What is Jouissance?

Regarding that whole Lacan statement about how the >—I don't think people are getting it quite right. When Lacan claims the woman doesn't exist, he isn't saying there's no such thing as a real female being; he means there is no specific signifier for her within the system. To actually function as a woman, she’s forced to identify through that privileged signifier—the phallus. These are the two subject positions Lacan mapped out so well, though frankly, most people forget he basically lifted the theory from the psychoanalyst Joan Rivier. Those two positions involve being the phallus or having the phallus. Consequently, femininity lacks the possibility of same-sex identification. To secure a spot within the system, a woman has two options: she either adopts that symbolic authority (which is why we see the simplified idea of women taking on "male" roles), or she exists as the negative counterpart to the first. Take a theorist like Luce Irigaray—she argues all these theories are just products of a patriarchal system and insists we need to build a new symbolic representation for women. Personally, I'm not buying it. You can't build symbolism; symbolism builds us. Trying to force that kind of liberation would be nothing more than a psychotic break from the symbolic order itself.

The concept of being the phallus for another is brilliantly deconstructed by Elizabeth Cowie, who was actually the first to point out the flaws in Freud's logic. Her work effectively dismantled that Freudian biological determinism. She shows that the shift from mother to father in the Oedipal complex isn't actually driven by recognizing anatomical differences, despite what Freud claimed. His take was that the feminine replaces the primary object of desire because the child blames the mother for lacking the "correct" genitalia. But Elizabeth Cowie demonstrates that the real driver is desire—specifically, the desire to "be the mother's desire." The shift happens because the subject seeks from the father what would fill that perceived void in the mother.

In short, this specific formulation is exactly why I started digging into Lacan. While Žižek keeps circling back to Lacan primarily to deal with the political subject, I'm much more interested in his theory when applied to the gendered context.

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"?

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"?

Honestly, it’s a relief to stumble upon someone else who actually gives a damn about this stuff. 🙂I haven't gotten around to that book you mentioned yet—it's still sitting on my nightstand. Let me know if it's actually worth the time once you finish it.

When it comes to the whole heterosexual framework, Simone de Beauvoir is my go-to—you probably know her for that line about how a woman isn't born, she becomes one. Give her some reading time; you'll find it pretty gripping.

When it comes to *jouissance*, I think we’re all carrying it around inside us—it's that core fracture where a subject actually begins to define itself. That split is essentially the Oedipus complex, our very first point of identification. It proves that sexuality isn't some pre-set, fixed blueprint; the whole idea of a "heterosexual matrix" is far from destiny. In reality, gender and orientation are shaped by the choices we make during that initial process of identification.

Regarding that idea about Jouissance helping maintain a subject's psychic balance—I’ve always viewed it through the lens of how symptoms actually function. You know Lacan’s whole "enjoy your symptom" bit? I think that's the core of it. A subject uses their symptom to hold their ground within the symbolic order. As much as those symptoms are a total nightmare to live through, they’re—in a weird way—absolutely necessary.

That whole approach basically lays out the groundwork for tearing down that patriarchal system. It’s why the role of the hysterical subject—and other marginalized groups, mostly women—is so vital. These subjects aren't willing to just act as a mouthpiece for symbolic authority. Look at all the idiots you see strutting around with their fancy titles, luxury SUVs, or whatever status symbols they use to flex power and suppress others—once you strip away those props, what’s actually left of them? Nothing. It’s the same deal when you expose the phallus. *Jouissance* exposes the lie of fixed subject positions because we always end up circling back to that primal desire buried in the unconscious—the one that can never truly be satisfied. According to Lacan, anything that slips through the cracks of symbolization becomes that traumatic "Real." That's essentially the hysterical position. But it isn't absolute; hysterics still exist within the symbolic order, which gives them a way to resist the demands of the Other. Psychosis, on the other hand, is a total break from that order entirely. In Lacanian terms, the symbolic order is already established, and we emerge through it—not the other way around. The structure is just a single signifier stepping in to take the subject's place in service of the Other. I find Luce Irigaray’s argument about creating a female symbolic representation a bit fuzzy—I’m more drawn to the potential of the hysterical position. To me, it feels like it actually breaks that binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

Honestly, I’ve never been a fan of the term "feminism." It feels too restrictive, like it's trying to box everyone into a specific group again—even if you could technically categorize these theories under a post-feminist umbrella.

