F&B 2017E LACAN

[@doncarveth]

Thankis all for the encouraging comments. Hope to add more soon.

[@ipsofactophoto]

Please add more. Thank you in advance.

[@doncarveth]

@@ipsofactophoto there is a chapter on Leon in my 2018 book

[@doncarveth]

I discuss this in the chapter on Leconte in my 2018 book. William Richardson is one of the few Lacanians Who identify the real with both the terrible and the awesome.

[@SaraSara-yl8jv]

Hi Dr. Thank u so much for your efforts .I am PhD student of literature, I need articles about narcissism to apply Lacan's theory on some novels .I will grateful if u send me websites concerning this topic

[@oananica5217]

@@SaraSara-yl8jv v. Gy

[@jjharvathh]

More and more, I enjoy and appreciate these videos Don. You are a brilliant young man. Good luck to you, and thanks for making these available on KZbin.

[@jenesuispassanslavoir7698]

Six years later I discovered this video and am really enjoying it to support me reading the Écrits for the second time. Only twelve more reads and I’ll probably have a proper grasp on it!

[@raquelchapdelaine2271]

I thought your appreciation and critique of Lacan was very fair and well rounded, Don! The Lacanian approach has been the one that I prioritized for 3 decades and your exposition was excellent. In fact, it has shed light onto why I’m now interested into Melanie Klein: the overlapping areas (although the Kleinian lenses in the realm of differences are very compelling!). I’ve purchased the Klein Lacan Dialogues that you have recommended. Thank you for another superb lecture! (You are very patient too! 😄)

[@doncarveth]

Thank you, Racquel

[@sepidehcheraghi3683]

Dear Don,I have been listening to your lectures on KZbin over the last few years. Recently I follow them more often because I have started a psychotherapy course and I just wanted to say I learn a lot from your lectures. They are incredibly useful and enrich my understanding of what I have been studying at University. Thank you so much for the great talks!

[@doncarveth]

Thank you

[@mjmartn]

Just discovered your channel. I'm finding your lectures so illuminating and engaging. Thanks.

[@doncarveth]

Very good, thanks

[@arjunkumar2971]

This discussion is fascinating. Thanks for uploading it here.

[@sarahhajarbalqis]

Dr Carveth. Whatever the intent of the author. You have a way of simplifying things for us. Appreciating this as a non native speaker.

[@doncarveth]

Thank you, glad you find it useful

[@stuartschneiderman8517]

I used to be thoroughly discombobulated when it came to understanding Lacanian psychoanalysis, and then I read chapter five in 'Psychoanalytic Thinking' and I saw the Lacanian light. I'm still not a Lacanian but at least now I know why. A brilliant video.

[@doncarveth]

Thank you very much.

[@czarquetzal8344]

I forgot who wrote " Fashionable Non-sense". The thesis of the book is that French Post-Structuralism is " fashionable non-sense", i. e. misappropriation of science. The book included Bruno Latour and Lacan. According fo the book, his matheme and other thesis are unsupported by mainstream empirical sciences. Your response, Sir.

[@coreolis7]

This is absolutely fascinating-- makes me wish I were a Psychoanalysis student in Tornto, instead of a Tarot Cad Reader in the state of Washington!!! Thx for the kicks, Don. :)

[@doncarveth]

Most welcome!

[@fredwelf8650]

In this video, a student raises the issue of the distinction between Lacan's mirror stage - the differentiation between myself and the environment including others, and the looking glass self or the self that is the result of others' gaze and signifying. The question is the relation between these two instances of self-understanding as it develops and the effect of the gaze or look of others, the effect of signifiers, as Lacan says.

[@doncarveth]

Th I- subject and the me-bject (Lacan’s specular ego) arise toigther with emergence i to language, But there is much more to the embodied individual than either or both. Anyone who has had a child knows that they come equipped from day one with the temperament and almost a “personality“ beyond and beneath socialization and signification.

[@unusualpond]

“You can’t reduce mind to brain - that’s a no brainer” why the whole room wasn’t laughing at this point I do not know.

[@doncarveth]

Me either

[@TheRocknrollmaniac]

Thank you. One interesting thing I've noticed- the person who's constantly seeking instant enlightenment (could you unpack this for me- what is this about- what is this- etc.) reminds me very much of the "could you elaborate" culture Jacques Derrida complained about when he was visiting the States. Another interesting point- at 18 months, not only the language kicks in (and imaginary ends) but the depressive position gets resolved.

[@doncarveth]

Well, that is magical thinking of a tape that accompanies narcissism. And according to Christopher Lasch we live in a culture of North schism, especially in America.

[@TheRocknrollmaniac]

@@doncarveth Magical thinking? I think Derrida aimed here at the "pragmatic" American who has a phobia of "wasting time". Couldn't agree more with your stance on gender issues. It's symptomatic that DSM-V dedicates a lot of space to it, especially considering the low prevalence of gender identity disorders.

