Posts by mistyscout2

Jacob Newman77 said:Here’s the book: http://avaxsearch.com/avaxhome_searc...ther&commit=Go

Honestly, though, Fink’s version is much better: http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_bo...icalintro.html

(By the way, there's a ton of great stuff on this site)

So, I'm currently working my way through Žižek's book—specifically the section about reading together—and I wanted to pick your brain, autoicon: he mentions that Lacan claimed if a patient knows for a fact his wife is cheating on him, and he's feeling jealous, he shouldn't actually be "treated" for that jealousy. What's your take? Personally, I find that perspective pretty compelling, so it was a pleasant surprise to see someone like Lacan align with my own thinking 🙂. Of course, I'm not just swallowing this whole without question; I need to dig deeper into the reasoning behind it since the book only offers that single sentence and leaves it at that... autoicon, feel free to spin this off into its own thread 😉.

🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏

Man, thank you so much for this, I really appreciate it.

Jacob Newman77 said:I’m actually pretty deep into all this gender theory stuff myself, which is why I feel like I need to grind through Lacan before I can even tackle feminism properly. Thanks for posting about this, 🙂 I was just talking to my boyfriend yesterday about how much of feminist theory was basically forged in direct conflict with Lacan—it’s a fascinating lineage to trace. Right now, I’m wading through Romulo Lander’s *Subjective Experience and the Logic of The Other*, and he treats the bisexual position as something pathological. But why? Why should it be? Why can't it just be another variation of sexuality? And honestly, what does "pathological" even mean in a modern context? Is it just the sheer amount of pain the subject feels? Or just deviating too far from some arbitrary social norm? To be blunt, the book isn't great. There are much better texts out there. I’m itching to get to some more contemporary authors; even though this was published in 2006, it clings to Lacan so heavily—and not even particularly successfully, if you ask me—that it feels like a relic from the sixties.

Regarding the distinction between masochism and jouissance, I tried translating a section from that book that tackles the difference... But honestly, you can boil what’s written down to this: masochism is driven by an underlying sense of guilt. Masochistic behavior acts as a sort of remedy for that guilt, allowing the individual to experience sexual pleasure despite the internal friction caused by feeling guilty. In the case of jouissance, however, you can't simply use analysis to pin down whether guilt exists in the unconscious. At the end of the process, the person just learns to live with it (unlike that manageable sense of guilt, where one might break free from masochistic compulsions) and functions better on various levels. Jouissance is baked into the personality structure; it’s constant, and its job is to maintain psychic equilibrium. (I don't quite grasp the "how" or "why" yet—autoicon, any thoughts on the autoicon?)

It sounds incredibly bleak, suggesting that *everyone* is burdened by this cursed jouissance, that it’s just part of being human. But when you look at the people around you—and even look inward—it seems like an inescapable reality...

And just to add a bit more on the split between pleasure and jouissance... Pleasure reduces tension and drains energy from the system, whereas jouissance builds it up. Pleasure is fleeting; it happens and then it’s gone. Jouissance, on the other hand, is always there.

autoicon, you say:

Take theorist Luce Irigaray, for example. She argues that all these theories are merely products of the patriarchal system and claims we need to construct a symbolic representation for women. Personally, I disagree with her. I’d argue it’s impossible to "construct" symbolization; rather, symbolization is what constructs us. Such a "liberation" would essentially be a psychotic break from the symbolic order.

Wait, how is it that we can't build symbolization? Aren't we building it constantly? I mean, aren't revolutions just instances of that fundamental process happening at high speed? And what exactly makes that "psychotic"?

Hey, do you happen to have that book as a PDF, or did you end up buying a physical copy somewhere? If it’s a first edition—or even just any kind of digital version—would you mind uploading it somewhere and dropping a link here on the forum? I'd really appreciate it.

Jacob Newman77 said:I’m actually pretty deep into all this gender theory stuff myself, which is why I feel like I need to grind through Lacan before I can even tackle feminism properly. Thanks for posting about this, 🙂 I was just talking to my boyfriend yesterday about how much of feminist theory was basically forged in direct conflict with Lacan—it’s a fascinating lineage to trace. Right now, I’m wading through Romulo Lander’s *Subjective Experience and the Logic of The Other*, and he treats the bisexual position as something pathological. But why? Why should it be? Why can't it just be another variation of sexuality? And honestly, what does "pathological" even mean in a modern context? Is it just the sheer amount of pain the subject feels? Or just deviating too far from some arbitrary social norm? To be blunt, the book isn't great. There are much better texts out there. I’m itching to get to some more contemporary authors; even though this was published in 2006, it clings to Lacan so heavily—and not even particularly successfully, if you ask me—that it feels like a relic from the sixties.

