Let me ask an expert3b!

0330 Where does Zizek’s configuration stand in regards to the post-truth condition?

What am I writing about?

[Wealth and power] as a substance within a perspective-level actuality2c?

But, that perspective-level actuality2c belongs to Zizek’s configuration.

So, let me put Zizek’s interscope into a box (dashed red line).

0331 What does the preceding figure not tell me?

Zizek’s box manifests a psychometric valuation2b in the post-truth condition. 

The empirio-normative judgment2c balances the intelligibility2c of psychometric valuations2b, acquired from academic labor3b, with the universality2c of what people say2a (never mind what they think2a), in the course of the Relativist one3c pursuing potential opportunities1c.

The substance, [wealth and power]2c, in the normal context of Christ3c, has been excised, divided, re-appropriated, baked into contending ideologies, then turned into the stuff of psychometric valuations2b.

Yes, Zizek’s configuration is a contender for the slot of psychometric valuation2b.

0332 Is that why we currently call the start of our modern era, “the Western Enlightenment”?

Who enlightened us that wealth and power are distinct and separable terms?

Who brought capitalism and socialism together into one overarching scientific stylistic fixation?

What enlightenment god seeks empirio-normative domination over subject populations?

08/2/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 32 of 33)

0333 Why is contemporary politics immanently theological?

An answer is to be found in chapter six.

According to Zizek, revolutionary theory is immediately practical and grounded in subjective engagement.

Does that sound like the term, “psychometric valuations2b“?

But, how can psychometric valuations2b work when the theological dimension2c of our everyday lives has pre-empted by the realness of {price [transaction] quality}2b?

What if we are the {raw materials [that constitute] specified products}2a?

The intellectual transit within the West, culminating in the ascent of a post-truth Relativist one3c, does not seem to occur in the East, the former seat of Soviet-style socialism.

0334 Here is comparison.

In many ways, Christian Atheism exhibits Zizek’s subjective engagement, as someone who is familiar with the Eastern Orthodox world, with a western world that has replaced Christ3c with the Relativist One3c, who stands within the box of psychometric valuations.

0335 In this examination, Zizek offers Christ3c, who belongs to the realm of actuality in the Trinity, as the normal context for a materialist (or “atheist”) reading of a perspective-level reality.  That perspective-level actuality2c contains the terms, “wealth” and “power”.

But, not in a way that anyone in the West imagines.

And, in a way that anyone in the East takes for granted.

Zizek explores the corresponding perspective-level nested form using Lacan’s terminology, Hegel’s vision and the image of the parallax.  He uses the foils of Buddhism and quantum mechanics to extend his reading into the situation and content levels.  Zizek’s configuration belongs to the symbolic.  But, what is the symbolic without the real and the imaginary?

0336  To me, a law familiar to the field of classical economics falls out of Zizek’s discussion on Buddhist economics.  In the following figure, I use this to characterize the situation and content levels.

This gives me hope that Zizek’s discussion concerns um… the political philosophy of economics… along with… the contiguity that is [wealth and power].

With Christ3c, [wealth and power]2c constitutes the contiguity between two real elements, capital & acquisition2c and social & exercise of order2c, and this contiguity remains intact.

What else does this say?

Zizek’s configuration puts classical organizational (content-level) and economic (situation-level) theory into perspective.

Plus, Zizek’s configuration poses the formulation that Christian atheism challenges.

0337 A comparison between the two previous figures is revealing, because both enter the slot for psychometric valuation2b.

Psychometric valuation2b?

In the e-book, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues) Razie Mah develops the interscope for the post-truth condition.  This examination suggests that Zizek’s configuration transmogrifies into a psychometric valuation2b in the post-truth condition.

0338 Here is a picture of the interscope for the post-truth condition.

I repeat, the entire interscope of Zizek’s configuration fits into the situation-level actuality2b for the post-truth condition.