Brandon Wright54 said:Honestly, it’s a relief to stumble upon someone else who actually gives a damn about this stuff. 🙂I haven't gotten around to that book you mentioned yet—it's still sitting on my nightstand. Let me know if it's actually worth the time once you finish it.

When it comes to the whole heterosexual framework, Simone de Beauvoir is my go-to—you probably know her for that line about how a woman isn't born, she becomes one. Give her some reading time; you'll find it pretty gripping.

When it comes to *jouissance*, I think we’re all carrying it around inside us—it's that core fracture where a subject actually begins to define itself. That split is essentially the Oedipus complex, our very first point of identification. It proves that sexuality isn't some pre-set, fixed blueprint; the whole idea of a "heterosexual matrix" is far from destiny. In reality, gender and orientation are shaped by the choices we make during that initial process of identification.

Regarding that idea about Jouissance helping maintain a subject's psychic balance—I’ve always viewed it through the lens of how symptoms actually function. You know Lacan’s whole "enjoy your symptom" bit? I think that's the core of it. A subject uses their symptom to hold their ground within the symbolic order. As much as those symptoms are a total nightmare to live through, they’re—in a weird way—absolutely necessary.

That whole approach basically lays out the groundwork for tearing down that patriarchal system. It’s why the role of the hysterical subject—and other marginalized groups, mostly women—is so vital. These subjects aren't willing to just act as a mouthpiece for symbolic authority. Look at all the idiots you see strutting around with their fancy titles, luxury SUVs, or whatever status symbols they use to flex power and suppress others—once you strip away those props, what’s actually left of them? Nothing. It’s the same deal when you expose the phallus. *Jouissance* exposes the lie of fixed subject positions because we always end up circling back to that primal desire buried in the unconscious—the one that can never truly be satisfied. According to Lacan, anything that slips through the cracks of symbolization becomes that traumatic "Real." That's essentially the hysterical position. But it isn't absolute; hysterics still exist within the symbolic order, which gives them a way to resist the demands of the Other. Psychosis, on the other hand, is a total break from that order entirely. In Lacanian terms, the symbolic order is already established, and we emerge through it—not the other way around. The structure is just a single signifier stepping in to take the subject's place in service of the Other. I find Luce Irigaray’s argument about creating a female symbolic representation a bit fuzzy—I’m more drawn to the potential of the hysterical position. To me, it feels like it actually breaks that binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

Honestly, I’ve never been a fan of the term "feminism." It feels too restrictive, like it's trying to box everyone into a specific group again—even if you could technically categorize these theories under a post-feminist umbrella.

"Enjoy your symptom"—god, that sounds beautiful 😁 when you consider the sheer pressure to conform to some standard of "normalcy." I mean, how much does it actually matter to a person when they finally manage to accept themselves as they are (even if they have to deal with the fallout later)? That first step alone is everything. There’s also that saying: "Resistance is what burns you out, not the feelings" 😁 (I can't even remember who said that 🙂)
Alright, I'll dive into Beauvoir and Irigaray, but I need to brush up on Lacan first. I really need to wrap my head around what you mean by the "hysterical position" and "the Other" (maybe I'll post my thoughts here; someone might find it useful). Anyway, it's great to have such a sharp conversationalist to talk to—especially one willing to explain things to me.🙂

As for those symbolic authorities you're bringing up, I saw right through them ages ago. Honestly, you don't even need to be an expert on Lacan to grasp that part of the game 🙂

But there’s something else that’s been bugging me lately... specifically what you wrote here:

It feels a bit fuzzy to me when Luce Irigaray argues for the creation of a female symbolic representation. I find the potential of the subject's hysterical position more compelling, mostly because it seems to shatter that whole binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

How can you ever really feel certain about your own stance? It drives me crazy how everything is pathologized these days. You explain the causes behind something, thinking you've nailed the theory, only for someone else to swoop in with a "better" framework and crown themselves the new ultimate authority. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you personally, just this general phenomenon where new theories pop up constantly and it never ends... or will it? Maybe by 2012? 😂 Just kidding, obviously...

