A Tour of Lacan's Graph of Desire
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- A tour of Jacques Lacan's famous 'Graph of Desire', as elaborated in 'The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire' in his Écrits. We check in at each of its points, explain what all the algebra means, and go through the concepts behind it. Plenty of real-life examples to help explain.
Contact me for psychoanalytic psychotherapy - www.lacanonlin...
For more exploring psychoanalysis through the work of Jacques Lacan - www.LacanOnline...
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[1/2] แก๊ง 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้บุก CAMPปลิ้นครั้งนี้ห้ามเสียอาการ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6WUjXHe1TM/mqdefault.jpg)
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
Where on earth am I going to find real life friends to talk about this kinda thing with? Or has the ego ideal image of the friend imagined as the subject of the other created an anxiety that causes me to have no friends anyway?
You talk in jokes, to discuss it while avoiding the pain it causes the various egos ;).
@@melanieenmats like zizek?
Lol I feel you
Let's talk about it then instead of cuddling our big intellectual balls :D
You know, what I dislike about Lacan and Žižek is that both of them became just bitter cynics and decided to frustrate other people instead of helping them arrive to the same conclusion. This isn't something that's impossible to understand :)
What I like about all of this is the potential to not take oneself too seriously and to play with this fucking graph from within. When we understand why we think, feel want to do things, and we want conflicting things all the time, we can tweak that to achieve the best possible outcome for ourselves and others (through the manipulaition of signifiers). Is it ethical and moral? Why ask that question?
look here
“You are fucked by the symbolic, and you can't unfuck. ”
Gold.
Hello, this is LacanoPedia, a Greek-speaking channel for Lacan's teaching. Congratulations for your video! Your work is of high quality!
i've watched this video at least 20 times and i'm still learning new things. what a great video.
On enunciation , I’ve often found that having depression restricts me from identifying with my own thoughts,i.e, I could speak but not feel it is an “I” who is doing the speaking. The thoughts are floating in a way that’s external to my identification- it’s weird. But Lacanian theory captures this quite well. With depression, I wonder what becomes of the signifying chain ? Obviously there still is a semantic value to all I say, but this observation of never really feeling an “I” in what I say has always baffled me. In writing, I never feel it but in speech- I always do; some have even told me I speak between my teeth.
Thanks for putting this into words.
This took me around ten days to go through, stopping the video every sentence or so. It's a very good overview of the graphs, well done.
@Thomas Miller The title is interesting for sure. Unfortunately my French is just slightly better than my German. I will try anyway. Thanks for the tip!
Well I spent 20 years and still have no clue. U r awesome
@Thomas Miller The channel you suggested is really interesting, thanks again.
_yes! such Lacan!_
@No One There's also an actual connection. They do not represent the same thing but they're closely related.
I have no idea what this guy is talking about.
formula A (pre-monothesistic matriarchal tribes ) : 90% : 10 % children spending time with their peers verses their elders.) formula 2: (monotheistic patriarchal civilizations) 10% (peers) : 90% (elders, parents) ...in other words, in my thinking, too much adult-child interaction IS the perversion itself...children running like packs of dogs is the best situation, as in this situation children develop naturally (sexually, socially) without toxic adult projections of their own repression-programming (instilled via religious dogma)...the nuclear family is the nuclear bomb of human consciousness. the holy trinity (father son holy "spirit" --invisible mother) is the "conditioning" of the hardy tribe into the anorexic nuclear family.
Now lets locate the subject of enunciation.
Among us
Your understanding is evidently greater than that of almost anyone else on this matter. You are doing humanity a service, thank you so much. ♥️
Stunning work, thank you. Would happily pay a subscription for more frequent, longer length videos such as this.
It wouldn't be Lacan if we didn't have a painstaking discussion regarding whether a graph about desire can be called a graph of desire or not.
That literally made me burst out laughing. Not even 5 minutes in and we already started with the pulling the rug from under you bullshit
Not many folks mention the “Träg-” part of Nachträglichkeit.
Afterwardness, sure. But “träge” also has to with being sluggish and inert.
I propose: after-inertness.
Aside from that, it also emphasizes the point du capitonage-ness - the fixed quality of it.
