One way to support this work is a one-time tip through the "Super ThankYou" option above. You can also be an ongoing supporter on Patreon where I provide transcripts for videos.
Thank you very much for crystal clear contextualised content forming critical subject matters of hardened facts and softened bone chilling truth's about how political economy of hidden historical forces rule over codified reality reflective underlying echelons of core corrupt criminal society.
So instead of Buddhist attempt at ending of desire, it's an almost absurdist strategy to send desire in strange and new directions that aren't in alignment with capitalism?
Thank you Brian, it’s really inspiring. Can I ask a question cuz I am a little confused about the ‘capitalism appropriate Oedipus’ part. My understanding is, the lack lacan refers to, is the lack of Other instead of a sense of scarcity that can be confirmed by feeling it intuitively. So Oedipus doesn’t really guarantee capitalism the authority it wants as it wants people to believe, what things they need to buy for expression of desire. And Capitalism can’t really produce object a (like, gaze) but only exploit or take advantage of it by selling its side-line productions (to sell eyeliners or invest actresses with beautiful eyes), so these ‘metonymic’ choices it can offer are different from metonymic substitutes that always contain an appealing to the Other in the symbolic sense. The latter doesn’t guarantee a money-costing substitute, which is a situation capitalism doesn’t want to see, so it has to repeat slogans like diamond is women’s best friend instead of just letting desire flow freely. And it is ego psychology that we see as popular in the market, as it helps capitalism to list a manu of services it can provide by claiming it can strengthen the ego (I think capitalism like the idea of the self-contained ego, as it can never be fully restored so people have to pay more and more to have the illusion of getting near to it), not Lacanian psychoanalysis…Idk if it is right for me to say this way.
You call "Oedipus" a notion and refer to "the notion of Oedipus" as having this broad, transformative power within society, in its ability to induce psychosocial changes that make subjects amenable to capitalism. Maybe this question would be answered by my reading the actual text, but what IS the actual identity of this "Oedipus"? I assume it's not the mythological story itself as represented in material culture that is instatiating these psychological shifts. That's far too narrow an aperture for this transformation to enter into the collective unconscious. Is it the narrative conjured by psychoanalysts to explain human psychosexual development that is subsequently disseminated throughout capitalist society? Slightly more plausible, I guess, but are we really to believe that a niche academic theory developed during the turn of the 20th century is responsible, even indirectly, for the mass reframing of desire as "lack"? Or is "Oedipus" a metaphor? If so, what is it a metaphor for? I guess I'm asking what the actual material instantiation of this "notion of Oedipus" is that allows it to perform this function in society? Like, is it psychoanalysts that are doing this? That can't be what Deleuze and Guattari mean. Psychoanalysts don't have that kind of power, to shape the capitalist subject so profoundly and universally. I am probably missing something. I don't have any kind of background in this stuff
I'm thinking it's a critique of Freud's explanation for social drives in which he used the story of Oedipus as a metaphor for a specific social drive/unconscious drive. When psychologists/theorists come up with theories those theories can become somewhat self-fulfilling prophecies.
One way to support this work is a one-time tip through the "Super ThankYou" option above.
You can also be an ongoing supporter on Patreon where I provide transcripts for videos.
Thank you very much for crystal clear contextualised content forming critical subject matters of hardened facts and softened bone chilling truth's about how political economy of hidden historical forces rule over codified reality reflective underlying echelons of core corrupt criminal society.
These three videos are real gems. You are a vital node, a decoding machine?
Thank you! Glad they've been useful. Some accuse me of being an overcoding despotic machine ;)
So instead of Buddhist attempt at ending of desire, it's an almost absurdist strategy to send desire in strange and new directions that aren't in alignment with capitalism?
Thanks for these videos, very helpful!!
Thank you Brian, it’s really inspiring. Can I ask a question cuz I am a little confused about the ‘capitalism appropriate Oedipus’ part. My understanding is, the lack lacan refers to, is the lack of Other instead of a sense of scarcity that can be confirmed by feeling it intuitively. So Oedipus doesn’t really guarantee capitalism the authority it wants as it wants people to believe, what things they need to buy for expression of desire. And Capitalism can’t really produce object a (like, gaze) but only exploit or take advantage of it by selling its side-line productions (to sell eyeliners or invest actresses with beautiful eyes), so these ‘metonymic’ choices it can offer are different from metonymic substitutes that always contain an appealing to the Other in the symbolic sense. The latter doesn’t guarantee a money-costing substitute, which is a situation capitalism doesn’t want to see, so it has to repeat slogans like diamond is women’s best friend instead of just letting desire flow freely. And it is ego psychology that we see as popular in the market, as it helps capitalism to list a manu of services it can provide by claiming it can strengthen the ego (I think capitalism like the idea of the self-contained ego, as it can never be fully restored so people have to pay more and more to have the illusion of getting near to it), not Lacanian psychoanalysis…Idk if it is right for me to say this way.
is the machine more related to the way in which communities organise themselves? and the BwO more ontological?
Very good work!
nice video, very informative
Thanks
What is the painting at 12:55?
Ulf Rahmberg - Anatomy of Capitalism. Painting No.21
gold
You call "Oedipus" a notion and refer to "the notion of Oedipus" as having this broad, transformative power within society, in its ability to induce psychosocial changes that make subjects amenable to capitalism.
Maybe this question would be answered by my reading the actual text, but what IS the actual identity of this "Oedipus"? I assume it's not the mythological story itself as represented in material culture that is instatiating these psychological shifts. That's far too narrow an aperture for this transformation to enter into the collective unconscious. Is it the narrative conjured by psychoanalysts to explain human psychosexual development that is subsequently disseminated throughout capitalist society? Slightly more plausible, I guess, but are we really to believe that a niche academic theory developed during the turn of the 20th century is responsible, even indirectly, for the mass reframing of desire as "lack"?
Or is "Oedipus" a metaphor? If so, what is it a metaphor for?
I guess I'm asking what the actual material instantiation of this "notion of Oedipus" is that allows it to perform this function in society? Like, is it psychoanalysts that are doing this? That can't be what Deleuze and Guattari mean. Psychoanalysts don't have that kind of power, to shape the capitalist subject so profoundly and universally.
I am probably missing something. I don't have any kind of background in this stuff
I'm thinking it's a critique of Freud's explanation for social drives in which he used the story of Oedipus as a metaphor for a specific social drive/unconscious drive. When psychologists/theorists come up with theories those theories can become somewhat self-fulfilling prophecies.