And I should probably mention, there are definitely better books out there than the one I'm currently stuck with. I have this annoying compulsion to finish every book I start, god help me 🙂, but if you want, I can email it to you—just shoot me a DM. At first glance, it's written for beginners like me, but it leaves so much unsaid. Maybe experts can squeeze more meaning out of it, who knows...

Jacob Newman77 said:"Enjoy your symptom"—god, that sounds beautiful 😁 when you consider the sheer pressure to conform to some standard of "normalcy." I mean, how much does it actually matter to a person when they finally manage to accept themselves as they are (even if they have to deal with the fallout later)? That first step alone is everything. There’s also that saying: "Resistance is what burns you out, not the feelings" 😁 (I can't even remember who said that 🙂)
Alright, I'll dive into Beauvoir and Irigaray, but I need to brush up on Lacan first. I really need to wrap my head around what you mean by the "hysterical position" and "the Other" (maybe I'll post my thoughts here; someone might find it useful). Anyway, it's great to have such a sharp conversationalist to talk to—especially one willing to explain things to me.🙂

As for those symbolic authorities you're bringing up, I saw right through them ages ago. Honestly, you don't even need to be an expert on Lacan to grasp that part of the game 🙂

But there’s something else that’s been bugging me lately... specifically what you wrote here:

It feels a bit fuzzy to me when Luce Irigaray argues for the creation of a female symbolic representation. I find the potential of the subject's hysterical position more compelling, mostly because it seems to shatter that whole binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

How can you ever really feel certain about your own stance? It drives me crazy how everything is pathologized these days. You explain the causes behind something, thinking you've nailed the theory, only for someone else to swoop in with a "better" framework and crown themselves the new ultimate authority. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you personally, just this general phenomenon where new theories pop up constantly and it never ends... or will it? Maybe by 2012? 😂 Just kidding, obviously...

And I should probably mention, there are definitely better books out there than the one I'm currently stuck with. I have this annoying compulsion to finish every book I start, god help me 🙂, but if you want, I can email it to you—just shoot me a DM. At first glance, it's written for beginners like me, but it leaves so much unsaid. Maybe experts can squeeze more meaning out of it, who knows...

Exactly. What does "normal" even mean? It’s just acting in alignment with a set of arbitrary rules we don't actually understand—we just submit to them because why not. All these models defining what’s normal versus what’s abnormal—the way Lacan puts it—are just constructs of language, not some inherent part of who we are. So you end up with some idiot who can't even wipe his own nose properly, yet because he knows how to perform his gendered role perfectly, he gets labeled as totally normal.

Jacob Newman77 said:"Enjoy your symptom"—god, that sounds beautiful 😁 when you consider the sheer pressure to conform to some standard of "normalcy." I mean, how much does it actually matter to a person when they finally manage to accept themselves as they are (even if they have to deal with the fallout later)? That first step alone is everything. There’s also that saying: "Resistance is what burns you out, not the feelings" 😁 (I can't even remember who said that 🙂)
Alright, I'll dive into Beauvoir and Irigaray, but I need to brush up on Lacan first. I really need to wrap my head around what you mean by the "hysterical position" and "the Other" (maybe I'll post my thoughts here; someone might find it useful). Anyway, it's great to have such a sharp conversationalist to talk to—especially one willing to explain things to me.🙂

As for those symbolic authorities you're bringing up, I saw right through them ages ago. Honestly, you don't even need to be an expert on Lacan to grasp that part of the game 🙂

But there’s something else that’s been bugging me lately... specifically what you wrote here:

It feels a bit fuzzy to me when Luce Irigaray argues for the creation of a female symbolic representation. I find the potential of the subject's hysterical position more compelling, mostly because it seems to shatter that whole binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

How can you ever really feel certain about your own stance? It drives me crazy how everything is pathologized these days. You explain the causes behind something, thinking you've nailed the theory, only for someone else to swoop in with a "better" framework and crown themselves the new ultimate authority. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you personally, just this general phenomenon where new theories pop up constantly and it never ends... or will it? Maybe by 2012? 😂 Just kidding, obviously...