Regarding the distinction between masochism and jouissance, I tried translating a section from that book that tackles the difference... But honestly, you can boil what’s written down to this: masochism is driven by an underlying sense of guilt. Masochistic behavior acts as a sort of remedy for that guilt, allowing the individual to experience sexual pleasure despite the internal friction caused by feeling guilty. In the case of jouissance, however, you can't simply use analysis to pin down whether guilt exists in the unconscious. At the end of the process, the person just learns to live with it (unlike that manageable sense of guilt, where one might break free from masochistic compulsions) and functions better on various levels. Jouissance is baked into the personality structure; it’s constant, and its job is to maintain psychic equilibrium. (I don't quite grasp the "how" or "why" yet—autoicon, any thoughts on the autoicon?)

It sounds incredibly bleak, suggesting that *everyone* is burdened by this cursed jouissance, that it’s just part of being human. But when you look at the people around you—and even look inward—it seems like an inescapable reality...

And just to add a bit more on the split between pleasure and jouissance... Pleasure reduces tension and drains energy from the system, whereas jouissance builds it up. Pleasure is fleeting; it happens and then it’s gone. Jouissance, on the other hand, is always there.

autoicon, you say:

Take theorist Luce Irigaray, for example. She argues that all these theories are merely products of the patriarchal system and claims we need to construct a symbolic representation for women. Personally, I disagree with her. I’d argue it’s impossible to "construct" symbolization; rather, symbolization is what constructs us. Such a "liberation" would essentially be a psychotic break from the symbolic order.

Wait, how is it that we can't build symbolization? Aren't we building it constantly? I mean, aren't revolutions just instances of that fundamental process happening at high speed? And what exactly makes that "psychotic"?

I’m honestly feeling pretty wiped out and could really use some sleep right now. I was planning on jumping straight back into this discussion, but I think I'll just hold off and pick this up again in a day or two instead.

Jacob Newman77 said:I’m actually pretty deep into all this gender theory stuff myself, which is why I feel like I need to grind through Lacan before I can even tackle feminism properly. Thanks for posting about this, 🙂 I was just talking to my boyfriend yesterday about how much of feminist theory was basically forged in direct conflict with Lacan—it’s a fascinating lineage to trace. Right now, I’m wading through Romulo Lander’s *Subjective Experience and the Logic of The Other*, and he treats the bisexual position as something pathological. But why? Why should it be? Why can't it just be another variation of sexuality? And honestly, what does "pathological" even mean in a modern context? Is it just the sheer amount of pain the subject feels? Or just deviating too far from some arbitrary social norm? To be blunt, the book isn't great. There are much better texts out there. I’m itching to get to some more contemporary authors; even though this was published in 2006, it clings to Lacan so heavily—and not even particularly successfully, if you ask me—that it feels like a relic from the sixties.

Regarding the distinction between masochism and jouissance, I tried translating a section from that book that tackles the difference... But honestly, you can boil what’s written down to this: masochism is driven by an underlying sense of guilt. Masochistic behavior acts as a sort of remedy for that guilt, allowing the individual to experience sexual pleasure despite the internal friction caused by feeling guilty. In the case of jouissance, however, you can't simply use analysis to pin down whether guilt exists in the unconscious. At the end of the process, the person just learns to live with it (unlike that manageable sense of guilt, where one might break free from masochistic compulsions) and functions better on various levels. Jouissance is baked into the personality structure; it’s constant, and its job is to maintain psychic equilibrium. (I don't quite grasp the "how" or "why" yet—autoicon, any thoughts on the autoicon?)

It sounds incredibly bleak, suggesting that *everyone* is burdened by this cursed jouissance, that it’s just part of being human. But when you look at the people around you—and even look inward—it seems like an inescapable reality...

And just to add a bit more on the split between pleasure and jouissance... Pleasure reduces tension and drains energy from the system, whereas jouissance builds it up. Pleasure is fleeting; it happens and then it’s gone. Jouissance, on the other hand, is always there.

autoicon, you say:

Take theorist Luce Irigaray, for example. She argues that all these theories are merely products of the patriarchal system and claims we need to construct a symbolic representation for women. Personally, I disagree with her. I’d argue it’s impossible to "construct" symbolization; rather, symbolization is what constructs us. Such a "liberation" would essentially be a psychotic break from the symbolic order.

Wait, how is it that we can't build symbolization? Aren't we building it constantly? I mean, aren't revolutions just instances of that fundamental process happening at high speed? And what exactly makes that "psychotic"?

Look, at the end of the day, this is all just theory. My best advice is to try not to take everything you read too personally. Go ahead and dive into the material—think deeply, look inward, and really weigh it against what you already know—but please, don't ever fall into the trap of assuming that everything written down is absolute gospel truth.

