So clear, thank you!

The body without organs is the Higgs bosson

Thanks! I start reading this book this semester with my professor, you are the only person that I can find who has explained everything in the internet, I appreciate your devotion, this kind of insight is invaluable and it is oftentimes disgustingly underestimated.

I was just reading Hegel's "The Phenomenology of Spirit" (VII Religion in General, B. Religion in the form of Art, c. The Spiritual work of art), where Hegel seems to compare Hamlet with Macbeth and those who believe oracles (e.g., Oedipus consulted the Oracle at Delphi), priestess, and gods. Hegel writes:"..., therefore, lets his revenge tarry for the revelation which the spirit of his father makes... --- for the reason that the spirit giving the revelation might possibly the devil. This mistrust has good grounds, because the knowing consciousness takes its stand on the opposition between certainty of itself on the one hand, and the objective essential reality on the other." I did not finish your video, but I will try to come back to see if there are any interesting relations.

Thank you!

It's wild how relevant this critique still is to the field of psychology today. This problem of anatomical and quantitative reductionism made my undergrad psych class on sensation and perception unbearable, but I'm hopeful recent trends in 4E cog sci (which is firmly rooted in the phenomenological tradition) will help move things in the right direction. I appreciate you laying the history out and providing visual examples, thanks for putting this together!

11:45 as someone with Avoidant Personality disorder background, I completely relate to this graph. Looking at attachment theory and the background of insecure attachment where in childhood into teen & young adulthood the request or desire for 'secure connection ' safe connection/ bond ie love was not met. As an adult now with AVPD presenting in my life I see that I typically or systemically repress or distrust the desire for connection or safe connection/bond bc it was not met, did not occur/ did not occur and evolve (in the occurrence of being met) for so long - that in my behavior and underlying beliefs I do not look for, or trust it's facilitation/ the possibility of the need being met, safely or in any appropriate satisfying actuality. It is excellent to see a graph which helps relate or clarify this mostly hidden inner position in me

Is Faust one of the best literary representatives of the Lacanian hysteric?

I really like what you said in the last few minutes, expounding the passion of ignorance, and how you compared the ignorance we have to the other is equal to the ignorance we have of the ego. That’s a really great breakdown.

Excellent, glad you are posting again.

"If I do not recognize the enigma that I am, and especially the enigma of my desire, then I do not know myself." This is really good.

What is recommended as next after this lecture? At the video's end there is no link to the next consecutive video. Thank you!

How might I begin to argue that I think you have appropriated Heidegger's thought at least as well as the man himself?

3:05 full speech is what lacan calls "heretical" speech?

I gotta increase my volume 1:45 I thought he said psychoanalyst Chaka Khan, lol!

With that channel name I immediately knew this would be some great super nerd level content 😂 great work, subscribed

Great work; brilliant!

Thank you so much for this lecture. 😊

Thanks!

thank you

Levinas:Gaze operates first to awaken subjectivity, my responsibility that comes from this. The for itself emerges from the other not from in itself Therefore, freedom comes second to ethical responsibility to the other Lacan: consciousnes is secondary to the existence of the other (precedes consciousness) Unconscious for levinas is external (not deep within) and this is through the other as well

Hey, thanks for this work, I wanted to comment and thank you but also warn you that you may see some comments on some old videos as I catch up. I’m here by way of Embracing the Void: Rethinking the Origin of the Sacred a book by Richard Boothby where he mentions Lacan’s ideas throughout. I really resonate with what you said about re-writing history. Two days ago I read Walter Benjamin ‘On the Concept of History’ in it he writes, “The past carries with it a temporal index by which it is referred to redemption. There is a secret agreement between past generations and the present one. Our coming was expected on earth. Like every generation that preceded us, we have been endowed with a weak messianic power, a power to which the past has a claim. That claim cannot be settled cheaply.” This video really connected the dots between the ego as a symptom and the gaps in our history belonging the other. This series is exactly what I’ve been seeking, looking forward to the rest of the journey. 🫡

Psychology critiques Sartre - desire to be (for itself defined by a lack which seeks to become to fill this, which allows for freedom). Fundamental project to be. Desire for god - being cause for itself. How does freedom exist if all desired by god? Ultimate aim is not fixed, continually discovered.