And I should probably mention, there are definitely better books out there than the one I'm currently stuck with. I have this annoying compulsion to finish every book I start, god help me 🙂, but if you want, I can email it to you—just shoot me a DM. At first glance, it's written for beginners like me, but it leaves so much unsaid. Maybe experts can squeeze more meaning out of it, who knows...

That’s exactly why I dove into this field in the first place. Even as a kid, I could see through the whole charade of authority—that hollow sense of legitimacy they peddle. We're all vulnerable to that kind of influence, mostly because the system isn't just some external force; it's baked right into us. At the end of the day, it's a question of the psychological subject.

Jacob Newman77 said:"Enjoy your symptom"—god, that sounds beautiful 😁 when you consider the sheer pressure to conform to some standard of "normalcy." I mean, how much does it actually matter to a person when they finally manage to accept themselves as they are (even if they have to deal with the fallout later)? That first step alone is everything. There’s also that saying: "Resistance is what burns you out, not the feelings" 😁 (I can't even remember who said that 🙂)
Alright, I'll dive into Beauvoir and Irigaray, but I need to brush up on Lacan first. I really need to wrap my head around what you mean by the "hysterical position" and "the Other" (maybe I'll post my thoughts here; someone might find it useful). Anyway, it's great to have such a sharp conversationalist to talk to—especially one willing to explain things to me.🙂

As for those symbolic authorities you're bringing up, I saw right through them ages ago. Honestly, you don't even need to be an expert on Lacan to grasp that part of the game 🙂

But there’s something else that’s been bugging me lately... specifically what you wrote here:

It feels a bit fuzzy to me when Luce Irigaray argues for the creation of a female symbolic representation. I find the potential of the subject's hysterical position more compelling, mostly because it seems to shatter that whole binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

How can you ever really feel certain about your own stance? It drives me crazy how everything is pathologized these days. You explain the causes behind something, thinking you've nailed the theory, only for someone else to swoop in with a "better" framework and crown themselves the new ultimate authority. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you personally, just this general phenomenon where new theories pop up constantly and it never ends... or will it? Maybe by 2012? 😂 Just kidding, obviously...

And I should probably mention, there are definitely better books out there than the one I'm currently stuck with. I have this annoying compulsion to finish every book I start, god help me 🙂, but if you want, I can email it to you—just shoot me a DM. At first glance, it's written for beginners like me, but it leaves so much unsaid. Maybe experts can squeeze more meaning out of it, who knows...

I'm not sure where I stand on this, but honestly—that’s the whole charm of it 🙂. Nobody should be certain. Sure, some frameworks exist, but that’s why postmodernism is actually useful—it’s basically just finding new ways to read what’s already been written. It’s like how you’re never a finished product as a person; you’re constantly shifting, and that’s the entire point. This process of identity is never "done." You move from one position to another, which gives you the flexibility to pivot. Take someone who stubbornly clings to a single perspective—try convincing them otherwise. They won't budge, and they’ll probably just double down with those massive defense mechanisms to protect their ego. It's pure fear of losing ground. I don't know how much you follow the art scene (I work within those circles myself), but take Cindy Sherman, for example. She captures this perfectly. By masking herself in countless different female personas, she highlights that total fluidity of identity.

Jacob Newman77 said:"Enjoy your symptom"—god, that sounds beautiful 😁 when you consider the sheer pressure to conform to some standard of "normalcy." I mean, how much does it actually matter to a person when they finally manage to accept themselves as they are (even if they have to deal with the fallout later)? That first step alone is everything. There’s also that saying: "Resistance is what burns you out, not the feelings" 😁 (I can't even remember who said that 🙂)
Alright, I'll dive into Beauvoir and Irigaray, but I need to brush up on Lacan first. I really need to wrap my head around what you mean by the "hysterical position" and "the Other" (maybe I'll post my thoughts here; someone might find it useful). Anyway, it's great to have such a sharp conversationalist to talk to—especially one willing to explain things to me.🙂

As for those symbolic authorities you're bringing up, I saw right through them ages ago. Honestly, you don't even need to be an expert on Lacan to grasp that part of the game 🙂

But there’s something else that’s been bugging me lately... specifically what you wrote here:

It feels a bit fuzzy to me when Luce Irigaray argues for the creation of a female symbolic representation. I find the potential of the subject's hysterical position more compelling, mostly because it seems to shatter that whole binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...