Jacob Newman77 said:I’m actually pretty deep into all this gender theory stuff myself, which is why I feel like I need to grind through Lacan before I can even tackle feminism properly. Thanks for posting about this, 🙂 I was just talking to my boyfriend yesterday about how much of feminist theory was basically forged in direct conflict with Lacan—it’s a fascinating lineage to trace. Right now, I’m wading through Romulo Lander’s *Subjective Experience and the Logic of The Other*, and he treats the bisexual position as something pathological. But why? Why should it be? Why can't it just be another variation of sexuality? And honestly, what does "pathological" even mean in a modern context? Is it just the sheer amount of pain the subject feels? Or just deviating too far from some arbitrary social norm? To be blunt, the book isn't great. There are much better texts out there. I’m itching to get to some more contemporary authors; even though this was published in 2006, it clings to Lacan so heavily—and not even particularly successfully, if you ask me—that it feels like a relic from the sixties.

Regarding the distinction between masochism and jouissance, I tried translating a section from that book that tackles the difference... But honestly, you can boil what’s written down to this: masochism is driven by an underlying sense of guilt. Masochistic behavior acts as a sort of remedy for that guilt, allowing the individual to experience sexual pleasure despite the internal friction caused by feeling guilty. In the case of jouissance, however, you can't simply use analysis to pin down whether guilt exists in the unconscious. At the end of the process, the person just learns to live with it (unlike that manageable sense of guilt, where one might break free from masochistic compulsions) and functions better on various levels. Jouissance is baked into the personality structure; it’s constant, and its job is to maintain psychic equilibrium. (I don't quite grasp the "how" or "why" yet—autoicon, any thoughts on the autoicon?)

It sounds incredibly bleak, suggesting that *everyone* is burdened by this cursed jouissance, that it’s just part of being human. But when you look at the people around you—and even look inward—it seems like an inescapable reality...

And just to add a bit more on the split between pleasure and jouissance... Pleasure reduces tension and drains energy from the system, whereas jouissance builds it up. Pleasure is fleeting; it happens and then it’s gone. Jouissance, on the other hand, is always there.

autoicon, you say:

Take theorist Luce Irigaray, for example. She argues that all these theories are merely products of the patriarchal system and claims we need to construct a symbolic representation for women. Personally, I disagree with her. I’d argue it’s impossible to "construct" symbolization; rather, symbolization is what constructs us. Such a "liberation" would essentially be a psychotic break from the symbolic order.

Wait, how is it that we can't build symbolization? Aren't we building it constantly? I mean, aren't revolutions just instances of that fundamental process happening at high speed? And what exactly makes that "psychotic"?

Well, in a revolution, all that repressed stuff finally breaks loose. You often see individual responsibility just evaporate during those times, and people start acting out things that the symbolic order deems "self-evidently" forbidden. Honestly, if the kind of behavior we see during a revolution happened on an individual level during normal, non-revolutionary times, most people would probably label it as straight-up pathological.

Brandon Wright54 said:Hmm, it's hard to give you much on that since I personally subscribe to the idea that everything is a simulacrum 🙂. That's why I'm drawn to performative practices and Judith Butler—she argues that even biological sex is a construct. When a symptom manifests physically, it’s essentially killing off one type of simulation (sort of like a third step moving from the symbolic order toward consumer society), and "killing" only simulates actual disease. I don't view the psyche as some field detached from the body, but I definitely don't buy into the Cartesian subject idea—that soul is just content filling up a body like a container.

Maybe the two of us could start a thread focused on women's issues, seeing as there aren't many of those floating around here.🙂

Your philosophy subforum is officially open, and honestly, I couldn't be happier to jump in and start a thread there. It feels like the right move, especially since you've already shown yourself to be such a decent person to talk to—someone who actually knows their way around the subject and has a solid handle on their own side of the story. 🙂

Jacob Newman77 said:Thanks a ton! I'll give it some thought. 🙂

Here’s a little something from Žižek regarding the *objet petit a*:

