I am a scholar of Lacan for the past decade and this is incredible work! Tremendously insight, especially for us mental health practitioners that are not versed on the mathematical genealogy of ideas.. I will definitely be viewing this a few times over and exploring your references. I am very glad to have found your video essays!
Look, this is sort of interesting, but could you add in a few steps that might make it comprehensible to humans? My understanding is that the Hamiltonian is a very useful mathematical operator used in mechanics to chart the evolution of complex systems, whether at the level of classical or the quantum. I kind of get that there might be topological aspects of this, in the derivation of the path of least action, for example, but I’m way behind on getting what it’s got to do with Lacan. It would be great if you could just fill in the dots, so we can see what you’re actually getting at.
Thanks. I am using the idea of the Hamiltonian as an analogy for the way that inclusiveness works in the metonymical "energies" of the signifier. This requires us to include secondary and unintended components of our "intended" meanings; what we didn't mean to say but said anyway, usually unconsciously. Like many mathematical terms, they are richly imaginative and we should not be restricted to consider only their literal mathematical meaning. However, we should respect their actual functions and histories!
Lacan always seems to be obscure like that. I think he's using this to explain how Lacanian object of desire is always pointing at a more subconscious invisible desire.
Totally with you.. I was looking forward to a mathematical description. I suspect "Gottman's partial derivative equations for human attachment are a good place to start creating such a mathematical form. Also this video seems to have a more mathematically defined approach:th-cam.com/video/EMJsYBD-dNk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=GWLxvjrvS-dVUpC4
@@boundarylanguage . . . The complicated becomes simple when comprehended, regardless of the myriad systems through which one considers all possibilities, knowing that the result is simply "no system".
If I may suggest, please inspect this book by Heinz Von Foerster: Understanding Understanding (www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf). He explains (in the totality of the book) the feedback loop that is the essence of the Hamiltonian as an "optimizer function" for optimizing control in a dynamical system; as applied in "control theory"! Lacan was a cybernetician (cybernetics as the "science of regulation" as Von Foerster says) because he used a multidisciplinary approach; so was Von Foerster. @@boundarylanguage
Hi. The unary trait is one of Lacan's main ideas having to do with repetition and, hence, the subject's demands made to the imagined "Other." The unary trait is something that "counts as one" no matter how many times it's repeated. In Seminar XIV (The Logic of Phantasy), Lacan compares it to the recursive formula of x = 1 + 1/x, where the question is plugged back into itself to produce a series of repetitive stages. The one is both a number and a name of itself. If you want to play a game, think of how saying a number each time you see it, and turning that into a number makes this series: 1, 11 ("one 1"), then 21 ("two 1's) … This actually produces a constant, called Conway's constant, and the series is called "audioactive." Lacan's unary trait is a bit like this, since it is a kind of signifier of itself, insulated from the need to reference anything external. Hope this helps!
The "Hamiltonian" I use as an analogy is based on the work of the mathematician William Rowan Hamilton. Try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)
We are never more subjective than when we are in close relation to hygiene. I would be remiss not to talk about it, but I don't try to be obsessive. Thanks
you seem very confused about projective geometry being some kind of alternative type of topology to an 'affine' topology. this is a complete misunderstanding. projective geometry is not a kind of topology in any possible sense. other evidence of confusion: the fundamental polygon of a square is not identifying parts of projective space - it identifying sides of a square [0,1] x [0,1]. in fact the projective plane is one of the spaces that can be derived in this way.
i'd like to apologise for this comment. i think i was fairly shamelessly gatekeeping. this reflected a frustration from working with these topics in the maths context. i think there is validity to what you are doing, and there is a spookiness which is there in the topology (what are holes?? after all) which is ripe for use as analogy when it comes to the Other in the psychological context.
I think some mathematicians would disagree with you. The fundamental polygon defines forms in the real projective plane, as far as I have learned. Norman Wildberger has some good videos on this. I believe his credentials are well-established. Don't take my word for it.
No problem. I am concerned to learn what LACAN knew and thought about topology. You will have to take some of these concerns up with him, if you are good at contacting the spirits of the dead (or reading the middle seminars)! Good luck in any case!
