Unknown knowns

"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know that we don't know."

The thing missing there is unknown knowns. The things that we don't know that we know. They make up the largest part of our collective knowledge, by a long way.

Discuss.

fuck is an unknown unknown

http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~bhargav/images/heller.gif

As someone who works in MI, the unknown knows are really fucking up my life right now.

All these things that someone in the company knows should be done, and expects to be done, but somehow that information never makes it to the the people who should be doing them.

I keep waiting for more of these things to come crawling out like big horrible crunchy cockroaches every time I open another email.

This is also a Slavoj Žižek.

Thread

i like his shoes

1. The defense of the category of the subject involves first a vindication of the notion of subjectivity for an adequate descriptive political theory. Žižek argues that hegemonic regimes function by interpellating individuals into social roles and mandates within a given polity: we cannot understand how power functions without some account of the psychology of political subjects. Secondly, there is the vindication of the "category of the subject". Following Lacan, Žižek contends that subjectivity corresponds to a lack (manque) that always resists full inscription into the mandates prescribed to individuals by hegemonic regimes.
2. In his deployment of the category of "ideology", Žižek finds the notions of ideology in Marx "The German Ideology" - which center on the notion of "false consciousness" - to be irrelevant in a period of unprecedented subjective reflexivity and cynicism as to the motives and workings of those in authority (see The Sublime Object of Ideology). It can be argued however that Žižek's most original aspect comes from its insistence that a Lacanian model of the barred or split subject, because of its stipulation that individuals' deepest motives are unconscious, can be used to demonstrate that ideology has less become irrelevant today than revealed its deeper truth (see Matthew Sharpe, Slavoj Žižek.)
3. In a contentious extension of the referential scope of ideology, Žižek maintains that dominant ideologies wholly structure the subject's senses of reality. Yet, The Real is not equivalent to the reality experienced by the subjects as a meaningfully ordered totality. To him, the Real names points within the ontological fabric knitted by the hegemonic systems of representation and reproduction that nevertheless resist full inscription into its terms, and which may as such attempt to generate sites of active political resistance.

and yes, his shoes do look confy.

At any rate, I think his theories explain what just happened in America pretty cleanly, but not the same way the dominant political theories explain it, and a million miles from what CNN is talking about. God, CNN needs to go away entirely.

Zizek is a complete mystifying fraud, juggling concepts to dazzle the intellectually inexperienced.

What I find interesting in this process of self-knowledge is how comfortable most people are with 1)ignorance 2)hypocrisy and 3)thinking biases. That is, cognitive dissonances of some kind or other rule over 90% of humankind.

Only 90%?

Only 90%?

― Aimless, Wednesday, November 5, 2008 9:39 PM (4 minutes ago)

On second thought, I think you do have a point Aimless.

This is also a Slavoj Žižek.

― For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. (kenan), Wednesday, November 5, 2008 8:18 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

fuckin <3 <3 this guy

Zizek is a complete mystifying fraud, juggling concepts to dazzle the intellectually inexperienced.

― Vision, Wednesday, November 5, 2008 9:27 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark

And you, sir, never cease to amuse me.

Is Vision the one six-billionth of the world population who does not experience cognitive dissonance?

Yes nabisco. I face both knowledge and doubt realistically, and I deal with intellectual discomfort openly, with no disguises, no pretenses and no excuses.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2195149174_42d3f23b13_o.png

I deal my own deck. Sometimes the ace, sometimes the deuces.

Zizek is a complete mystifying fraud, juggling concepts to dazzle the intellectually inexperienced.

"Fraud" is a word, like so many in English, that either means what it means, or not. Its meaning is not dependent on whether or not one is dazzled. Do you feel that Zizek is intentionally misrepresenting himself for personal profit or to damage others?

kenan, yes, precisely. I think he dabbles in half-baked ideas with enough vagueness so that people with incomplete educations, particularly people with a faulty philosophical background, are intimidated and mislead.

He intentionally misguides his readers. He misunderstands and misquotes. He appeals to contrarian/populist instincts. His leftist harangues are in full contradiction with his lifestyle. His writing is pretentious, convoluted; his concepts are amateurishly defined. In short, he's a toxic author.

Good lord, I just seriously no-joking hurt my right eyeball while rolling my eyes at Vision's posts

One of the leading internet injuries, right there.

his concepts are amateurishly defined. In short, he's a toxic author.
his concepts are amateurishly defined. In short, he's a toxic author.
his concepts are amateurishly defined. In short, he's a toxic author.
his concepts are amateurishly defined. In short, he's a toxic author.
his concepts are amateurishly defined. In short, he's a toxic author.

Sure nabisco. Didn't you lolz as well? Because that's precisely how people with no counterarguments react on the net.