Quote : Homologous to The Lacanian proposition "Woman does not exist," we...
Maybe we should just come out and say it: Nature doesn't actually exist. Not in the way we think it does.
A steady, rhythmic loop—perfectly balanced—suddenly derailed by the sheer weight of human interference.
Pure inadvertence. The very notion of man as an excess relative to...
We have to face it: the idea of nature’s perfectly balanced circuit is officially dead. We can no longer cling to that comforting image of...
The idea of nature functioning as some perfectly balanced circuit? It’s a total illusion—nothing more than a retroactive projection we slap onto reality after the fact.
The very notion of man as an... Herein Lies The lesson of recent theories of chaos: "nature."
It’s already inherently turbulent, fundamentally off-balance; its "rule" isn't some stable structure.
It’s essentially a well-balanced oscillation revolving around some fixed point of attraction.
But we’re talking about a chaotic dispersion—one that still stays within the boundaries defined by the theory of chaos itself.
He calls it the "strange attractor"—that weird little spark of order that actually dictates the flow of chaos itself.
One of The achievements of The theory of chaos is The demonstration that chaos does not necessarily imply an intricate...
One of The achievements of The theory of chaos is The demonstration that chaos does not necessarily imply an intricate, impenetrable web.
It turns out that even the simplest causes can trigger what we call "chaotic" behavior. One of The achievements of The theory of chaos is The demonstration that chaos does not necessarily imply an intricate...
The theory of chaos thus subverts The Basic "intuition" found in classical physics.
It seems we’re circling back to the idea that any process, if left entirely to its own devices, naturally drifts toward a certain kind of... what? Stagnation? Entropy? Or perhaps just a predictable pattern. It’s that sense of inevitability that always feels a bit heavy, isn't it? Like watching a slow slide toward a predetermined end.
...of natural equilibrium—whether that’s a state of rest or just a predictable, rhythmic motion. The...
The truly revolutionary core of this whole theory is distilled right into that one term: "strange."
"is not The Freudian thing a kind of 'fatal attractor.'" It’s entirely possible for a system to exhibit what we call "chaotic" behavior...
It happens in an irregular way—you move forward, and there's simply no turning back to how things were. You can't revert to a previous state and still truly *be*.
It’s actually capable of being formalized through an "attractor" that exerts regulation.
It’s an attractor that behaves in a "strange" way—meaning it doesn't just settle into some predictable shape, but rather...
It’s less about a single point within a symmetrical figure—it's more about those endlessly intertwined patterns that just refuse to settle.
Serpentine lines tracing the edges of a clearly defined shape, an...
Anamorphotically disfigured circles, some sort of "butterfly"... you know the drill.
One is almost tempted to go as far as risking a homology between the tension between...
A "normal" attractor—think of it as a state of equilibrium or a steady, predictable oscillation.
(the direction toward which a disturbed system is expected to drift) and a "strange"
Is not The Freudian thing a kind of " fatal attractor, and what happens when we look at the tension between that pull and the stability we think we’re moving toward?
The pleasure principle is constantly striving, always pushing, yet it’s ultimately chasing after that elusive Freudian Thing—that core embodiment of pure enjoyment.
is not The Freudian thing a kind of " fatal attractor, unsettling the very foundation of our psychic stability?
The regular operation of the psychic apparatus—it’s all about preventing it from...
Are we really talking about establishing some kind of equilibrium? Because if so, isn't the very form of the "strange" attractor exactly what we should be looking at instead?
Is the concept of an "attractor" just a physical metaphor for the Lacanian *objet petit a*?
WE find here another confirmation of Jacques-Alain Miller's thesis.
That object *a*? It’s nothing more than a pure form—specifically, it functions as the structural blueprint of an attractor.
The art of the theory of chaos consists in allowing US to see The very form of chaos.
The art of The theory of chaos consists in allowing US to see The very form of chaos...
The art of The theory of chaos consists in allowing US to see The very form of chaos—revealing a hidden pattern in what most people would just dismiss as total, senseless noise.
Pure, formless disorder.
The classic tug-of-war between "order" and "chaos" is essentially a false dichotomy. We tend to view them as polar opposites, but that’s where we miss the mark entirely. One of The achievements of The theory of chaos is The demonstration that chaos does not necessarily imply an intricate patternlessness; rather, it's more about how the structure itself functions. In fact, The theory of chaos thus subverts The Basic assumption that stability requires rigid control. It turns out that what looks like total disorder is often just a deeper, more complex type of organization.
Suspended: what looks like pure, unadulterated chaos—from the...
The erratic swings of the New York Stock Exchange and the sudden, violent surges of an epidemic—they share a deeper, more unsettling rhythm than most people care to admit. It’s all about those unpredictable fluctuations, isn't it? You look at the market crashing one day and then rebounding the next, or you watch a virus spread through a major US city with terrifying speed, and you start to see the pattern. It’s not just random noise. There’s a structural logic to the chaos, a certain way the system breaks and reforms itself. Honestly, it's enough to make anyone feel a little exhausted by the sheer instability of it all.
The way whirlpools form in the Mississippi, or even just the way branches spread out on a tree—there’s something there. It isn't just random noise. One of The achievements of The theory of chaos is The demonstration that chaos does not necessarily imply an intricate mess; instead, there is a structural logic at play. The theory of chaos thus subverts The Basic assumptions we hold about order and randomness. It’s almost like looking at a pattern and realizing the pattern itself is the point.
A tree follows its own internal logic; chaos isn't just random noise, it’s governed by what we call an "attractor."
The point isn't about trying to "detect order behind chaos." That’s not the goal at all. It’s about detecting the...
The art of The theory of chaos consists in allowing US to see The very form of chaos—that specific, jagged pattern found within its own irregular dispersion.
There’s this growing pushback against what people call "traditional" science—this movement rooted in the idea that... well, you know. It’s a rejection of the standard model, fueled by a certain skepticism toward established empirical methods. But honestly? It feels less like a pursuit of truth and more like a desperate attempt to find order where none exists.
...of some sort of universal law—you know, that predictable, steady link between cause and effect we all like to believe in.
These theories essentially serve as rough sketches—first drafts, if you will—for what might eventually become a true "science of the real."
It’s essentially about a science that maps out the very rules used to produce contingency—that unpredictable *tuché* moment.
It isn't about some symbolic automaton. You won't find the actual
obfuscating nonsense found in those "synthesis" essays trying to bridge particle physics with
Eastern mysticism—those attempts to claim a new holistic, organic
framework will somehow replace the old "mechanistic" worldview. That’s not where the action is. The
true "paradigm shift" in modern science lies elsewhere.

