A. What is a 'quilting-point' in Lacanian theory?

[@jenniferh.7219]

I despise this channel bc every day I learn something new. A new video comes up in my feed & I am compelled to watch it. my perspective of inner world is not the same. Does anyone else experience this? ; )

[@ameliefayet]

C’est intéressant ! Et la traduction automatique est hilarante !

[@redlibrarypodcast7303]

Love your videos and including them in the Psychoanalysis playlist for our channel! We are currently doing a reading series on Todd McGowan's Capitalism and Desire with a Lacanian analyst friend of ours. Keep up the great work!

[@derekhookonlacan]

Thank you for including me in your playlist! Todd McGowan has a series of wonderful essays, one on the notion of the phallus (in reading Lacan's ecrit vol 1) and another on law (in Lacan on psychosis) in addition of course to his terrific book Enjoying what we don't have (and others).

[@at-last]

On the other-hand... A seemingly go figure work-it-out opportunity--process AND Yet an Instance of Itself (fractal) of A Context of Paradox (metaphor and metonomy) that comes to mind after listening up to 5:14. Both a way of understanding where the forms presented function as strands of concretes and context *brought together* that create and coexist theory WITH the lived that carry forward new senses, that Both speak (feedforward) and YET are lived in ah-ha-eureka moment to moment of freshness in the company of same old. A Context of being present to the alledged paradoxs that naturally allows interest and attention to travel thru freer and lighter whilst the otherness and or sense of ourness grazes. Interweaving a form of in-it-others, while not of it, nor taken over by what ever that it-other is: where functional flow and grace is what's left, as the remainder, the default and consequently where an alert relaxed lived in on-ness sits and is sat with. The problematic of the skillful means taking over--take down of--the living of life for it's own agenda drive desire constructs is addressed by being present to it as not neccessarily us. What is Lacan and or whether or not, the above is the streaming sense. shared of living in and thru...

[@Adonis-Tiago.Santos]

thanks for the video, the quote of the paternal metaphor really helped to understand

[@JohnnyMinotaur]

Hi Derek, Some suggestions for future terminological videos... 1. connaissance, savoir, & savoir-faire (w/ref. to méconnaissance). 2. sens, signification, & signifiance (w/ref. to the various ways translators have rendered those in English) . 3. langue, langage, & lalangue

[@derekhookonlacan]

lalangue is a particularly fascinating topic - not promising here - but I will try to get to it. Thanks for the suggestions!

[@The.Iron.Felix.]

What are your thoughts on abstracting this analysis of the structure of psychosis to the level of politics? For example, the liberal subject today seems to be characterized by an unwillingness to tarry with ambiguity and is also hysterically oriented towards the explication of any and all master-signifiers.

[@kwalsh00999]

This is helpful, thank you. I'm wondering if you can help me understand Fink's account (p. 93-34) of how exactly the nom-du-père "establish[es] a link between language and meaning (reality as socially constituted), between signifier and signified, that will never break." In other words, I understand the metaphor of the quilting point, but not the account of how specifically it (or at least its first iteration) comes into being. Why would the first prohibition (presumably after some degree of language formation, in which there must already be some tethered relationship between signifier and signified) be the point that, as fink says, "allows someone to assimilate the structure of language"? Thanks in advance!

[@swagatosaha]

I was wondering if this is consistent with the understanding of 'Psychosis' as 'foreclosure' - "I see myself as an instrument on enjoyment of the Other". Do both forms of Psychosis (overly literal, free-flowing) correspond to 'foreclosure'?

[@muskduh]

thanks so much for the video =)

[@psykoanalytikern]

Great channel man! I haven't had time yet to really dive into your content yet, but I'm training in psychoanalysis now and i'm trying to wrap my head around Lacan's theories. My institute is more like "Winnicottian" then Freudian/Lacanian so i'm doing this Lacanian exploration just out of pure interest. Right now i'm mostly interested something i think is Lacanian, maybe you can help me? One of my collegues refers to it as "the void" and says that if you really love someone you won't be able to explain why because you love "the void". If someone, on the other hand, describes a person by what they do or what they are, this is not "real love" according to Lacan. Am i out bicycling (as we say in Sweden) or is this lacanian? If yes, where can i find more information?

[@derekhookonlacan]

Hi to you in Sweden! Lacan has a theory of object a, which is basically about lack. The idea is NOT that there are objects that I desire but that under certain circumstances I find aspects or facets of other people desirable. Object a is Lacan's name for that difficult to pinpoint feature that hooks my desire. As any of us who have fallen in love know, that feature can be a small seemingly insignificant element, the way someone laughs, the timbre of someones voice, the way they move etc etc. The challenging aspect of Lacan's idea of object a is that a lack corresponds with a perception of a positive feature in the external world. So to be a desiring subject which means to be a lacking subject means that I am predisposed to experience my lack projected and positivised in the world of others. So back to your question, to love someone means that you love their lack and that as much as you try to pinpoint exactly what that might be it migrates, it moves across various facets of their being. You love that object a quality about them which sometimes seems possible to isolate but is also thoroughly elusive. It is in this sense that if you were able to fully enumerate all the reasons why you love someone one could argue that you don't really love them because to love someone is to love their object a, their lack. So, if you want to bicycle further in this direction, look for Bruce Fink's 'Lacan on Love'.

[@OH-pc5jx]

Does there exist anything beyond neurosis?

[@derekhookonlacan]

Neurosis is not all there is given that perversion and psychosis are also subjective structures. I wondered though whether by referring to 'beyond' you were implying a kind of progressive schema of subjective structures?

[@OH-pc5jx]

@@derekhookonlacan sorry, I can see how my language could be both confusing and harmfully normative. I was using the language Bruce Fink applied to ‘traversing the fundamental fantasy’ in his book The Lacanian Subject, precisely because I couldn’t make sense of what he was talking about in that context and because it seemed to betray the non-normative or post-moral (in the Nietzschean sense) spirit of psychoanalysis. I suppose a less normative way of talking about it would be ‘what is your conception of the aim/end of analysis in the case of a neurotic analysand?’

[@derekhookonlacan]

My favorite resource to consult in this respect is a two part article by my friend Owen Hewitson on his website Lacanonline - on the ends of analysis. It is difficult to say, but presumably it would entail an engagement with the so called traversing of the fundamental fantasy and finding a way with jouissance and desire. But this would be highly specific to each individual analysand.

[@OH-pc5jx]

@@derekhookonlacan would you say you’ve ever encountered such an experience in an analytic situation (either as analysand or analyst)?

[@derekhookonlacan]

It is a great question to ask because in the literature 'traversing the fantasy' is often built up as this huge big event. Lacan himself only uses the phrase very few times. For me, such an event might often be of a more modest in its occurrence taking on an after the fact quality whereby the types of jouissance and the fantasies that had arranged them seem to take on a secondary importance and potentially even dissipate. Hence what had been of structuring importance in one's life - partying, dreams of corporate success, certain imaginary identifications - take on a different and far less compelling or structuring importance in one's life. Sometimes I wonder, if just living life, getting older, experiencing hardships or being forced to move beyond a set of given identifications and enjoyments has a similar result.

[@screensaves]

s1/s2