Schema L : Desire, the Big Other, & the Wall of Language | Psychoanalysis of Jacques Lacan

[@SingularityasSublimity]

To support this work, please consider becoming a Patreon member for this channel at www.patreon.com/SingularSublime where you can obtain transcripts and unedited materials or by providing a one-time time tip through the "Super Thanks" option above. Thank you!

[@jackcollinson4931]

Best intro to a video ever

[@elodino99]

2:08 What is the Schema-L? 3:50 How does my desire define me? 6:25 Who is the Big Other? 9:48 Why does language prevent me from accesing the Big Other? Great video, loved it!

[@michaelschmidlehner]

Thank you for this both in-depth and at the same time well understandable explanation. And congratulations on the courageous, authentic and witty way in which you introduce yourself.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

thank you!

[@zygmuntpodejrzliwy9002]

you had me at "Hi dad" ;)

[@swarnashlokechakraborty5392]

Terrific lecture as always.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you!

[@clintonvanderwalt583]

What a wonderful opening. I had a hearty chuckle!!

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you Clint!

[@rezarajabi6206]

What a wonderful channel I just discovered. Thanks a lot Sir

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Your very welcome!

[@rokas1831]

Good stuff. Really helpful chanell

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Glad to hear it!

[@charlie3k]

What a wonderful introduction! I really enjoyed your video, it’s helping me a lot with understanding Lacan :)

[@SingularityasSublimity]

I'm so glad!

[@AB-ok7hu]

I've readed that the dotted arrows represent symbolic relations and regular arrows imaginary relations: Wouldn't that mean that the regular arrow pointing from the big Other to ego means that the ego imaginarely believes that the big Other is an specular alterity addressing it?

[@asakatali]

Is not the arrow from the Other to the ego effectively indicating that the ego is the Other's attempt at an image of itself, to 'pull' itself into being as it were, as an object from a process?

[@kennethyates]

Very helpful.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Glad to hear!

[@quentin9462]

Could you explain why planets don’t speak ? What does Lacan want to say with this allegory in chapter 19?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

From what I recall, the point of that allegory is first to show the difference between human and natural objects - how planets don't speak because speaking requires some recognition of the big Other. The second point was to show how reality gets created out of the symbolic. Although planets do not currently speak (because they are reduced to the language of physics and numerical symbols), they did speak prior to this (prior to Newton), which I think is a reference to the cosmologies of the ancient world wherein nature was anthropomorphized. Different symbolic orders infuse subjectivity into reality in different ways. Admittedly, its a bit a strained application in my eyes, which is perhaps why I avoided addressing it in the video.

[@nikk9277]

Thanks so much for these great lectures I’ve just found this channel and have been listening non stop. I’m very new to Lacan still, but I wonder, could the arrow going from the big other to the ego be read as the ego-ideal?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

This makes sense since the ego ideal both operates at the level of the symbolic and is that part of the symbolic that functions within the law (unlike the superego). So, in a sense, the ego ideal is that which is recognized in the law and therefore not located at the level of the repressed unconscious subject. Later in Seminar 2 (somewhere between lectures 22-24), Lacan states that the analyst must be situated in the position of the Big Other, which allows transference between ego and Big Other, a discourse that, when properly interpreted, can allow the ego to come into "agreement" with the fundamental discourse between Big Other and unconscious subject. Not sure if this converges with the interpretation you put forth or is in addition to it, but certainly leaves more to be explored here. Thank you for the thought provoking question!

[@nikk9277]

Thanks so much for the reply and filling out my question with lots of thought-provoking considerations. I’ll keep that in mind while continuing to learn. Cheers!

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

Really great work you're doing here! Keep it up! By the way, I'm looking at the playlist for Seminar II and it says that one of the videos is private. Is that the one you did on the odds and evens lecture? If I remember correctly, you made a video on that, but now I can't find it. If so, will it be made public again? I really wanted to see that one.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you! I just went to look and the "private" one you are referring to was a video I uploaded and realized it had some errors that I needed to fix. I deleted it and re-uploaded another version. Its the video on the Purloined Letter, which contains the analysis of odds and evens you mentioned. For whatever reason when I delete video that was added to a playlist, KZbin doesn't remove it from Playlists automatically and it continues to show up as a private video. I forgot about this and so thank you for reminding me to fix that!