Even if he wasn't quite that popular, when he speaks like 😁

Anyway, I'm going to try and dig up something on the distinction between masochism and jouissance. It seems like everyone's first instinct is to jump to masochism, and honestly, it might be useful to look at things from that angle—learning through comparison...

@mistyscout2: A Freudian would tell you—it doesn't matter what form the error takes 😉 Of course, you don't have to write down your final conclusions; just think about it 🙂

Like I said before, there’s really no need to worry—I meant what I wrote, and I’ve already laid out my thoughts on the matter. It wasn't some kind of clumsy mistake or a slip of the pen. I didn't write anything that wasn't exactly what I intended to say; it seems I just misread your take on things. Honestly, I can see where the wires got crossed, and I actually touched on why that happened in my previous post. Anyway, all good. Best.

Jacob Newman77 said:hmm, does he touch on religion?

now you've performed a Freudian slip, think about it 🙂 (philosophy forums instead of psychology)

And yeah, I have no desire to correct the wrong Mississippi rivers of these forums, and frankly, I don't have the time..

let's be realistic and demand the impossible 😉

Yeah, he’s definitely making a point there. I remember coming across this one Lacan piece in an old European journal—it was such a deep dive into religion that I actually had a hard time believing it was really his. I honestly need to dig that back out, pull it off the shelf, and double-check the publication dates and everything just to be sure.

Jacob Newman77 said:hmm, does he touch on religion?

now you've performed a Freudian slip, think about it 🙂 (philosophy forums instead of psychology)

And yeah, I have no desire to correct the wrong Mississippi rivers of these forums, and frankly, I don't have the time..

let's be realistic and demand the impossible 😉

Actually, I wrote "philosophy" on purpose. It wasn't some accidental slip of the tongue, or a slip of the pen, or even a typo—it was more like a slip of the eye. And if that’s not a real thing yet, well, I guess I’m officially inventing it right now. 😉I think I totally misread what you were getting at there. I saw the word "philosophy" and my brain just jumped straight to that, mostly because I had suggested you swing by our philosophy department's digital archives to check out some specific topics regarding Lacan. I figured we were both operating under that same assumption about what we were looking for. So, yeah, I’m still standing by what I said originally. If you were specifically searching through the psychology PDFs for Lacan stuff and coming up empty, maybe try digging through the philosophy section this time around—it's exactly where I suggested you look in the first place. 😉.

Jacob Newman77 said:hmm, does he touch on religion?

now you've performed a Freudian slip, think about it 🙂 (philosophy forums instead of psychology)

And yeah, I have no desire to correct the wrong Mississippi rivers of these forums, and frankly, I don't have the time..

let's be realistic and demand the impossible 😉

It’s not a direct connection, but if you look closely, their shared "tertium comparationis" is probably just how radical they both are.

Jacob Newman77 said:Thanks for getting back to me! I’ve already worked my way through Jung, but I haven't touched Eliade yet—definitely adding his books to my reading list. As for Lacan, I know he didn't dive into the occult, but surely he had some sort of take on it? It’s hard to imagine he stayed silent, considering those traditions basically paved the way for what we call psychology today. It would be fascinating to try and map out various phenomena using his terminology, assuming that's even possible.