Jouissance: For example: washing your hands may be a healthy thing to do, but when you cannot consciously control it, and you begin to organize your life around it, even though you do not control it, and rules you to the point of suffering immensely for it. That circuit, that constant unable to stop iteration of something pleasurable repeatedly recursively to the point of painful, and existential dread that is known as jouissance. That is what analysts have to deal with. It could also be with trying to fix your pants (see my Asansi lectures here: audiomack.com/song/ivan-gil-munoz/lacan-for-beginners-asansi-lecture-section-one-part-iiwav), or, even reading: you cannot anymore, but you continue to try to do it even though you may have migraines, etc. Even though you may not be learning as much etc.
Amazing work! Please don't stop! This is really inspiring me to get into Lacanian psychoanalysis. We have very limited resources and people who can explain to him in simple terms.
Lacan’s Graph of Desire and Metal Mickey have never been seen in the same room as each other.
Pahahahaa! Brilliant
Whenever I read psychoanalysis I ask myself "Weren't they aware this applies to themselves as well?"
Because the undertone of all of his research shows me how much of a MAN Lacan was. Everyone thinks of Ben Shapiro when they think of "Facts don't care about your feelings" but I think Lacan was waaaay better at making this message clear :D
What about men who beat around the bush? Now when we know through genetics, and history that "cisheteronormative" (cisgender + heterosexual + monogamous) is just a ritualized form of copulation between humans.
is it a coincidence the graph of desire is shaped like a uterus?
Lacan says there is no such thing as coincidence.
@@melanieenmats Lacan unconsciously shaped it like this cause he had poon on the mind
looks more like a lobster... or a horseshoe
@@PeterZeeke I think it is a secret map that leads to the clitoris.
He is a physician, and modelled it around a geometric shape of the organ where the life begins. Well noticed.
Brilliant Owen. Thanks so much for making this accessible. I'm much clearer on the graph than I ever was before. Would love to see more videos. May I suggest Lacan's optical model?
Careful of those english translations, in French 'the subject' doesn't necessarily refer to a person. Due to french having gendered nouns, the masculine article "il" also means "it" as well as "he". In fact, I doubt if "subject" ever refers to a person in Lacan, as the Miller-inspired philosophers would have us believe...
Could you please explain that last statement? I get that not every 'subject' is 'necessarily' a person, but isn't every person a (barred) subject? Or are you referring to some kind of Althusserian ideological process by which the person has to be interpellated AS subject?
I didn't know your channel but now I do. A letter always reaches its destination. *blows airhorn*
That's a quite weird state machine
This makes no god damn sense
An extraordinary account of Lacan's graph, at once enlightening and evocative. Bravo!
Now I can just give people this video when people ask about my Graph of Desire tattoo! Thanks! This is a great review!
Cant wait to bump into you at a bar...good grief
Are you trying to impersonate Brian Griffin? Jesus Christ
43:06min If the object of analysis, and his main contribution is object-a, or the minus-phi, then the object of analysis is also the subject depending on the dialectical rotation from which you are studying it. As in Hegel, and Kant paradoxical identity between universal, and particular, J.A. MIller being (zero, subject) is desire ("x" logical shape of unsconsious desire, or, point of identification [foundational]) unary trait. See Baily, Lionel, and the Sailor signifier in his Lacan book by oxford press "one world" series), or, Eidezstein´s "Otro Lacan" Zero is one.
I was hoping for more discussion about the topic but most of what I see are thank yous and good jobs and a lot of generic gratitude.
This is how it should be done ! About 10000 x more rigor than, say, Plastic Pills
Interested to find out what lacan ideas were and im engineer 😑😅
so this is complicated as hell to me, thanks alot by the way 👍
I studied this for 5 years in university, yet my feeling is the same :). But as one of the few things I'm quite certain I did understand: it is better to be in the position of not understanding it, than to prematurely think that one does understand. :D.
@@melanieenmats 👍👍 definitely
Lacan deez nuts
Starting in 1975, Jacques Lacan clearly recognized, on several occasions, the aporias of psychoanalysis.
In 1977, on ethics:
"Our practice is a swindle, bluffing, making people stick, dazzling them with words that are shocked, [...] From an ethical point of view, it's untenable."
In 1978, on scientificity:
"Psychoanalysis is not a science. ...it is a delusion - a delusion that is expected to carry a science."
In 1979, on the conditioning of the analyzed:
"It is not a science at all because it is irrefutable. The psychoanalyst is a rhetorician. ...operates only by suggestion. He suggests, that's the characteristic of a rhetorician, he doesn't impose anything of substance."