Doing: Freedom as nothing. No essence but finds all essences through possibilities. No limits to freedom except condemned to be free. Ends - common purpose Motives - subjective desire Causes - circumstances (All interlinked) Freedom is not random, actions are linked and unitary. But actions begin and end within an instant. True change needs a transformative change to the project. Instant can threaten to upend out livesm

Conflict is original meaning for being for others (gaze and gazed upon) Love To engage in others freedom without objectifying them. Being loved means other must make a free choice. Cant be pressured or guilt. But also necessity (not just chance), needs special like soulmate. Faithful commitment freely chosen (contradictions). Love expressed through words. Seduction - not inform but cause other undergo experience. Performative utterance. Seeks to influence hope and desire. But also this is a way to objectify, whuch means less subjectivity. Masochist - pursues own subjectivity, but truly cannot be made into an object (being for itself). You are paying to be hurt so that means transcendence. Bad faith Indifference/Desire/hate/sadism: Love - seeking free recognition of my being to redeem me from fall into shame from other Desire - seeking to get hold of their subjectivity through objectivising them. Flesh - consciousness when felt or touched by others. Incarnation - process of consciousness becoming flesh (lives itself as body). Caress - cause her flesh to be born, fo incarnate the other. Incarnate the conscious with body and freedom. Reciprocal. Sadist - incarnate other through force not caress. Not graceful. Appropriate others freedom. Enslaved. Their freedom succumbed to the flesh. Flesh is integration with consciousness and body (fhe consciousness is always outsdie the flesh). So bad faith as well. Failure to preserve subjectivity while have objectivity. Hate - impossibility as using other to affirm ones being. seek to destroy their subjectivity and objectivity. Assert one owns freedom. Eliminate presence of otherness altogether. Hate fails because cannot erase past therefore no escape from the gaze. Hate leads to despair therefore. Collective: we: We emerges from foundation of being for others. We-subjectand us-object. Third person looking at two. (Creates the us). Class consciousness through perspective of the third. Realisation struggles defined by those in power. And the opressors dont really unit as oppressors until oppressed gaze too (can lead to shame/fear)

1) body as being for itself Facticity - limitation and condition of possibility for my freedom. Body must be overcome but also through the body look out at the world in own unique socio-cultural-psychological way. Freedom are ways to transcend these things, so they are not essences. Body as not in itself. Not an object. Not just subject too. (Arete zen). Self actualising it's potential through objects. Participant acting in the world. Extend body through objects. Without objects - mood, retrospective awareness of body's contingencies (showing us not living). Affectivity as not living being lived compared to emotions. Pain - underlying presence. Fundmantal aspect but not an object. Striving towards pain free state as part of our possibilitiy(again link between for itself and in itself as pain). I don't have pain illness. I live it. Part of the body but a foreign body as well (transcendent). The unconscious emerged this psychical state of illness (projection of illness as in itself) - I think that's what being said?

Good overview of Husserl. But treat other as a category of being, doesn't consider others consciousness

I would like to thank you for giving me a go at it. Still wrestling with Husserl within the framework of my Scholastic Philosophy Education at the University.

Quality as the yellowness of the lemon, not separate parts, inherent to it (for zen maintenance book club) Abstracting allows to see its permanent features, and see its possibilities in the future Both concrete and abstract needed

Present: Infinitisemal moment, can't always be measured Instead thinking about presence through co-presencing with other things/other beings. We brings these things into the totality of the present.

Two major breakthroughs for me on three mins. I think I’ll leave it there for today as Lacan would say. Nice video!

