Why is it so hard to title something: 'Killings inspired by Batman Movie'

My apologies for the long departure, I had been assimilated into the herd and have only now, after many months been able to draw my self away from the ponies.

I'm going to take the time here to very quickly make a post about something very obvious that doesn't seem to be spoken about regarding the Dark Knight Rising shootings in Denver. As with many such cases, (such as the Anders Behring Breivik shootings) the media is always very quick to allege that the perpetrators are simply insane and extremely slow to draw any connections between the shootings and any social causes for such occurrences.

What is interesting in these shootings however, is that the connections between the shootings and the movie are so blantantly clear that any attempt to write about the event without mention this connection is absurd, almost to the point of hilarity.

Take this quote from a National Post article about the even for example:

"It also wasn’t known why the suspect chose a movie theatre to stage the assault, or whether he intended some twisted, symbolic link to the film’s violent scenes."

I mean how can anyone take this seriously? An extremely intelligent and educated young man walks into a cinema, with make shift body armour, armed to the teeth and died red clown-like hair, murders his victims in the cinema where the Batman movie itself is showing and even mutters to the policeman who catch him afterwards that he's the joker.

And we're still being told that it wasn't known whether he intended some connection to the movie?

The fact that the killings are so clearly inspired by Nolan's movies makes any attempt to write an article about the whole event downright absurd.

The question that seriously needs to be asked here, even more so than the shootings themselves, is why it is so difficult for the media to mention, rather uncontroversially, that the shootings were inspired by the movies?

Brony Fever

Dear God Save me - I have succumbed to the Brony hordes.

Jung, Aufhebung and a Deeper Analysis of the Dialectic

Give that the Sublime Object of Ideology has a lot to do with the relationship between Idealism and Psychoanalysis, I sent upon myself to watch a talk by Zizek about the subject. As you can imagine he covers incredibly dense philosophical notions and I wanted to note some of the things I was able to get my head around.

Zizek talks about the Jungian compensation theory about the elevation of the unconscious into the substantial truth of the human subject.

The theory stipulates that when the Ego is faced with the things that don't fit it's self image - They are thus recognized as brutal foreign intrusions. Jung argues that instead of pushing or eliminating these 'intrusions' away, the objective should be to integrate them into a wide sense of self which transcends the narrow confines of the Ego.

In these unconscious foreign intrusions, you are faced by the message of your disavowed self (or the parts of yourself you do not accept) and the point is to reconcile yourself with this disavowed self.

Zizek rejects this theory however as he believes essentially, that not all selves are equal in their contexts, and thus there is no balance between two opposing selves that identify 'foreign intrusions' in each other. Rather, one self can be seen as a reaction to the other.

Zizek claims, that according to Hegel's dialectics, only one side is the one that brings transformation and it should be stubborn enough to bring itself to completion. He claims that it is not a matter of having one side and then the other side, and we need a broader perspective to bring them together through synthesis - He claims that for Hegel it is not about re-establishing the symmetry and balance of the two opposing principles, but to recognize in one pole, the symptom or the failure of the other.

Zizek puts this in the context of individualist capitalism and fundamentalism - The point is to recognize through fundamentalism the failure of capitalism. (Not as the Jungian compensation theory hold, that there is a current equilibrium between the poles of fundamentalism and capitalism and as both recognize in the other the 'foreign intrusions' that they must reconcile and reach a more enlightened equilibrium if you like).

He claims that the ultimate point of Hegel is to ensure that a universality needs to revolutionize itself so that it no longer requires it's opposite pole in order to sustain itself.

He claims that the entire model of fighting the extreme to find the balance is false. The essential feature of Aufhebung is that it is a cycle through which the cycle itself achieves change - not one in which the cycle of sublation stagnates. Zizek argues, that only the opposite (fundamentalism) will allow for the space to open up for real change (in individualist capitalism).

Below is the video for further reference.

Anticipating Change

In two weeks time I would like to implement some changes to my life - mainly concerning my daily routine.

I would like to include stringent measured exercise, study time and eating habits. I must find a way to battle my age old nemesis - laziness.

Longing for Immersion

I long to get back into Eve Online and lose my self in the back drop of stars, nebula and empty space. But it just feels like any attempt to return to the game will be a huge investment of time and effort. I realize that I'll never be able to capture those initial few months I spent learning the game again.

German Idealism and Psychoanalysis with Slavoj Zizek

This is an excellent video where Zizek addresses the relationship between idealism and psychoanalysis. I'm confident it will give me an insight into Zizek's the sublime object of Ideology. I might be worthwhile starting a new post where I analyze the below video in further depth and determine its relation to the book.

Spazistas

I was thinking about starting up a social group that championed rights and challenged stereotypes for the disabled by making an absolute mockery of them.
 
It would involve randomly walking up to people and acting like a borderline mentally disabled person. Members would measure how long it took for the actor to be rejected and each member would have their own unique mentally disabled acting style.

The group would meet regularly for a person to person or person to group session to develop their mentally disabled character with other members.

Then there would be sessions organized to go out as a group and have individuals approach random people with their character.

I think it would a very helpful exercise to overcome social anxiety while at the same time defeating negative stereotypes around mentally disabled people.