On 5-1-1980, Lacan declared in his 'Letter of Dissolution':
"I have failed - that is to say, I have become confused. ...] Freud allowed the psychoanalytical group to prevail over discourse, to become Church."
His followers continue to try to understand his SIBYLLINAR TEXTS by avoiding taking seriously the last cities, however clear they may be.
So should we all pack our bags and go home? Or follow the ... to the other side/s of the so called aporias you mention?
"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly."
What Wittgenstein says here applies perfectly to psychoanalysis as well. Scientific discourse almost always end up simplyfing its object. The unconscious inherently resists being approached as a scientific object. One must, precisely, deceive the unconscious into expressing its truths, even through what you call aporias.
Amazing, amazing, amazing. do more and more of these videos.
Physics envy.
there has to be an easier way of explaining this
In a way, there is, although it would take a long time. I think the easier way is to first watch this and then go through his seminars.
Just imagine how convoluted this would be if Jordan Peterson was a Lacanian.
@@markofsaltburn 😂
The odd thing re Lacanian jargon is it is only annoying when used by others subsequent to the period of his teaching and seminars. Or used in the place of fuller discussion.
28:30. The subject is the undifined zero of the univeral aspect of the particular one. So, As one relates to itself to attempt to define itself it finds no other answer than itself 1 = 1. The latter is empty of specifications. At its core 1 or Juan, or, Truan, or, Molar etc are (is) empty. The name with which we are told to identify waiting for us at birth). So, we may add more determinations with which to identify: "I am the person writting these sets of comments here. I am also a political economist, I am also an analyst. I am also the person from whom they steal" but even though one may combine them together with a conjunction (&) the particular expressions will and cannot particularize emptyness itsel, define it, identify it, reduce it to the particular. Numbers, names (subject , verb, adjetive etc) are both universal and particular, One is the number one, and it has a location (the first number). 2 is a number and it has a location (The second number) a location is part of its feature: it is a logico-linguistic feature.
So legitimate. Much credibility
Now I can finally understand what the hell Lacan was saying about the graph in the book "Anxiety"
Humongous what?
this is the best video i ever seen! happy birthday to me! it makes sooooo much sense
In "Chè vuoi" we have accent egrec, not accent aigu. the C and h together, in French, function as Sh does in English. so it's "shu," like "sugar" not "Kay" as in "cape"
Vuoi is pronounced "V-Wah" not "Voy"
Thanks for helping me understand these graphs though :)
"Chè vuoi" is Italian
@@wordlife94 youre right
This is a VERY GOOD explanation. Thank you very much for it.
Just finished reading this chapter in Ecrits that talks about the graphs and thank you for this video, and as an academic, I appreciate the quotes
wha t
Brilliant work, thank you!
Прекрасное, содержательное объяснение!
Hey, congrats, what an amazing explanation, I would like to know which software are using to make the video (the black background). Thanks
Amazing video, man! Great work and awesome contribution.
Brilliant video. Another great text by J.A.Miller where he explicates on s(bar A) and suture, is his paper from Lacan’s seminar on the fantasy. Miller explicates Boole’s logic in the paper which might be more illustrative than Frege’s arithmetics.
Also part of Miller’s seminars are published loosely. But two papers from his seminars “from the symptom to the fantasy and back” are very illustrative of the function of fantasy. For anyone wanting to unjam Lacan, Miller is a great go to.
What you say at the beginning of the video is not totally accurate. In Joyce le symptôme, Lacan recognised the efficacy of the subject, which, far from being just an effect of language, is also the origin of a constitutive saying of non-duality. According to Lacan, Joyce has shown us that conditionality can be broken and that unity is the symphthome.
I am having trouble understanding the process order of Graph two with the examples you gave.. why does the punctuation or quilting point come before the A or Big Other?
At 36:40 is now known as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death.
Outstanding exposition. Thank you!
What a waste of time! If you're interested in psychology and psychoanalysis, then read serious textbooks on the subject. Almost all serious researchers remain untouched by Lacan. This is like reading a medieval philosopher and thinking that you're up to speed with Frege and Quine.
What's with the macabre true crime-type anecdotes to illustrate aggressivity in constituted rivalry, was that necessary?
In order to properly understand these someone will need to understand Carl Jung.
Thanks for this video, it has been extremely helpful to understand Lacan's theory. I am currently writing a seminar paper where I need to discuss Lacan and Freud, and the fact that you integrated all these quotes from the Écrits really helped me to find the relevant passages I needed. Good job!🙏
Has uno para México.