Also, I tried searching for "Lacan" in the archives, but besides that one thread about language, there isn't much. On the other hand, this psychology PDF section has basically turned into a collection of "dear diary" advice columns. 😢 I don't have anything against that, per se, but a bit of actual, heavy-duty theoretical discussion would be a welcome change.

ps: I dig your signature. 🙂

There are tons of pages from his seminars out there; I haven't read them all, but I've dipped my toes in a bit 🙂. He didn't really write much himself; most of his seminars were actually edited together by his students and listeners. Most notably by Jacques-Alain Miller, who was essentially his "son-in-law." I've read (among other things) his analysis of Hamlet—which is probably the closest thing I've found in Lacan that could be linked to anything "occult," purely because of the symbolism regarding mandrakes and such. It’s interesting, though if I'm being honest, it feels a little factually off at times... Actually, I'm not entirely sure since it's such an obscure detail... But I did notice him make one factual error. Anyway, doesn't matter...

Jacob Newman77 said:Thanks for getting back to me! I’ve already worked my way through Jung, but I haven't touched Eliade yet—definitely adding his books to my reading list. As for Lacan, I know he didn't dive into the occult, but surely he had some sort of take on it? It’s hard to imagine he stayed silent, considering those traditions basically paved the way for what we call psychology today. It would be fascinating to try and map out various phenomena using his terminology, assuming that's even possible.

Also, I tried searching for "Lacan" in the archives, but besides that one thread about language, there isn't much. On the other hand, this psychology PDF section has basically turned into a collection of "dear diary" advice columns. 😢 I don't have anything against that, per se, but a bit of actual, heavy-duty theoretical discussion would be a welcome change.

ps: I dig your signature. 🙂

That old one about language? Yeah, totally. Even the more recent stuff about triple ontologies is decent. Honestly, I agree with you—that's been the vibe on the philosophy PDF forums for quite a while now—but why not shake things up with a constructive post of your own? Whoever you are (and if you've been around for a while, which you probably have given how you talk), just go over there and write something good. Unless, of course, you've given up on it, in which case I respect the decision.

Jacob Newman77 said:Thanks for getting back to me! I’ve already worked my way through Jung, but I haven't touched Eliade yet—definitely adding his books to my reading list. As for Lacan, I know he didn't dive into the occult, but surely he had some sort of take on it? It’s hard to imagine he stayed silent, considering those traditions basically paved the way for what we call psychology today. It would be fascinating to try and map out various phenomena using his terminology, assuming that's even possible.

Also, I tried searching for "Lacan" in the archives, but besides that one thread about language, there isn't much. On the other hand, this psychology PDF section has basically turned into a collection of "dear diary" advice columns. 😢 I don't have anything against that, per se, but a bit of actual, heavy-duty theoretical discussion would be a welcome change.

ps: I dig your signature. 🙂

Glad you like it! It comes from one of Žižek's books where he mentions Virgil and his "mover the Acheron"—to stir or move the underworld. Then Slavoj writes that it means to "dare to touch the underworld of that which is not spoken of, yet moves our lives." In the context of what he wrote before 🙂But yeah, that's pretty much it.

From what I gather, Lacan wasn't really preoccupied with the occult—at least not in the way most people use that word today. His real focus was on literature, specifically diving deep into the analysis of great literary works. If you're interested in psychoanalysis, you’ve probably heard of Jung... then there's Mircea Eliade. He wasn't a psychoanalyst himself, but he was incredibly well-read and deeply versed in psychoanalysis, philosophy, and the history of religion. Even now, he's regarded as one of the absolute heavyweights in the study of religious history and philosophy from the 20th century. He studied all over the place and spent much of his career teaching at the University of Chicago, so he definitely wasn't just some obscure fringe figure.

If you're looking to dig into Lacan, there are a few PDFs out there covering him and related topics that might be worth checking out. Honestly, you'll probably find more people genuinely interested in Lacan among philosophy buffs and comparative literature scholars than you will among standard psychologists. Especially here in the States. It might be a slightly different story in France, but we aren't in France🙂.

Thanks so much for sharing this. Just one tiny little fact-check on my end: it’s actually Jacques, not Jean Alain-Miller. Hope that helps! Cheers.

Even if you aren't actually feeling that way again, you can still find yourself landing in that headspace where everything feels uncertain. And even when you're stuck there, always at least you're certain about this one thing 😁. Honestly, that’s perfectly fine by me.