I will say this is not a valid point of contention, but just misunderstanding on your part. Maths has the benefit of some quite definite answers. You seem to be misunderstanding that projective space is *a* topological space, and therefore *an object* in the study of topology. The fundamental polygon or identifying square is a means of representing a few topological spaces which derive from identifying or gluing sides of the square. For instance a torus can be derived by identifying *in the same direction* opposite sides. Visually we first produce a cylinder (identifying two sides) and then a torus by identifying the remaining two sides which have become circles following the first identification. Less intuitively, projective space can be derived in this way (i.e. by a different set of identifications). There is also something called projective geometry which happens when we take projective space as the default space we are working in, but this is another viewpoint altogether. In short there is no conceivable meaning to affine topology - affine essentially connotes 'without a co-ordinate origin', as per Wikipedia: "Any vector space may be viewed as an affine space; this amounts to "forgetting" the special role played by the zero vector" Topology is ontologically prior to coordinates. The two terms are incoherent in unison.
I'm very confused? Maybe its cause I'm a relatively new Lacanian coming in from Zizek, but Ive never heard or read anything about Topology and Geometry relating to Lacan or even Freuds Psycho Analysis!? Marx never even talked this much about formula's of economics or especially geometry! So im unsure, still interesting tho!
There's a lot of misinformation out there. Better to get it from the horse's mouth, although Lacan is not one for clear explanations. Check out bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/8/144490/files/2023/01/topology-checklist-2.pdf for a check-list on what Lacan does about topology and what others have ignored. Thanks
I am a scholar of Lacan for the past decade and this is incredible work! Tremendously insight, especially for us mental health practitioners that are not versed on the mathematical genealogy of ideas.. I will definitely be viewing this a few times over and exploring your references. I am very glad to have found your video essays!
I appreciate your compliment and reading. If you have any corrections or criticisms, I would also appreciate those. I am very much a student.
Look, this is sort of interesting, but could you add in a few steps that might make it comprehensible to humans? My understanding is that the Hamiltonian is a very useful mathematical operator used in mechanics to chart the evolution of complex systems, whether at the level of classical or the quantum. I kind of get that there might be topological aspects of this, in the derivation of the path of least action, for example, but I’m way behind on getting what it’s got to do with Lacan. It would be great if you could just fill in the dots, so we can see what you’re actually getting at.
Thanks. I am using the idea of the Hamiltonian as an analogy for the way that inclusiveness works in the metonymical "energies" of the signifier. This requires us to include secondary and unintended components of our "intended" meanings; what we didn't mean to say but said anyway, usually unconsciously. Like many mathematical terms, they are richly imaginative and we should not be restricted to consider only their literal mathematical meaning. However, we should respect their actual functions and histories!
Lacan always seems to be obscure like that.
I think he's using this to explain how Lacanian object of desire is always pointing at a more subconscious invisible desire.
Totally with you.. I was looking forward to a mathematical description. I suspect "Gottman's partial derivative equations for human attachment are a good place to start creating such a mathematical form. Also this video seems to have a more mathematically defined approach:th-cam.com/video/EMJsYBD-dNk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=GWLxvjrvS-dVUpC4
@@boundarylanguage . . . The complicated becomes simple when comprehended, regardless of the myriad systems through which one considers all possibilities, knowing that the result is simply "no system".
Do you happen to have any document or PDF of notes that I can reference whilst I rewatch this video?
You might check boundarylanguage.psu.edu for related writings.
Dude this channel is fire
Wow. Thanks.
i appreciate your input meaning
great visuals
Your speech bot here is excellent.
I will pass this on to James, if I don't interrupt him while he's mixing his martini (shaken not stirred).
Brilliant and Bravo!
thank you, but I feel I am always struggling. I hope I am not misleading too many people.
If I may suggest, please inspect this book by Heinz Von Foerster: Understanding Understanding (www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf). He explains (in the totality of the book) the feedback loop that is the essence of the Hamiltonian as an "optimizer function" for optimizing control in a dynamical system; as applied in "control theory"! Lacan was a cybernetician (cybernetics as the "science of regulation" as Von Foerster says) because he used a multidisciplinary approach; so was Von Foerster. @@boundarylanguage
Thank you for the video. What is a unary trait? Is this a signifier that is not opposed to or referring to another signifier?