A is the "pure subject of modern game strategy"
but this can't be correct, by Lacan's own theory. The point of game theory is the person imagines other people to act in a similar way to how they would act. So the reason a guy in a game theory situation can make a decision is because he can assume he knows what the other person is going to do because the other person will probably act just like him, and so the guy can act accordingly. But this misses the essentially feature of the Other, its opacity, that in the other (person) which the subject cannot liken to itself - Das Ding - hence the anxiety provoked by the unknown and unknowable desire of the Other and by the seeking of the answer to the "Che vuoi?" Chenyang Wang makes this critique about Lacan's explanation of the prisoner puzzle in his Logical Time essay podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/chenyang-wang-subjectivity-in-between-times-exploring/id423338807?i=1000465364535
really good video I'm going to have to digest in fragments with a lot of supplementary reading.
You are so correct; it is so exquisite, and one of the most excellent presentations I have witnessed so far on Lacan’s ‘graph of desire.’
48:13min Other interesting cases of hallucinations, which are accepted as ok to have around publicly regardless how many times they assert themselves as genocidal forces, are the price system, and The Vatican daily briefings with God. The latter dutifully discussed amongst them and written down so it may guide the lives of millions. As a political economist and analyst I find them of great interest given that they are presented as legitimate forms to inflict destructive amounts of violence towards the heads of others.
Genius explication of Lacanian desire & psychoanalysis. Absolutely brilliant.
Bravo. Thank you. This will be a very useful video for me for a long time.
I am german and I love to have all the important term as every day expressions 👌
This sounds to me like incomprihensible hogwash. Somehow this is supposed to be related to topolology but this has nothing to do with math.
Shut your bitch ass up dummy
@@philo3838 I liked that sentence. It had a clear and unambiguous message that i could easily comprehend. The same cannot be said for lacan's map of vagueness.
@@RippoZer0 however it didnt , not really xD
@@theali8oras274 let's make it easy for you . The comclusion is the following one which almost goes like a budhhist mantra: Ther is no God aka big Other and fixation is bad because there is no absolute object which will satisfy your desires... accept this lack and live on you smybolic castrated subject and fill this lack with fantasies before you get confronted with the real and you ll die of fear
@@cemcelik4388 uhm... I was talking about "shut your bitch ass ul dummy"
I've tried, but I think the emperor is buck naked.
This guy makes things complicated
I am convinced this is magic.
Excellent, thank you!
amazing video. so well done.
Amazing, I was looking for such video since long time!
Thanks for the lecture 👍
Thank you. This is great work.
Gente, não entendo lacan em português, quanto mais em inglês. Pra mim chega. Nem legenda tem :(
Será que vale traduzir? Nem sei como funciona mas se tiver BR interessado podemos tentar.
Is there a transcript of your commentary anywhere?
Bye-bye...enough for today!...
What idiocy!
How much did you listen to I wonder before you came to that conclusion ;).
@@melanieenmats Not a lot, I admit.
@@PSYWARRIOR71 :D Fair of you to admit this. Your position is very understandable to me. I studied this with some terrific professors at uni. But if I'd have to start off a book or something I would have never gotten into it.
Furthermore it is important to realize that it is created for use by psycho-analysts/clinical psychologists. It tries to fill the gap left by modern statistical approaches.
Please, If you don't want to be misunderstood as Lacan himself started starkly pointing out as soon as he became famous, "From Rome 53' to Rome 67'. Psychoanalysis. Reason of a failure", up to his 1980 Caracas Seminar class, knowing he is to die soon, he dissolves his school, and not to his surprise or regret: his constant ambivalent treatment of Freud, both at the same time needed as Platform from which to claim Legitimacy (yo call himself psychoanalyst and rival the IPA) and difference, disagreement and dismissal of the main concepts of Repression, Ego-Superego-Id, pleasure/death principles, representation, drive, Oedipal theory, in a word, every single major notion not to talk about its foundations. Just to at the same time call on "Freud's Truth" or "Return to Freud", only, as history proved, to be absorbed completely and surmised into 21st century Freudian psychoanalysis (the contradictions on that name itself evident)- please, distance yourself from Freud, There's nothing there for Lacan "to take on" and develop, if not to change the core meaning and/or epistemic backdrop of its place in theory. I don't know what would have been if Lacan from the start started something completely different, maybe like Jung, after his death, little development has continued leading to a fossilized theory, with a somewhat now (after Hillman's death) dead American School. Either way, all the lacanians, that is, the 80% of the world's Psychoanalysts, refer to and treat Lacan's Theory as part of Freud's and surmised, always, to.