Steven Allen9 said:I don't even know what to say about this title. I get it, but at the same time, it feels totally disconnected from how people actually work—how we occasionally admit we don't know something, yet stare at everyone else without ever really seeing ourselves. What did any of that old stuff have to do with today, if not my own will and that sense of certainty I used to carry? Or did I even have it? If there was some other force at play, the odds of me figuring out what it was are basically zero.
I can't recall exactly, but I’m pretty sure that old confidence was built on something else entirely. Maybe it's just some useless label, an accidental stigma attached to someone misdescribing a perfectly harmless moment. Explaining yourself is a losing game, and honestly, this title won't stay relevant for long anyway. It looks pointless, and sometimes it sounds even more fleeting than that.

But wait, are you actually certain that you aren't certain anymore? 😁 Because if you aren't, then you're still stuck in that state of uncertainty. But if you truly are, then at least you've found certainty in something, haven't you? 😁.

Jacob Newman77 said:http://nosubject.com/Jouissance

Great piece. Honestly, if you can wrap your head around the English, this might actually help... but I still need some real-world, everyday examples to make it stick.

Hey there—regardless of how you identify—I actually stumbled upon something else that might be useful for you:

http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis...uissance-lacan

Taylor Campbell4 said:What is the point of listing all these obvious things? 🙂

Quotation:

But physically? I highly doubt it.

Well, it's great that you're skeptical—though it seems to me you're skeptical of much more than just this, Hlupec (but then again, he does have his own blog over at the jutarnji Portak 😁 )
I'm weighing in because I think that distinction you made is important.
The crux of the matter, as I see it, is the ongoing debate regarding what actually constitutes something "physical" or material...
There are so many questions here, and frankly, it's because of contrarians like Hrupec that science struggles to provide answers. Of course, in esoteric circles, these answers have been known for ages; that knowledge is passed down from those who possess these abilities and understand them through direct experience. But no—they aren't going to hand these truths to science on a silver platter when a scientist can discover them independently. If they did, it would undermine human will and the capacity to learn. And besides, a scientist might just reject the tray entirely—dismissing it as a trick and claiming it isn't worth investigating. Who knows where that leads... maybe forcing the tray into their hands? It doesn't work that way. Science has to reach these conclusions on its own terms and remain open-minded, which is starting to happen—but most of those people are working tirelessly from dawn to dusk, drawing inspiration and staying out of the spotlight instead of writing silly blogs.

It turns out Zlatko sudac isn't the only one capable of being in two places at once:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZLQW2qr5Hs

dustyskipper3 said:What exactly isn't possible? Is it the act of bilocation itself, or just proving to oneself that bilocation can actually happen?😉

Look, I didn't mean to say it’s definitely impossible for a person to teleport; I was just saying that based on everything modern science has taught us so far, doing that on a macro level seems pretty much out of the question. The rules for quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics just don't play by the same playbook, you know? So, I guess I'm leaving the door open to the idea that maybe it could happen one day, but right now, we honestly don't have the slightest clue how—or if it's even doable at all. Until we figure that out, the safer bet is probably assuming it can't be done. Then again, I'm not totally set in stone on either side of the argument, and it doesn't really keep me up at night. I tend to be a bit of a skeptic, I suppose, and I try my best not to jump to conclusions too quickly. To me, that feels like the most honest way to approach it.

That’s just plain ridiculous. 😁 😁 😁

So, you actually pulled it off? Well, if that’s true, I really do have to hand it to you. Congrats. 🙂
If you didn't, then we're all just indulging in a little bit of wishful thinking...

I'm not saying it's strictly impossible, but based on everything that is known—and everything I personally know—it just doesn't seem feasible. I’m not ruling out the possibility entirely, I’m just saying that according to the laws of physics that we can constantly verify through empirical evidence, and according to what modern science tells us, something like that is impossible, unless we're talking about the quantum level. It might be possible, but honestly, I don't know. That's why I'm asking you for more than just a "trust me, it's possible." If you won't explain how you know or give me a bit more detail, then it just feels like that old playground routine of "I know, but I'm not telling you." It comes across more like a bluff than a principled silence. 😁

Besides, the burden of proof always falls on the person making the claim. That's just the basic rule of the game. You can't really "prove" that something isn't there; something simply doesn't exist until someone proves or demonstrates that it does, one way or another.

Zachary Cook2 said:Exactly!

You could potentially take your energetic double and turn it into a material one—basically being in two places at once. The catch? That new version could never be quite as "dense" as your actual physical body, because—as mentioned—that takes a massive surge of energy. But it could be, say, 90% as real as the original here in the physical realm, effectively letting you exist in two spots simultaneously.

And I’m not just throwing out some half-baked theory or rambling aimlessly...

It's a long story involving high-level art, deep knowledge, and serious skill. You can't just wing this...

👍

I don't think that would work.

Zachary Cook2 said:Exactly!

