Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang
A recent youtube video interviewed Slavoj Zizek about the infamous debate with Noam Chomsky as the contending “alpha male” leaders of the political Left as philosophy. This is, of course, a rehash of Communism versus anarchism as political philosophies of the Left yet as a debate it hinges on what Noam Chomsky has called fanaticism and Slavoj Zizek has called “radical evil” – both being required to achieve to true Freedom as Revolution of human consciousness. This debate is ironic for me since when I was in high school and early college – my undergraduate years of University – then my best friend (James T. Hong) who had double majored in math and philosophy – he told me to first read Noam Chomsky (just out of high school) and then to read Slavoj Zizek.
So then I devoted two years of my life to reading Slavoj Zizek and another two years of my life to reading just Noam Chomsky. And in 1996 then I received a postcard reply from Slavoj Zizek (whom my friend had studied with personally at University of Minnesota) – that “After a quick glance it looks very interesting and I will read it and get back to you.” And so his 1997 book, “Plague of Fantasies” was his “strawman argument” response to my critique of him from my perspective of noncommutative phase music power – what I called the “Fundamental Force” as the title of my monograph in 1996. I did not use the term “noncommutative phase” logic since I was not aware yet of Fields Medal Alain Connes music theory analysis as noncommutative phase logic.
So I was trying to convey a concept without knowing the Western modern term for the concept and yet this concept is also embodied by ancient nonwestern cultures as qigong paranormal training (that I had started or encountered in 1995). So Zizek dismissed this as New Age Hokum and my Ecofeminist perspective as being naive, etc. But both Zizek and Chomsky defer to music as their source of a potential solution to the quagmires of Western logical paradoxes of freedom and consciousness. So then Chomsky responded to me that he wished he had time to study noncommutative phase music.
I had repeated my engagement and critique of Zizek and Chomsky in my master’s thesis on radical ecology and music theory as “sound-current nondualism” (University of Minnesota, 2000). This Master’s Thesis is called “Epicenters of Justice” but again I did not know of the concept of noncommutative phase – so I did make the New Age error of equating the Taiji with symmetric logistic Western math equations.
So the irony being that modern Western science has tried to convert time into a symmetric spatial measurement and so when Noam Chomsky says he does not have the “time” to study noncommutative phase logic of music theory math – then he is confessing his allegiance and lifelong commitment to this Western paradigm or framework that math professor Luigi Borzacchini called a “deep pre-established disharmony.” Slavoj Zizek similarly defers to quantum mechanics as the best engagement with the “real” or Emptiness as the existential truth of reality vis a vis science but since Zizek is a social scientist then he himself has not be radical enough in terms of fanatically studying quantum mechanics.
So I personally also focused on studying quantum mechanics for a couple years – after I took quantum mechanics from Professor Herbert J. Bernstein at Hampshire College. My professor had emphasized that everyone should take quantum mechanics as their FIRST physics course since quantum mechanics is the foundation of reality now in terms of science. So I myself took quantum mechanics as my first physics course in my first year of college and I did NOT take high school physics since I already secretly knew that the logarithmic symmetric math of the Pythagorean Theorem was derived from the wrong music theory. So I had tested at 98% for biology and 96% for social science and 92% for math at the end of high school through the ACT exam but then I chose to study at Hampshire College that had no grades, instead relying on the English model of “tutors” or personal critiques by direct meetings with Professors.
Source
Zizek Radical Evil = Fanatical Chomsky Noncommutative Phase Yuan Qi Natural Resonance Real Emptiness
Zizek claims that he considers quantum mechanics to be a new norm of modern science engaging with the "real" vis a vis common sense yet Zizek himself simply relies on the "shut up and calculate" model of QM – he hasn't really studied QM in detail. Noam Chomsky in contrast has been collaborating a bit with Nobel physicist Sir Roger Penrose's model of consciousness with Dr. Stuart Hameroff. This model relies on noncommutative phase logic. I asked Chomsky about this via music theory because Chomsky now considers music as a possible origin of human thinking and language. This music model is from Hameroff and Penrose as noncommutative phase. Zizek has no idea what this means. I sent Zizek my 1996 monograph that critiqued him. I spent two years studying Zizek and another two years studying Chomsky. Zizek sent me a postcard stating, "after a quick glance it looks very interesting – I will read it and get back to you." He never got back to me except that his 1997 book, "Plague of Fantasies" was his direct reply to the specific critiques I had made of Zizek – only he presented them as a strawman argument. So for example Zizek's reference to Plato's Chora or to the Shofar of the Jews – again if Zizek really studied noncommutative phase music logic then he would realize that he has been wrong. So I recommend for example Field Medal math professor Alain Connes lecture on music – just look it up on youtube. I don't post youtube links anymore as they easily get censored. haha.
By the way I have also corresponded with Chomsky and I quoted and referenced Chomsky for my own activism to get the Workers Rights Consortium established at the U of MN. I also predicted the US would invade Iraq again and it was genocidal – in 1998 – and this completely relied on Chomsky's analysis. As Chomsky replied to me (and yes I saved this and have reposted this) – people routinely read his interview books but rarely read his lengthier more intense or as it was stated, "turgid" books.
So yeah I enjoyed studying both Zizek and Chomsky but I consider both to be lacking. Yet in the end I would have to choose Chomsky over Zizek. Oh yeah Chomsky told me he doesn't have "time" to investigate noncommutative music as the origin of human thinking – and that makes sense. He has focused on concrete activism over theory about social philosophy, etc.
Also I would say that anthropology professor Chris Knight's critique of Chomsky is also lacking. Why? Because despite the excellent research Chris Knight has done they still need to take our original human culture more seriously! I have compiled a list of books on the San Bushmen – but just go to Brad Keeney's youtube channel for interviews with the spiritual healers of our original human culture. Independent thinkers should not limit their analysis just to Western science as if because it has not been "proven" yet therefore it does not exist.
The "left" seems to want some kind of Daddy figure whether it's Zizek or Chomsky. My high school buddy told me to read both of them – and I'm glad I did – but it is also possible to go beyond as well. thanks.
For example Chomsky says we have probably a couple decades to fix the ecological crisis and we have the technology to do so. But if you really study the science of the ecological crisis – then the evidence says otherwise. And here I recommend the blog "arctic news blogspot" or the arctic sea ice forum. We're looking at an "ice free" scenario by 2026 and that will add another 1 trillion ton equivalent and the methane is spiking already out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Jim Massa, an oceanography out of Alaska – has a science youtube channel – and he does a great job. But he admits he has not studied Aerosol Masking – which again has prevented warming. So that means if we reduce sulfur pollution from coal by 80% that will warm the planet by another 2 degree Celsius. So the ecological crisis is much worse than either Chomsky nor Zizek are willing to consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne3uZSQmXzc