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

@@SingularityasSublimity Got it! Thanks for the clarification. Seriously, the work you're doing on Lacan's seminars is so helpful! I'm a theory blogger and my work is primarily based in Lacan and Žižek (I'm actually currently at work on a new post on the big Other and I'm using some of Seminar II in it). I explain and apply a lot of Lacanian-Žižekian concepts in my blog posts but I've been saying for a long time that there really needed to be a cognitive map of the whole seminar and you're truly helping to make that a reality. In fact, I was recently discussing this with Todd McGowan and he agreed. I'll be sure to let him know about your channel.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you! I’m an avid listener to his podcast. Feel free to post a link to your blog and I will check it out. If you do post a link it will take a bit to show as all posts with links require approving them on my end.

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

@@SingularityasSublimity Hi. I just want to let you know that I tried sending you some links, but I don't think it worked. Anyway, if you want to check out my blog, then go to Medium and search The Dangerous Maybe. I'm looking forward to watching more of your videos. Take care.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

@@TheDangerousMaybe Thank you. I have to look into how to allow certain links while disallowing those who randomly seek to post links to various 'things.' In case anyone is following this comment thread, I'm posting the link here. I look forward to checking it out. thedangerousmaybe.medium.com/

[@quentin9462]

Has the schema L a ressemblence with the experiment of the tilted flower in Seminar 1 ? Because the subject in this experiment can see the tilted flower only through the reflection of a virtual image depicting a real image. The subject has no direct access to the tilted flower like he doesnt have direct access to the big other. But only the oscillating plane mirror ( controlled by the symbolic) allows a cohesive image of tilted flower in a vase depending on the position of the subject. Could the plane mirror be the wall of language and the tilted flower the big other and the virtual image of the vase and flower the ego?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Hi Quentin, your connecting the two schemas seems correct to me, especially how the wall of language operates like the plane mirror. Both deal with the interplay of the symbolic and imaginary (though the optical schema seems to incorporate the real more explicitly). One notable difference seems to be the modality - the optical schema emphasizes the perceptual; Schema L emphasizes language and discourse. It will be interesting to see how both compare to The Graph of Desire, which I'll be getting into soon when discussing Seminar V.

[@simonrees4273]

Hi, nice intro in particular! I'm trying to get my head around Schema L. Am I right in thinking that the ego & the Id are those of the analysand, and those on the right the analyst (or indeed any other person)?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you for your message, and my apologies for the delay in responding. Within analysis, one could consider the little other as the analyst's ego and the Big Other as the position that the Analyst might occupy (or perhaps should occupy for the the analysand). However, if we look at the entire schema from the vantage point of the analysand, then neither the analysts' ego nor their Big Other are present here, only the analysand's way of relating to the analyst as ego and Big Other. Perhaps a clearer way of saying it is that this schema could be understood as a representation of the intersections of the symbolic and imaginary for the analysand, and the analyst in their subjectivity is seeking to understanding and intersect with it so as to facilitate the gradual recognition of the symbolic discourse going on behind the imaginary one.

[@simonrees4273]

@@SingularityasSublimity Thanks.

[@OdoItal]

Thanks for this, it's hard to find stuff on schema L. Could the arrow from the bottom right (A) to the ego (a) be the communicated interpretation from the analyst, when he takes up the position of (A)? I get confused about the use of a and a' because I think about object a, which these don't seem to be directly? Wouldn't it have been more helpful for 'a' to be labeled 'i(a)' as Lacan seems to do at times to indicate the ego?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you for your comment. For this video, and for the entire series, I try to stay within the confines of the seminar rather than bring in too much from future seminars. Certainly, once I get to objet a I will refer back to this schema and discuss the differences. But yes you are correct to say that it is more accurate to label it i(a)' if one is taking into account later concepts Lacan develops. As for your interpretation of the bottom arrow, I think you are onto something here. In occupying the position of A, the analyst is directly speaking to the ego while also addressing the subject. The solid line between A and ego is probably an indication that this discourse is more direct and less interrupted. Another interpretation I have is influenced by Freud. Freud states that the superego is the representative of the id to the ego. To the degree the superego can be equated with A, then this makes sense to me.

[@swarnashlokechakraborty5392]

I might send you an email as reagrds one or two of the topics of lacan that are of most concern to me. Looking forward to your assistance.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Sounds good!