How can you ever really feel certain about your own stance? It drives me crazy how everything is pathologized these days. You explain the causes behind something, thinking you've nailed the theory, only for someone else to swoop in with a "better" framework and crown themselves the new ultimate authority. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you personally, just this general phenomenon where new theories pop up constantly and it never ends... or will it? Maybe by 2012? 😂 Just kidding, obviously...

And I should probably mention, there are definitely better books out there than the one I'm currently stuck with. I have this annoying compulsion to finish every book I start, god help me 🙂, but if you want, I can email it to you—just shoot me a DM. At first glance, it's written for beginners like me, but it leaves so much unsaid. Maybe experts can squeeze more meaning out of it, who knows...

Thanks for the book offer, 🙂. I’d recommend checking out Lacan’s Writings; I borrowed a copy from the university library, so they should definitely have it in stock. It’s well-written, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to argue about once you dive in. 🙂

Brandon Wright54 said:Exactly. What does "normal" even mean? It’s just acting in alignment with a set of arbitrary rules we don't actually understand—we just submit to them because why not. All these models defining what’s normal versus what’s abnormal—the way Lacan puts it—are just constructs of language, not some inherent part of who we are. So you end up with some idiot who can't even wipe his own nose properly, yet because he knows how to perform his gendered role perfectly, he gets labeled as totally normal.

That’s exactly why I dove into this field in the first place. Even as a kid, I could see through the whole charade of authority—that hollow sense of legitimacy they peddle. We're all vulnerable to that kind of influence, mostly because the system isn't just some external force; it's baked right into us. At the end of the day, it's a question of the psychological subject.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, but honestly—that’s the whole charm of it 🙂. Nobody should be certain. Sure, some frameworks exist, but that’s why postmodernism is actually useful—it’s basically just finding new ways to read what’s already been written. It’s like how you’re never a finished product as a person; you’re constantly shifting, and that’s the entire point. This process of identity is never "done." You move from one position to another, which gives you the flexibility to pivot. Take someone who stubbornly clings to a single perspective—try convincing them otherwise. They won't budge, and they’ll probably just double down with those massive defense mechanisms to protect their ego. It's pure fear of losing ground. I don't know how much you follow the art scene (I work within those circles myself), but take Cindy Sherman, for example. She captures this perfectly. By masking herself in countless different female personas, she highlights that total fluidity of identity.

Thanks for the book offer, 🙂. I’d recommend checking out Lacan’s Writings; I borrowed a copy from the university library, so they should definitely have it in stock. It’s well-written, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to argue about once you dive in. 🙂

:respect: 🙂 Whatever. I’m going back to my books, trying not to let any of this weigh me down 😁 "For pure will, unweakened by purpose, freed from the craving for results, every path is perfect" 😁 (from The Book of Law)

A few scraps from Bruce Fink's book, A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Not a literal translation, just some messy notes of mine... It’s much easier to wrap my head around the theory when there are actual examples, which makes this book perfect. 🙂 It’s a hell of a lot better than his previous one.

So, here goes:

Opinion is imaginary, according to Jacques Lacan, because it’s tied to the image we hold of ourselves. That's why what someone says always reveals far more than what they actually intended to say; the unconscious meaning of their words constantly escapes them.

The distinction between pleasure and jouissance—take a child sucking their thumb, for instance. At first, it's pure pleasure. Later, it starts involving circumstances like prohibitions, permissions, or people making jokes about it. It becomes social, tethered to the subjects in their environment, and thus transitions into jouissance.