Oh okay, my question is partially answered in your donut video
Hi. The unary trait is one of Lacan's main ideas having to do with repetition and, hence, the subject's demands made to the imagined "Other." The unary trait is something that "counts as one" no matter how many times it's repeated. In Seminar XIV (The Logic of Phantasy), Lacan compares it to the recursive formula of x = 1 + 1/x, where the question is plugged back into itself to produce a series of repetitive stages. The one is both a number and a name of itself. If you want to play a game, think of how saying a number each time you see it, and turning that into a number makes this series: 1, 11 ("one 1"), then 21 ("two 1's) … This actually produces a constant, called Conway's constant, and the series is called "audioactive." Lacan's unary trait is a bit like this, since it is a kind of signifier of itself, insulated from the need to reference anything external. Hope this helps!
@@boundarylanguageHello, is there any chance that by "insulated" you meant to write isolated?
@@boundarylanguagewhat a great explanation
As in Alexander Hamilton? I just found this video and have no reference.
The "Hamiltonian" I use as an analogy is based on the work of the mathematician William Rowan Hamilton. Try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)
omg does EVERY video on youtube have to include a reference to toilette matters?
We are never more subjective than when we are in close relation to hygiene. I would be remiss not to talk about it, but I don't try to be obsessive. Thanks
my brain hurts
well, that's the way I feel most of the time. Don't worry, it's good for you.
you seem very confused about projective geometry being some kind of alternative type of topology to an 'affine' topology. this is a complete misunderstanding. projective geometry is not a kind of topology in any possible sense. other evidence of confusion: the fundamental polygon of a square is not identifying parts of projective space - it identifying sides of a square [0,1] x [0,1]. in fact the projective plane is one of the spaces that can be derived in this way.
i'd like to apologise for this comment. i think i was fairly shamelessly gatekeeping. this reflected a frustration from working with these topics in the maths context. i think there is validity to what you are doing, and there is a spookiness which is there in the topology (what are holes?? after all) which is ripe for use as analogy when it comes to the Other in the psychological context.
I think some mathematicians would disagree with you. The fundamental polygon defines forms in the real projective plane, as far as I have learned. Norman Wildberger has some good videos on this. I believe his credentials are well-established. Don't take my word for it.
No problem. I am concerned to learn what LACAN knew and thought about topology. You will have to take some of these concerns up with him, if you are good at contacting the spirits of the dead (or reading the middle seminars)! Good luck in any case!
I will say this is not a valid point of contention, but just misunderstanding on your part. Maths has the benefit of some quite definite answers. You seem to be misunderstanding that projective space is *a* topological space, and therefore *an object* in the study of topology. The fundamental polygon or identifying square is a means of representing a few topological spaces which derive from identifying or gluing sides of the square. For instance a torus can be derived by identifying *in the same direction* opposite sides. Visually we first produce a cylinder (identifying two sides) and then a torus by identifying the remaining two sides which have become circles following the first identification. Less intuitively, projective space can be derived in this way (i.e. by a different set of identifications).
There is also something called projective geometry which happens when we take projective space as the default space we are working in, but this is another viewpoint altogether.
In short there is no conceivable meaning to affine topology - affine essentially connotes 'without a co-ordinate origin', as per Wikipedia:
"Any vector space may be viewed as an affine space; this amounts to "forgetting" the special role played by the zero vector"
Topology is ontologically prior to coordinates. The two terms are incoherent in unison.
Not sure I agree with this.
You're welcome to state your objections. If I have time I will try to respond.
I'm very confused?
Maybe its cause I'm a relatively new Lacanian coming in from Zizek, but Ive never heard or read anything about Topology and Geometry relating to Lacan or even Freuds Psycho Analysis!?
Marx never even talked this much about formula's of economics or especially geometry!
So im unsure, still interesting tho!
There's a lot of misinformation out there. Better to get it from the horse's mouth, although Lacan is not one for clear explanations. Check out bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/8/144490/files/2023/01/topology-checklist-2.pdf for a check-list on what Lacan does about topology and what others have ignored. Thanks
@@boundarylanguage Thank you for the resources! Ill check it out!
Yea lol, there's a reason for that. Using this type of mathematical language without justification or reason makes your work meaningless.
Hate hate hate robo narration 🫤
Sorry. James helps me out in the kitchen when I'm in a rush. Try not watching. Or, rather, not listening.