I disagree with your assertion of a "fossilized theory". There are many places in the world where very lively creative ideas have been built from Lacan. But the work is fragmented over many persons and languages. I know for example in Argentina there are very interesting psycho-analytic ideas ideas that come out in many of the arts. Also in my language (dutch) there are some very interesting contemporary psycho-analists that have built on Lacan's theories in very interesting ways.
And as a great example I propose Zizek's books where he connects popular movies with Lacan's ideas.
It is inconsequential how"x" percent of psychoanalists treat Lacan. Just as Jung in my opinion perhaps abused Freud's theory, so Lacan's work was always going to be abused. In fact he made sure it would be.
@@melanieenmats OK, I re-assert that Psychoanalysis as a Program, active since 1902 (Freud's circle, later ring circle, later International Association) and fairly Institutionalized by 1913, to the heights of the great debate of A. Freud v. M. Klein and the third/middle/Winnicot group, to the post-war european migrated community around the Ego (later, 1970s Self-) Psychology, Pichon-Rivière's Operative Group in Argentina, to the 1980s appearances of new associations and schools after Lacan's, death, mainly in France, and including the largest, most active in terms of members, groups affiliated and publishing World Psychoanalysis Association, is indeed in an advance state of Regression after the 1950s generalized stagnation, in terms of Lakatos, say, of the Scientific Research Program.
One completely radical and different moment, to the height of that of Lacan's 1953 Rome Discourse and later paper "The Function and Field [...] of Psychoanalysis", different, is the 2018 Apola association public foundational opening and conferences from a 1999 society, group of researchers disenchanted by the auto-phagocytic Miller leading School and his rejection of Concepts for the apology of finesse (artistry and aesthetics over logic and formality), spearheaded by Alfredo Eidelzstein up until now.
No other case can be made (can you point me to?) inside the field of psy- professions. We can talk about Zizek and other political philosophers, stick up with Badiou's philosophy very much indebted to Lacan's anti-philosophy (anti-ontology more precisely), to B. Cassain's research on Linguistics and her offering/appreciation of J. Lacan as a unique figure in contemporary epistemology and their work and propositions.
To say that the IPA (traditional) or WAP (Miller's version) do something other than ad hoc "updates" to new situations would be very problematic without pointing to a single advancement (which wasn't there) taken seriously as opposed to syncretic and spurious mixing and downgrading of the whole spirit of the endeavor and the concepts, and one can trace this deprecation in Miller, Colette Soller & Jean Allouch (by the way, all as different founders of schools, also ex-seminarians of Lacan), specially in the concept of Juissance as mashup of libido and death drive.
My concern is not Lacan in Linguistics courses, or his study in critical film studies or philosophy of sciences, nor his development of number theory or commentaries for combinatory topology. But that of the discipline itself: Psychoanalysis and its endeavor. its specificity, its axioms and cultural underpinnings, to the corollary of the different schools, programs and consensus, debates (which has been dead for at least 65 years by now, and it's a fact).
Last, your last point, it is inconsequential the proportion of psy- professionals' treatment of Lacan's Theory: because there is none. Its an obvious consequence, I just wanted to point the magnitude of the issue. And I agree, he himself (Lacan) attacked the possibility, as it is absurd, of intelectual property and plagiarism. I have no beef on this, I think I just didn't make clear my concern with the state of the art of the Theory. Or maybe your point is precisely that it's irrelevant to the wide world and their academic, artistic, private proliferation and use and integration of Lacan's concepts and hypotheses, whether it's a dead thing in the academic departments and professional societies or not: and to this I react most violently, since it was developed as a mental/public health practice, very marginal but very powerful in terms of its place in modern societies, where a patient/client/analizand couldn't get help from medicine, psychologists, spiritual directors, self-help groups or alternative Tibetan pilgrimage/south american ayahuasca intense reprogramming therapies. Its loss indeed predicted by both Lacan and Freud, may be what it is, although given the evidence I doubt it.