Then there is the second, with a capital D—the big Other. This is, say, a parental Other that a person rejects due to bad experiences with their parents: "I'll do anything else except what my parents want me to do, or I'd rather die than give them that satisfaction." The problem arises when the thing they are rejecting is actually good for them, and they have to learn how to let go of that resistance just because it’s associated with their parents. Doing so makes them free to express themselves and do what’s truly right, independent of any externally imposed image. And it doesn't have to be just parents; it applies to any significant figures in one's life—teachers, for example—as well as religion or society at large, whether it's the local community or the entire United States. Of course, a person can invent a million excuses to justify their rebellious behavior while remaining completely oblivious to the truth.
What kind of relationship can one have with the Other? The Other essentially means the set of laws governing a family or society (usually referred to as the Law), or perhaps the ideal one should strive toward (the Other imposes that very aspiration; the aspiration itself is part of the Other!).
A person might resist one part of the Other, like the parental side, or adopt a generally rebellious stance. Others compulsively do everything the Other dictates, lacking what you might call a "self." Some people avoid the Other by withdrawing into themselves. Someone might appear indifferent to the demands of others on the surface, yet they surrender to them by refusing to participate directly or actively in meeting those demands. Then there are those who break the Law in secret, secretly hoping to get caught. Or someone might want to start a family but delays it indefinitely due to anxiety. Someone else might dive into careers and jobs that are almost certain to end in failure. This is why you often hear this phrase in analysis: "My desires aren't even mine!"
Analysis needs to work on these relationships, which are called symbolic relations. Jacques Lacan introduces two categories here: the symbolic and the imaginary. The symbolic refers to the unconscious and the Other, while the imaginary refers to the ego—the image a person has of themselves. The goal of analysis is to dissolve the imaginary ties a person has with others to shift the focus toward symbolic connections; this leads to a much deeper understanding of oneself and one's actions. For example, someone might have a rivalry with their brother, but underneath, it’s actually about the parental Other—the parents treated them differently than the brother. Or a relationship with a peer might actually be rooted in a past relationship with a teacher. The analyst must be perceived through the symbolic order—the only one who heals, as Jacques Lacan puts it—rather than through imaginary identification, where rivalry and such things crop up.
The other with a small d is someone similar to us, whereas the Other with a capital D is a person or an institution with a symbolic function—setting laws, establishing prohibitions, imposing ideals, and so on.

That’s all for now. I’ll get back to that whole so-called "hysteric position" later...

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.

chill out 😉

@Brandon Wright54: Do you happen to know anyone who tackles all of this while actually acknowledging the biological side of things? I mean, we can't just view the psyche in total isolation from the brain itself. When you look at psychosis or other disorders, the neurological changes are objectively there. Every single disorder is essentially a cocktail of purely psychological factors and biological ones working in tandem. An integrated theory would offer a much better explanation for how this works, wouldn't it?

Jacob Newman77 said:@Brandon Wright54: Do you happen to know anyone who tackles all of this while actually acknowledging the biological side of things? I mean, we can't just view the psyche in total isolation from the brain itself. When you look at psychosis or other disorders, the neurological changes are objectively there. Every single disorder is essentially a cocktail of purely psychological factors and biological ones working in tandem. An integrated theory would offer a much better explanation for how this works, wouldn't it?

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.🙂

Jacob Newman77 Asks:
Here’s a few notes I pulled from Bruce Fink’s *A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis*. This isn't some formal translation—just my own shorthand. Honestly, theory only starts making sense once you see it applied in real life, which is exactly why this book is such a lifesaver. 🙂 It’s a hell of a lot better than the last one.

So, here it is:

Opinion is purely imaginary—that’s what Jacques Lacan argues—because it's tied directly to the image we hold of ourselves. It’s why when someone speaks, they end up revealing way more than they actually intended. The unconscious meaning slips right past them, making their own words betray them.

There’s a massive gap between simple pleasure and *jouissance*. Take a kid sucking their thumb—at first, it’s just pure, uncomplicated pleasure. But then things shift. You introduce rules, prohibitions, permission, or even people making jokes about it. Suddenly, it isn't just a private sensation anymore; it becomes socialized, tangled up with the surrounding subjects, and that's when it crosses over into *jouissance*.