[@peace_cat76]

Through this I see now for the first time the debt owed to Sartre, if the idea of the potentially infinite amount of signifiers available to us and connected to whichever we land on, might then be roughly equivalent to the infinite aspects of an object's being -- (that is, how the word and the glimpse both refer to and presuppose other words and glimpses.) Then through negation (or mediation in Hegel) we come to have some particular "abschattung"? You explained it well. Which for me means I may use Sartre as a kind of decoder ring to Lacan on occasion, hopefully--which makes him less intimidating. For some reason I held them as separate territories to be conquered. So, thank you for your more courageous bird's-eye view.

[@bigpicsoccer]

Thinking about the divide between traditional psychoanalysis with the unconscious and the relational and intersubjective camp, I think Thomas fuchs is doing some good work using merleau ponty, stern, plessner and others to think about an enacted and embodied unconscious

[@doncarveth]

Interesting, thanks.

[@bigpicsoccer]

@@doncarveth do you have any thoughts on Wilhelm Reich? I know he's a bit out there!

[@doncarveth]

It is early work integrated works as a man psychoanalysis and his analysis of fascism remains valuable, as does his work on character analysis, which is still taught in psychoanalytic Institute‘s. But he was crazy with his orgone theories.

[@bigpicsoccer]

@@doncarveth thanks! I read function of the orgasm and character analysis. I'm trying to work on a multi-scale investigation into sport as a global phenomenon and I feel like psychoanalysis has been very underutilised in that context. Thanks for all the great material you put out.

[@mohamedmilad1]

I agree with your opinion, I only understood oedipus complex after reading lacan. I believe its a custom for French philosophers to write in obscure way.

[@jonathonray6198]

Have you encountered the lacanians antipathy toward countertransference and the processing of projective-identification, and their quest to fully analyse the ego and its fundamental misrecognition within desiring the others desire and settling on objet A. I would love a kleinians response to these things!!!

[@raquelchapdelaine2271]

Hi Don: to the fella in the discussion who asked about cultural groups who did not have mirrors, Lacan did not necessarily mean a concrete mirror. He metaphorized the idea of the mirror like he did it with the phallus. The mother’s eyes can function as mirrors. Several things in the world function as mirrors even the idealized identity about which the baby was spoken even before birth. I’m still in the middle of your lecture here, so you may be addressing this shortly...

[@raquelchapdelaine2271]

And you did!

[@doncarveth]

Yes

[@mehrnazification]

great as always. you're an asset to psychoanalysis

[@doncarveth]

Thank you so much

[@doncarveth]

Not sure where other than in my forthcoming book.

[@ericadams11]

Heidegger thinks Lacan makes it hard for the reader. Well, that speaks volumes.

[@doncarveth]

Somehow with Heidegger it feels like he wants to be understood, whereas with Lacan one feels he strives not to be.

[@gegenstrebig]

I‘m wondering about what you said about the sinthome and how it’s best kept in place so as to not induce psychosis. Would it not be a reasonable goal to find some ‚better‘, ultimately less problematic sinthome than, say, alcoholism, so as to be able to drop that one, and then maybe find one that is better yet, etc. etc. rather than to sort of resign to saying: oh well, at least they’re functioning somehow.

[@doncarveth]

Yes, of course, that would be better

[@kirstinstrand6292]

What if resolution of one's analysis results in losing the need to seek a partnership.

[@normamarolt6195]

Don your videos are so incredibly useful - you've done me a real solid here and illuminated some Lacan as well as contextualised much of him and his technique. Thank you so much! More Lacan. Great!! When you talk about the bias amongst Lacanians in respect of the Real (I would agree), in which book is this discussed?

[@mohamedmilad1]

But isn't symbolism is a byproduct of our brain sense perception which breaks stimuli to symbols. Visual perception is broken down stimuli into lines and dots. It's our brain association area that forms whole picture again of these small fragments of symbols.

[@doncarveth]

I am not interested and know next to nothing about the brain. I am interested in the mind.

[@mohamedmilad1]

@@doncarveth isn't the mind byproduct of the brain and its interaction with the environment.

[@mohamedmilad1]

@@doncarveth do you think the word mind in English provides us with clear definition of what it is?. There are various descriptions that I struggle to find clear definitions to, like self, identity, ego, personality, mind, soul, unconscious .....etc they don't correspond to a measurable agreeable entity, and they may mean different things to different people.

[@doncarveth]

@@mohamedmilad1 The mind is irreducible to the brain, just as the TV program is irreducible to the TV set

[@doncarveth]

@@mohamedmilad1 Yes, but that is no reason to resort to reductionism

[@daveclarke4875]

Hello Don, I’ve just been listening to the plenary of a conference from William Alanson White institute and Donnel Stern said that as well as the French school being neglected that important contributions from the Italian and South American schools of psychoanalysis. Have you been influenced and got any recommendations for introductory books or major writers?