What defines a circuit? What graphic conventions and their compliments and or alternatives are defined? Outside of of a “line’s” point of origin what is represented? Or, for instance, the chain of signifiers in its metonymic combination, or the sequence of its selection? What does the blank space of the page prior to or in relation to the graphic marks denote? If the split subject begins a vector how then does it encounter the Other that institutes the split, or starting from an atmosphere of jouissance or the real how or...anyway, maybe my frustration here is idiotic...in which case either we have an elite game, or a sort of device for eliminating a community that otherwise would participate. For me, the only way to grasp this maybe, is to take the situation of an utterance and map it systematically back to each and every element of the graph showing the logic for each element in relation to the others. Thanks for trying.
You are thinking too much in terms of mathematics I think. Lacan's graphs are more like a summary, a way to remember and order a lot of information. Like a mnemonic aid. If you try to understand it in a litteral way you will get nowhere. If you try to understand the ideas, and the relations between the concepts as explained, then the graphs can make a little sense. At least so it is for me.
melanieenmats thanks for pegging this as “too” mathematic. I expect it to function “literally”...see Finks Lacan to the Letter. Anyway, the questions still stand. Thanks.
melanieenmats I’d still like to see an “utterance” mapped to each specific element of the graph. If you’re aware of any attempt to do so please forward the reference. After messing around with Lacan, or more generally, with loads of Lacanian explicators, for the past 30 odd years (to my great reward) I’m still fuzzy on the graph. Admittedly, I haven’t made a “concerted” effort, yet having a somewhat “critical” facility for dealing with graphic productions my questions still remain. Thanks
Wth!! Am i the only one stupid here.. HELP GUYZ i have a presentation tomorrow 😭
Hello, I like your work very much, in addition, I have difficulties in translating the language part, maybe I'm translating an important topic wrong, so can you add Turkish subtitles?
why Lacan on the line of imaginary identification uses the wording i(a)-m only in the article (1960), while in the fifth(57-58), sixth(58-59), seventh(59-60), eighth(60-61), ninth(61-62), tenth and eleventh seminar he always uses the wording of m-i(a)?
I'm really pleased to have found this channel.
purely abstract subject (any subject of all subjection) divided by the effect of the signifier
Thank you for your helpful work !
On rivalry and deadly violence. Let us take a case from everyday life hallucinations from economics my other area of expertise: A guys from a Modern Monetary Theory site explains why money are IOUs the government cannot ever run out of
Brad: Let me take a shot at this and open myself up for correction, which would be great as I am still figuring this out: Money can be created by banks but that doesn't create net financial wealth since all money created by banks is offset by liability to the bank in the form of a loan. But the government can create money that is not offset by a loan and thus does lead to the creation of net financial wealth held by the public. So my reading of an answer to your question is that money isn't the issue at all, it is net wealth. Government deficit spending creates net wealth for the non government and foreign sectors. That net wealth starts out as money (federal reserve bank balances) but can quickly change into other forms as it works its way through the economy
Brad Rouse (My answer to him) It starts with workers accepting to exchange their labor power, and products for money, or, IOUs whose only value resides in its purchasing power of other products of labor. It all begins, and returns to the production site.
Brad Rouse (my answer to him) When at the end of the cycle the capitalist has A greater amount of IOUs that would = 18 hrs of labor power, and it's products, and he confronts a groups of workers depleted given lower standards of living, with only 10, or, 8 to give, or, sell at the labor market then you get a "crisis of accumulation". What the money tells the capitalist about his worth, and power, and what is possible to gain in profits by squeezing is false. Instead of accepting this, and stop they prefer to kill, destroy communities, the rustbelt etc. They kill them, because workers could not objectively satisfy the hallucinations the God-paper was telling him it was possible. The Other cheated on him, but since it is boss, $ tells him to f-off, do as he is told, and take it out on the losers. $ in his head a an all soreveign power. It will rule. The ego constructed through it will tell the other commodities, workers = so many wages $, why is it that they are robbing him of his sense of self, splitting him from within, lying to him etc.
Subscribed.
Just when I thought I understood Lacan’s work, I watch this video and realise I don’t know shit. I saved this video. Cheers.
Incredible. Your videos changed my life. Thank you
I constantly wonder if there is any room for improvement in this graph 😂😂 like maybe an extra fundamental element, maybe, wait for it, can we do it
Listening to your explanation of the relationship between A and s(A), it made me wonder something: where does the intentionality of the s(A), in the formation of a subjective moment of meaning placed into relief from the negativity of A, what's the cause or determination of s(A), and wouldn't this mean there was some 'transcendental subject' with positivity, a will, that was then primary over negativity?