Past not disconnnected to the present, not a modification of present. Its related to present as a dialectic. Its me but not me. It's not isolated to me (but dont possess to me). Whatvis the past? For itself overhwelemed by in itself. Past as facticity (it haunts me). Tension between past and present. Cant change the past, but can take responsibility of past to negate it. Having been - lived experience of the past.

Kirkegaard - fall into consciousness from garden of eden Thrownness but not determined. Thrownness leads to future activities that are not fully determined (facticity as the meaning of the in-itself) Cosnicousness haunted by never being able to fully enclose itself - suffers. Heidegher -my death never reached because then thats the end, but this lack influences me (the lacked moon influencing the image of the crescent moon).

The mindmapping approach is good! Bad faith - as postponing decision (Brief Encounter movie as well) Facticity vs Transcendence (facticity of hands as mere transcendence, ignore decision of any intention). To be not in bad faith means linking facticity and transcendence

Anguish - we have a being in itself we create, but our for itself surpasses this, we can always surpass this Consciousness of freedom exists regardless if it turns out if psychological determinism existed (because focussing on phenomology). This freedom shows itself as anguish. Separation of past/present/future, but linked in that this separation will persist as future becomes present for example. Will use logic as a way to distract from freedom (anguish). Will use psychological determinism (explaining causes of our actions as foolproof) as well. Similar to the They. 'You should turn your shoulds into musts, otherwise you should all over yourself '

So instead of Buddhist attempt at ending of desire, it's an almost absurdist strategy to send desire in strange and new directions that aren't in alignment with capitalism?

I absolutely loved your depth in this topic, please keep it up!!

Thank you so much for this!

OH MY GOD, I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!

Got a little taste of it in "Evil and Givenness" and im excited to get more!

Thank you. Really looking forward to this one.

Amazing. Having gone through some, but not all, of the PoP in the past, I am very excited for this. My knowledge of this is heavily influenced by some of Hubert Dreyfus’ courses on the subject. I’m interested to see if you have some alternative takes. Also, I think you discussed this to some extent in a previous video, but it would be eventually interesting to examine in some depth what Lacan claims to be missing from PoP. Namely, that it remains within the imaginary. It would be interesting to think about this from Merleau-Ponty’s perspective.

Do you think that Heidegger's existentiell and existential analyses is a reduction in the Husserlian sense? Does this relate to Heidegger's idea of formal indication? Just trying to get an idea of what Husserl means by reduction.

Thank you!

🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩

Thanks for the fantastic lecture series! I tend to see the repressed ego as nothing other than the unsymbolised real and so has no content as such - it merely serves to structurally animate the ghosts of dead fathers, which due to the historical layering appear undistinguished from the symbolic order - like a ghost which insists but whose message is unclear, nothing but the lack itself - the lack in the symbolic superimposed on the absolute lack of the real which acts as a double negation when viewed from one point of view but which in itself is merely the ungraspable nature of the real… It is precisely other than “this” because it is unconditioned - the early Lacan seeks to erode this with symbolisation like a form of therapy but later he sees it as a structural necessity which prevents the reification of the symbolic. In this way words simply become objects for consciousness and lose their mastery over us, or at least the part of us that is invested in a materiality which is real rather than signified, and which therefore obscures us fully stepping into the role of the other of the other and becoming God's wife.

Nice work! I think the title also references Levinas’ Time and the Other and his concept of our “will have been obligated” The Real here is the other of the other which appears as an obstacle, the limit of the said - the lack of any other of the other means it must be re-stitched as the condition of possibility of the gap in being where the other of language emerges This then undermines the absolute status of existence given by the naming which otherwise kills the thing - this re-doubling inverts the inversion and negates the negation

So, if we were eternal we would not be aware of our "self". That's interesting.

Can you explain what you mean in point 1 of desire when you say, “To love in the other what the other lacks.” Don’t you mean, I love in the other what I lack?

Derek Hook just released a series on dream analysis :)