[@seandowling1722]

So if we conceive the source of evil as being social rationalizations and power structures, and goodness as inherent in the the our animal nature and bodily organization, the is there then a justification or at least a way of seeing a natural human( bodily) aggression, and selfishness? If there are predators in nature and obviously they're not operating out of cruel motives which would apply to socilaized, super ego imposed egos, then are there natural forms of predator behavior that aren't necessarily cruel or motivated by evil?

[@doncarveth]

Sean, I’m afraid that would have to be broken down and clarified a good deal before I could attempt an answer.

[@mohamedmilad1]

Brilliant lectures

[@Enr227]

Stop being so good looking

[@sandyghazalansari2617]

More Lacan. Great!!

[@sterkvangeest9397]

The only thing we need, is to get rid of commodified society! It is that which is eating us alive! And we are all in it!

[@sterkvangeest9397]

So how do we do that? Well, we already do in all ways possible! It is Lacan's reality of horror in full conciousness! Just be the instinctual gaze and watch how perfectly organised 'IT ALL' is!

[@vidividivicious]

Just as a note, some of Lacan's patients did end up committing suicide, but, afaik it was because he took a lot of suicidal patients that other analysts refused to treat. He saved a lot of people, but some couldn't be helped. Statistically, he could have had more patients suicides, but because on average treated more people

[@doncarveth]

Interesting, thanks

[@jonathonray6198]

Is not the phallus a penis and not a breast because in Lacan it is the mother’s desire (whatever that is - often what the father possesss somehow) in klein the breast is the baby’s desire. So we want the breast but we also want to have whatever it is the mother wants - the phallus.

[@MrZakatista]

My understanding is that Lacanian circle members can "self declare" as analysts. Do you have any thoughts about this, if you feel inclined to express them? To me it seems naive and dangerous.

[@doncarveth]

Here in Ontario we have regulated health professions, including a college of registered psychotherapist, a college of registered psychologists, etc.

[@doncarveth]

These were set up to protect the public from quacks.

[@仲里雄司]

彼は何を語っているのか、私はフランス語を解さない。だが、邦訳で読んだ著作の衝撃は未だに鮮烈だ。心理のこのような解明は彼意外に可能だったろうか、私たちの思考体系においては、ほぼ不可能ごとに思える。哲学のように独我論としての概念の遊びがないのだからね、私たちの意識は、未だに幽瞑の境にさまよっているのだから。数学のように世界認知の確実性に寄りかかることもできない。A I の実用化は今後、世界の有り様を変えてゆくだろう。私たちの知覚も変貌してゆくだろう。その時、私たちの意識の不確実性が、この世界の有り様に、とてつもない疑問を与えるに違いない。マルクス・ガブリエルは哲学によって、とりあえずの答えを与えた。世界はなぜ存在しないのかと、私は思う。ラカンは超えてるよと、これは人間の思いつく思考の有り様ではないと。

[@doncarveth]

Translation?

[@JoyBomer]

Thanks for your videos! I was just a bit confused about the last part concerning the phallus. I always understood it as that which the child sees that the mother wants; aka the father (traditionally). Not per se that which the child wants in and of itself. And so the child wants to be the phallus for the mother, unsuccessfully. If that's the case than I don't understand how the phallus could've easily been named breast/womb etc, so I'm probably missing something (unintentional phallus pun).

[@doncarveth]

Laval Seems to assume the mother wants the fellows but we can well imagine instances where this is not the case.

[@nononouh]

3 11 22

[@trismegistus3461]

18:00

[@EMC2Scotia]

When you talk about the bias amongst Lacanians in respect of the Real (I would agree), in which book is this discussed?

[@doncarveth]

Not sure others have written much about this.

[@salvadorfernandez3013]

You are an excellent lecturer god bless you for sharing all your knowledge

[@cjberezovsky4117]

Would not "the snake pit" of the unconscious be akin to "the horror, the horror"... a bias you reject?

[@doncarveth]

That’s a very biased view of the unconscious, to see it as a snake pit. It also contains love, creativity, etc..

[@cjberezovsky4117]

@@doncarveth I was quoting [a combination of] you paraphrasing Freud characterizing "the ID" as a "snake pit" and you equating the ID with the unconscious. I believe you have mistaken my inference of an implication of yours, with your inference of an implication of mine. I agree with the gist of your response. I see that ID/unconscious as "complete". In fact I attribute many psychological disturbances to an inability among many to take in the fullness of the unconscious. In poetical, metaphorical, historical, "gendered" terms... they find themselves unable to grasp the completeness of feminine "mother" nature, and default to splitting same into, e.g., a "madonna" and a "whore", "gorgon", or, more commonly, and dangerously, a [transgendered] Satan (i.e. superego).