Great video. One thing I would like to understand is what is Lacan's definition of "the subject"? Is it the notion of the totality of the human psyche (the conscious and unconscious)?
4:38 *$* “What’s wrong with psychology is its criterion is the _unity of the subject.”_ -Lacan
EINFACH SICH DAS SEMINARBUCH 5 HOLEN "Formations of the Unconsciousness" 3:55 Subjekt bedeutet etwas ist Subjekt zu 5:30 Subjekt ist gespalten durch die Effekte des Signifikanten 6:00 Kurve S - S' 7:08 9:05 9:50 Gegenstück zum Gödelschen Unvollständigkeitssatz 10:40 die Sprache / die Begriffe spricht durch das Medium des Subjekts, welches aus dieser Sicht (wo die Sprache spricht und nicht das Subjekt) nur die leere Bezeichnung "Ich" ist (siehe vorheriges Bsp. "I"), dem Subjekt muss dies allerdings verborgen sein und es muss die Artikulationsebene als seine eigene auffassen 15:20 das Objekt ist nicht entscheidend, sondern seine Symbolisierung 16:15 Start des Graphen 21:00 Kurve s(A) - A, s(A) ist das Sprechen anderer, das an mich gerichtet ist, A ist die vorherige Andersheit der Artikulationsebene, wo die Sprache und nicht das Individuum spricht und die Bedeutung dieser Sprache dem Individuum notwendig verborgen ist, der Teil der Bedeutung der verborgen ist, entspricht der Stimme; Bsp. siehe 40:00! siehe 57:50 s(A) und später S(A/) ist der EINTRITT IN DIE SPRACHE!!! 29:22 30:08 32:00! 33:20! (siehe Text) 33:50 wir sehen uns durch den imaginierten Anderen, den wir darstellen möchten; dieser ist jedoch den anderen Menschen entliehen, die sich ebenfalls von einem imaginierten Anderen betrachten 34:50! mein Blick durch den imaginierten Anderen auf muss symbolisch vermittelt werden, also unterer Weg UND oberer Weg mit Bezeichnung, sodass sich der gr. A der Sprache selbst verkörpert und uns diese Bedeutung verschlossen bleibt, also A (siehe oben), siehe Bsp. ab 36:20 41:23 Beginn des Begehrens 42:35 Kritik der Happiness 44:50 EXPL objet a ab46:17!!! wie Phantasie konstituiert wird bzw. die Struktur der Phantasie 50:30! 55:50 lack of the other ist die Bezeichnung einer Leere, einer Nichtexistenz 57:50 complete jouissance is impossible because its runs through the signification of the language as an other with a lack (Herrensignifikant?!!!), so wie die "Coke", "der Liberalismus", der " Kapitalismus", die " Kohlenstoffkompensation"; die konkrete Beudetung der empfundenen joissance basiert auf dem Herrensignifikanten, der nichts anderes ist als die Positivierung einer Leere / eines Mangels (deshalb "is structured around a lack"); S(A/) ist der EINTRITT IN DIE SPRACHE!!!, dort erscheint das objet a als durch die Sprache hervorgerufener Mangel im Objekt 1:00:05 Phallus: der Signifikant der jouissance 1:01:00 ALLES ZUM PHALLUS WIRD ZSMGEFASST IN 1:02:46! 1:03:57! Def Neurotiker 1:04:40 Def Obsession und Hysterie 1:08:40! ab1:09:28!!! ZSM.FASSUNG
49:00min What they are doing is constructing, generrating, the different types of dialectical moments of different modes of alienation, or, consciousness: one generation another, generating another etc. What is important is effective dialectical formal shape of the constitution of the particular pathological mode of self-alienation, or, awareness. It is not simply a fantasy notice. It is his dialectically-sefl-recursive construction of the way he wil attain a particular self-consciousness.
i am not going to pretend i now understand the graph, but this was a great overview that i will return to.
Im pretty much watching this with no knowledge of psychoanalysis and im guessing thats why it makes no sense. do you have any advice on how to increase my understanding?
Hello. Good homework !
There's a few mistakes like at 38:06 with the french word "poincon" instead of the correct one "poinçon". Never forget "la cédille : la diacritique de l'alphabet latin".
Another remark is about the missunderstanding.
You do not "have to" understand Lacan because if you do, you missunderstand it.