08/1/25

Looking at Slavoj Zizek’s Book (2024) “Christian Atheism” (Part 33 of 33)

0339 So, why compare the two interscopes?

Well, there are two Relativist Ones, one belonging to Zizek’s configuration and one contained in the post-truth condition.

That is a tad confusing.

Plus, it seems to me that the following association of Lacan’s terminology with open slots of the perspective level applies to both interscopes.  

All these items may be regarded as writ small.

Plus, the pattern repeats within Zizek’s interscope.  Jouissance1 writ large coincides with the virtual nested form in firstness.

Similarly, objet a2c(2a) writ large matches the actualities2 on the perspectivec and contenta levels.  The petit objet a writ large matches the situation-level actuality2b.

Uh, does that also apply to the interscope for the post-truth condition?

If it does, then there are two Relativist Ones3c, one corresponds to a little Big Other3c(2b) (in Zizek’s configuration as a psychometric valuation2b) and one corresponds to a big Big Other3c (for the interscope for the post-truth condition).

0340 Okay, the little Relativist Big Other3c(2b) dwells within the big Relativist Big Other2b.

What about Christian atheism?

Zizek’s configuration resides within the slot for psychometric valuation2b.

Does Zizek’s Christian atheism3c(2b) deny the divinity of the big Big Other3c?

If it does, then the following comparison offers another reason why modern politics is immanently theological and supports Zizek’s concluding chapter, arguing that the post-modern West should not disregard psychoanalysis, simply because it questions postmodern scientific-sounding capitalist and socialist valuations2b.

0341 So… uh…. why does Zizek propose Christian atheism3c(2b)?

Isn’t Slavoj Zizek an expert2b operating on the formalized knowledges of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Hegelian philosophy and Marxist materialism1b?

Excuse me while I scribble a note saying, “Of course, he sees the light…”

0342 I want to note, if the big Relativist One3c is divine, as preached by the banquet dinner speaker, Baelzebob Jones,speaking, way back when, to the CPP on the evening when I was conceived, then psychoanalysis should be disregarded, because “wealth” and “power” are two distinct and separate entities2c, just like photons as waves and… um… photons as particles.

“… yeah, the light.”

Photons as particles1b(2b) and photons as waves1b(2b) produce distinct and separate measurements2b(2b), as far quantum-physics apparatuses3b(2b) are concerned.  Data1c(2b) is the potential1c(2b) of measurements2b(2b).  And, measurements2b(2b) virtually situate a model standing in the place of the noumenon2a(2b).

Consequently, an irreconcilable distinction between particle and wave2b  constitutes an opportunity1c that supports the divinity of the big Relativist One of the Physics of the Quantum Universe3c.

Fortunately, all hell broke loose before Dr. Jones finished his address.

0342 The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment.  Here the little and the big normal contexts align, but the little cannot replace the big.  Nonetheless, the same term is used for both perspective-level normal contexts, even though the two normal contexts differ.  Both are Relativist Ones.

0343 The logics of secondness are those of contradiction and non-contradiction.  If the two actualities of {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}2c(2b)  and psychometric valuation2b do not contradict, then I can regard one as an example of the other… or maybe… the little one pays tribute to the big one.

0344 The logics of firstness are inclusion.  Firstness allows contradictions.  Here, the same principle noted above applies.  A synthetic truth1c(2b) supporting a situation-level little Relativist one3c(2b) offers opportunity1c for a perspective-level big Relativist one3c.

In Zizek’s book, a synthetic truth1c(2b) undergirds an intellectual configuration of the dyad, {capital, acquisition [wealth and power] social, exercise of order}2c(2b) for Zizek’s little Relativist One3c(2b).  Zizek’s psychometric valuation2b may contextualized as a possible opportunity1c by a post-truth big Relativist One3c.

Surely, opportunity1c is potentiated by the little Relativist one3c(2b).

But, what opportunity1c is potentiated by Christ3c(2b)?