The Big Other—with a capital B—is a perfect example of how we sabotage ourselves. Sometimes, if you had a rough time growingup with your parents, you develop this reflex to reject everything they stand for. It’s that classic "I’d rather die than give them the satisfaction of getting their way" mentality. But here’s where it gets messy: what if what they actually want for you is genuinely good? That’s the trap. If you can't learn to separate your own interests from that knee-jerk resentment toward your parents, you stay stuck. You end up fighting ghosts instead of making actual progress. Real freedom comes when you stop reacting to an external image and start doing what actually makes sense for you. And look, it isn't just about parents. This pattern repeats with anyone who holds weight in your life—teachers, mentors, religious institutions, even the broader culture or the government at large. People are incredibly talented at inventing a million different excuses to justify their defiance, all while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that they're just acting out a script written by old grudges.
What kind of relationship can someone actually have with the Other? Look, the Other isn't just some person—it’s that entire web of rules and social expectations that governs your family and society at large (usually referred to as the Law). But there's a catch—it's also that idealized standard we feel forced to chase. The Other doesn't just watch you strive for perfection; it actually imposes the desire itself. That drive to reach an impossible ideal? It's baked right into the structure of the Other.
A person might push back against one specific part of the Other—say, their parents—or they might just take a generally rebellious stance toward everything. Then you have people who compulsively follow every single command the Other gives, effectively having no sense of self at all. Some people deal with the Other by retreating entirely into themselves. You also see those who look indifferent on the surface, yet they still submit by refusing to actively engage or fulfill any demands. There are those who break the rules in secret, almost hoping they’ll finally get caught. Or someone might want to start a family, but because of deep-seated anxiety, they just keep putting it off indefinitely. Someone else might dive headfirst into career paths that are practically guaranteed to fail. This is why, in analysis, you constantly hear the same thing: "My desires aren't even my own!"
Analysis has to focus on what we call symbolic relations. Jacques Lacan breaks this down into two distinct categories: the Symbolic and the Imaginary. The Symbolic deals with the unconscious and the Other, while the Imaginary is all about the ego—that specific image a person holds of themselves. The whole point of analysis is to dissolve those imaginary attachments people cling to. You want to shift that focus toward the symbolic connections instead. That’s where you actually start understanding yourself and why you do what you do. Take a guy who’s constantly at odds with his brother—on the surface, it looks like sibling rivalry, but underneath, it’s usually about the parental Other. It’s about how the parents treated him differently than his brother. Or look at a same-sex relationship between two peers; often, there’s an underlying dynamic tied back to an old teacher from years ago. The analyst needs to be perceived through the symbolic order—the only thing that actually provides healing, according to Lacan. If the patient starts seeing the analyst through an imaginary lens, you run straight into rivalry and other useless complications.
The little "d" version is just someone similar to us, whereas the Big D version is an entity or institution that holds symbolic power—think things like setting the laws, enforcing prohibitions, or pushing certain ideals onto society.

That’s all for now. I'll circle back to that whole "hysteric's position" thing later..

Super simple explanation. If you laid it out like that, I'd definitely be on board with the interpretation.

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.🙂

Well then, go ahead and start it. We can pick up our conversation about the hysterical position over there... you've piqued my interest. (And let me know when you do, drop a link please).

As for this space, we can keep digging into the simulacrum... and the brain. 🙂 If everything is a simulacrum, how exactly do chemical molecules influence it? A little mushrooms, or peyote, or LSD, and suddenly syntax goes out the window at 3 PM. 😁 It might become something entirely different, among other things... (and what exactly happens to jouissance in that moment? 😂)

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: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.

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 😉.

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 - check this out: Looking Awry It’s actually a pretty solid way to get your feet wet with Lacan, too.

Žižek's The Plague of Fantasies

Bracher, Lacan, Discourse, and Social Change: A Psychoanalytic Cultural Criticism

Maybe it’s time to let everyone else have a little bite from the tree of knowledge too...