On the other hand, if you missunderstand Lacan, be sure that you understand it.
Words "have also to" be used in a missunderstanding way to mean their meaningless.
A scientist approach of Lacan is the best way to loose himself.
There's a difference between not understanding a theory because of a lack of knowledge and missunderstanding it because of a multivocity of meanings.
Lacan tried to be missunderstood so if you understand it, you kill him twice !
My advice : don't think of Lacan in an other way than Eminem said : loosing your-self.
Les non dupes errent...
Jean-Bernard PRATEX, French Heterroristologist, Mul'house.
th-cam.com/video/67d0aGc9K_I/w-d-xo.html The entry-point into language is called the mirror-stage. There is good stuff in Lacan. I'm not sure about the diagrams.
I read almost all of the comments here, this is the best explanation in my opinion.
I was a student of this a long time ago. I commend your attempt to capture the difficult subject here. The speed of the content is very high and I will have to listen many times to take it all in. But I do want to warn others not to take this as gospel. I think I have noticed various problems, many possibly due to problems in translating the subject matter. If people are truly interested they should not end with this explanation, but start with it.
To name a specific issue. Towards the end you oppose hysteria with neurotiscism. To me this is in error, as to my understanding both hysteria and compulsive neurotiscism (an utterly failed translation of mine), are both part of, or forms of neurotiscism. So hysteria and neurotiscism can never be opposed, as hysteria is always neurotic. But it is very difficult for me to explain as I learned this in dutch and french (and some german for Freud). There are multiple language barriers for myself there.
Another example is where you speak of fantasy. I suspect this is a translation not of "fantaisie" but of "fantasme", as I don't recall Lacan even ever speaking of fantasy but a lot about "fantasme". But is there even a translation possible? I think not. That said if your use of fantasy is as translation of fantasme, it may lead many listeners to misunderstand what you say due to their existing understanding of the word fantasy.
I think it is an impossible task to translate these terms and I very much enjoyed listening to your attempt to explain such difficult matters. I think I only ever understood parts of Lacan's theories after years of study. Listening to your work here has rekindled my interest, so thank you!
Hysteria is not opposed to neurosis and he doesn't say so in the video. "Phantasm" and "fantasy" are used synonymously in English translations.
@@lucassiccardi8764 It was a pretty long part about hysteria. I don't think I misheard. Perhaps it was not intended as it was said.
About Phantasm. This is what I noticed. The translation is done like this, going from two words to one. This is not good for understanding. IT should at least be explained. Without a separate translation the risk of teaching and learning it wrongly becomes very high.
Fantasy is more close to the imaginary, than to the concept of phantasm. The translation is filled with pitfalls of misunderstanding.
It would be better to use the un-translated French version. That way it remains clear that it is a Lacanian concept barely related to the everyday meanings associated with the word. This seems more complex but is simpler in the long run.
@@melanieenmats It is not up to this channel's creator to decide how to translate Lacan into English, he's following the common (traditional) way of translating. About hysteria you misheard (or misunderstood), just check. And I would like you to point me to a source, a quote where Lacan distinguishes between fantasy and phantasm the way you are proposing. I know that they are both represented by the same matheme, so I strongly doubt you're any right about this either.
@@melanieenmats And (I don't want to be harsh, still!) how can you criticize English translations if your English is not very good in the first place?
@@lucassiccardi8764 I don't think they are represented by the same matheme. But I must say I'm not very familiar with this Graph. But the mere fact that Lacan uses a different word (not fantaisie) is more than enough indication that he intends something different. Lacan is one to use words playfully, but not lightly. If you don't understand why, then in my opinion it is because you are missing a part of the understanding. This exactly is why translation is so important.
The correct translation should always be up for debate. One should never threat the first translation as the master as if it is some kind of bible. The author of the video has every right to, and in my opinion should pose questions on this.
As to point you to a specific text for the difference between Phantasm and Fantaisie, I cannot. I learnt about that difference in discussions on texts over several years. I think you may have been taught wrong, in part due to the intrinsic limits of translation.
Starting the video - mild critique; add page numbers, if possible
So, we may take the number 2514. The 2 is a two in the thousands position, The 5 is a number 5 in the hudrends position etc.
I think we all agree that the quality of these videos, in explaining lacans thoughts, is very good, but that when we compare them to other TH-cam videos !!!
There are some far simplifications here or there.
Thank you though, im waiting for a video about a case study ;