Be honest: you do not have a reply for any of the arguments above, and you are trying to somehow reconcile yourself with this fact in order to minimize your own intellectual unease.

You'll beat around the bush, you'll evade the discussion, but you do not know how to respond to the accusations leveled against Comrade Zizek. And that's in part what I was talking about: he's a malicious author that numbs and slowly destroys the argumentative skills of his naive readers.

He should post here then.

Umm actually I was lolling more at your willingness to agree to being the only human on earth who is specially enlightened, which you have to admit is pretty hilarious.

Also you're right that I don't know much of anything about Zizek. You're still really funny, though!

Thank you nabisco, I'm teh FUNNEH. As a token of appreciation for the fact that you do recognize you don't know Zizek very well (consider yourself lucky), I refer you to the brief wikipedian entry with critiques of SZ, although it is way too brief and not harsh enough. It's a starting point.

Zizek is hilarious, often insightful. he doesn't have to be right to be worth reading.

would pay much cash money to sit in on a long afternoon cocktail session between donald rumsfeld and slavoj zizek, btw

you give street wear a bad name

Vision you are genuinely a treat, and I do not say that at all sarcastically. But I honestly can't tell if you realize I've been making fun of your tone here, and not the fact that you don't like Zizek. (Who, to be honest, I feel no pressing need to sit down and learn more about at the moment.)

OK, if this is a Zizek thread, his wedding photo needs to be posted:

http://www.higher-yearning.org/uploaded_images/zizek_wed-784030.jpg

Like basically my main contention on this thread is that anyone who would post this in a way that's not clearly kidding --

I face both knowledge and doubt realistically, and I deal with intellectual discomfort openly, with no disguises, no pretenses and no excuses.

-- is operating in a rhetorical register from which it is really, really amusing to start going on about how Zizek is pretentious.

I thought Vision was a sockpuppet, like Kevin Kellor and burt_stanton? Still fun though.

nabisco, I do realize, but you know something? Even that (haha, we're just joking around here) can be a distraction. We deal with it, but I also try to go back to the thing in itself, so to speak. Zizek is pretentious because he's a populist namedropper with ill-defined concepts. I'm simply realistic. The ground on which knowledge is built is common sense + realism; SZ lacks both.

Ah, sockpuppet, I thought nobody would come up with it. That's another tool for internet tools: try to pretend anyone who disagrees with you is not real or not for real, that is, he's just a figment, or just joking, or anything at all as long as people can save themselves the expense of coming up with a solid argument. It's basically a reaction for those who still can't argue and still can't cope with real life.

are you really doing this again

that thing

you do

where you randomly spout nebulous opinions and then harrass people for not backing up all of their arguments with footnotes?

btw Vision, adjectives =/= arguments.

Also, Žižek is hot.

Hahaha, I've just left a little message to my favourite pal I know right on ILM, and who is here when I come back? I know right! At least your login name is suitable for this discussion. But you know, I know right, there's one thing you must understand: people do disagree in real life, and people must be held accountable for the opinions they express. It's as simple as that. ILE is chock-full of inane excelsior/Obama/looks threads, why not have some a little less chummy as well? Debating is a source of knowledge, whereas mutual grooming is mostly just primate socializing. Both are necessary.

I honestly hope that people on the internet who are not very bright never stop using the argument, "That's how people ARE on the internet, and it's no FAIR," because it's such a useful red flag.

No, see there, once again, that has nothing to do with what I said whatsoever.

xp

Debating is a source of knowledge

you cannot possibly really believe this

oh my fuck, this is CALUM, isn't it?

kenan, you do not believe debating is a source of knowledge? Please tell me I didn't understand you or you didn't mean what you just said.

It wouldn't be the first time!

If you think debating is a source of anything other than debating, you have never debated anyone.

Also, God, shut up, Calum. I can smell your shit. Leave us alone. This was supposed to be a real thread. Well, more real than this.

moderator, delete thread. And someone kill me quickly.

I know, I know....

If you feel your spouse is distant or resents something, what do you do? You have a conversation where your different POVs are expressed. That is, you debate.

In other words:

-If you want to choose a President, you turn on the TV and watch them
( ) mud-wrestle
( ) play a contest of Dance Dance Revolution
( ) debate

-Philosophy became a serious discipline for the acquisition of knowledge since the Greeks started engaging in public...:
( ) ritual shavings
( ) burping contests
( ) debate

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

GOD YOU ARE SO FUCKING DENSE

"I face both knowledge and doubt realistically, and I deal with intellectual discomfort openly, with no disguises, no pretenses and no excuses."

Are you using this in context of Zizek's lecture "ecology: a new opium for the masses?" I just heard it a moment ago, having completely forgotten about this thread.

hi to whoever on 77 hatched Vision