You could potentially take your energetic double and turn it into a material one—basically being in two places at once. The catch? That new version could never be quite as "dense" as your actual physical body, because—as mentioned—that takes a massive surge of energy. But it could be, say, 90% as real as the original here in the physical realm, effectively letting you exist in two spots simultaneously.

And I’m not just throwing out some half-baked theory or rambling aimlessly...

It's a long story involving high-level art, deep knowledge, and serious skill. You can't just wing this...

👍

Where's the proof?

Zachary Cook2 said:Exactly!

You could potentially take your energetic double and turn it into a material one—basically being in two places at once. The catch? That new version could never be quite as "dense" as your actual physical body, because—as mentioned—that takes a massive surge of energy. But it could be, say, 90% as real as the original here in the physical realm, effectively letting you exist in two spots simultaneously.

And I’m not just throwing out some half-baked theory or rambling aimlessly...

It's a long story involving high-level art, deep knowledge, and serious skill. You can't just wing this...

👍

How can you be so sure?

Zachary Cook2 said:It’s possible—absolutely possible...😉

I was speaking in general terms, mostly. I mean, unless you happen to be Jesus Christ, judge Zlatko, some high-level psychic spy from the USA, or a student at one of those advanced monasteries that nobody can actually find, even though everyone seems to know they exist somehow.
But honestly, if you feel like it's possible and you think I said it wasn't—just so you can push back against me—where are your arguments? Give me actual evidence, not just promises. And what does it even mean to "be in two places at once"? Most people are in two places at once during a normal day when they're daydreaming, scrolling through the internet, or lost in thought... but I'm talking about being there PHYSICALLY. I have my doubts.

That’s exactly why these folks are called PSYCHIC SPIES rather than PHYSICAL SPIES; it's more about extrasensory perception than any kind of physical bilocation. If someone truly believes a person can physically bilocate their entire body, then they either grew up ignoring the laws of physics or they never met them in the first place. It's the same deal as levitation. You can hop around all you want, but you aren't going to defy gravity using nothing but your mind, or whatever else, as long as you're still bound by a physical body.

For the most part, it’s just not possible. That’s basically why humans went through the trouble of inventing the television, and later on, the internet. Before all that tech existed—and really, only in certain other civilizations at the time—some people would eat all sorts of strange mushrooms and plants, and then they’d claim they were somehow in two places at once. Then again, you also had all those storytellers and bards who loved to "show" people different lands through their tales and folklore, essentially using the magic of language to guide them into entirely different worlds...

Donna Wood52 said:I’m sure most of you have been through this exact thing—a friend lands a new boyfriend and suddenly, she just... vanishes. You send her a text, maybe an invite, and nothing. Just radio silence.

What’s your take on this phenomenon? Personally, I find it pretty fascinating—if a bit irritating.

I wonder what the psychologists would say about the mechanics behind it.

Hey there, Donna Wood52. Forgive me if I'm barging in like this, but I really have to ask: where on earth is this place where girls and guys just pick up partners? Is there some kind of nightly sweepstakes I haven't heard about, or maybe some shady raffle going on somewhere? 🙂

As for the topic itself, it happens with both men and women—not everyone does it, of course, but it’s definitely a common trend. Nothing too surprising, really.

hiddenhound3 said:Dear mistyscout2, you truly are a RELIGIOUS animal... I believe my dear Eliphas Levi 😁would put it quite simply like that.

Well, if that's what he would have said, then fine. But I was speaking specifically within the context I intended when I made my point. 😛
Cassirer (or someone similar, if I recall correctly) might have called us a "symbolic animal." Aristotle would have used the term "zoon logon echon"—which, in a looser translation, means an animal capable of speech—or perhaps "zoon politikon," our social animal side.

But honestly, it all circles back to the same thing eventually. Aside from that Levi reference, which wasn't really what I was aiming for anyway—but that’s a whole different conversation... I actually posed some questions regarding that Levi definition over in the "What's the point of spirituality? We have capitalism" thread... It ties right into your discussion about rituals, too. You might find yourself getting sucked into that one as well...

So, why is a human being considered more spiritual than an animal? For me, it comes down to the fact that we possess language as we know it—including the physical ability to articulate sounds thanks to our specific anatomy, something monkeys, for instance, lack (though I’m always a bit skeptical about the idea that they might possess something significantly *more*, rather than just something different). Because of language, we can "transmit information," allowing us to build and pass down culture, or even create "memes"—which is such a trendy term now that even those cute little sociobiologists get their moment in the sun. Other animals just can't do that. At least, not that we know of... But I will say this: a human being isn't a purely natural creature. Not unless you count "culture" as a natural upgrade, and even then, that feels like a bit of a sophism or just silly wordplay. We all know what people mean when they distinguish between "nature" and "culture," or that famous old debate of nature versus nurture.