Oh, I must not forget, Zizek calls for psychoanalysis.

So, Christ3c(2b) must be an intervention.

0345 The perspective-level nested form in Zizek’s configuration neatly fits into the slot for psychometric valuations2bon the situation-level of the post-truth interscope.

Does this explain why the names of post-truth levels should be totally juiced up?

0346 Okay, the entire interscope for Zizek’s configuration resides in the slot for psychometric valuations2b for the post-truth interscope.

This remarkable finding adds value to Zizek’s argument.

Zizek’s Christian atheism is designed to challenge current psychometric valuations2b arising from the potential of ‘a postmodern formalization of knowledge’1b within the normal context of a stylistic union of capitalist and socialist expertise3b.

Christian atheism3c(2b) can substitute for the little Relativist One3c(2b).

But, what about the union between the big Relativist One3c and the little Relativist One3c(2b)?

Would some say… “the unholy union”?

0347 See Razie Mah’s blog for February 11, 2023 for that one.

This blog serves as the first exercise for exploring the utility these arguments.

First, associate features of the music video to elements in Zizek’s configuration.

My hint is that the dyad, {money and political influence [pays for] the Body Shop} associates to the imaginary actuality, {raw materials [construct] specified product}2a(2b).

The rest is left to the exercise.

Second, place the first step into the slot for psychometric valuations2b in order to explain why this music video is produced and advertised by American corporate media.

0348 Do the producers and promulgators of this video want to influence what the white woman has to say?

Write your essay and send to raziemah@reagan.com with written permission for publication on Razie Mah’s blog.

0349 This first exercise reveals the comedy of locating Zizek’s configuration in the slot for psychometric valuations in the post-truth condition.  It also reveals the tragedy.

Consider the tragic photon.

In order to reveal itself as either a wave or a particle, it must be annihilated.

Is that too high a price to pay?

I guess not, because a photon is neither living nor dead.

0350 Take a look at the preceding interscope.

On the obscene level, no-one cares what the photon thinks, because it is doomed to annihilation in the process of determining whether it “says” that it is a particle or a wave.  How obscene is that?

On the undead level, experts in physics3b operate the apparatus3b(2b) that converts what the photon says2a into measurements2b(2b), that support an orderly model2c(2b).  The model2c(2b) asserts that the photon will say, “I am a particle composed of superimposed states and waves”2a(2b)“.  In other words, the measured photon2b(2b) says what the experts3b predict that it will say.

0351 Does this demonstrate the potential of ‘formalized knowledge’1b?

Formalized knowledge1b makes the annihilation of the subject2b(2b) possible.

The subject2a(2b)‘s content-level autonomy converts into a situation-level measurement2b(2b) that supports a model2c(2b)that offers an opportunity1c for an empirio-normative judgment2c to stand for what people think and say2a concerning the soon-to-be annihilated subject2a(2b).

0352 On the sacred level, the One Physicist2c formulates a judgment2b weighing the intelligibility of what the experts report2b and the universality of what photons are telling the experts2a.  This judgment reveals to human reason3a(1a)that it1b does not matter what photons think2a.

Isn’t that obscene?

Indeed, reason3a(1a), defined as “the intellect3a operating on the will1a“, is obscene.

Where the hell is truth1a?

0353 Isn’t that what Zizek is interested in?

Isn’t that what Christian atheism is supposed to deliver?

0354 So concludes my independent approach to what Zizek argues for.

I end with a note on nomenclature.

Lacan is very clever in his terminology.  

So is Zizek.

In the following picture on nomenclature, Lacan’s column applies to the entire interscope of Zizek’s configuration and Zizek’s “juiced up” column applies to the entire post-truth interscope.

Perhaps, these columns intimate future directions of inquiry during these crazy times, belonging to the Fourth Battle of the Enlightenment Gods.

0355 I thank Slavoj Zizek for a book that is worthy of examination.