Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists



- Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:41:04 EST cpwKmCz1 No.207810
File: 1488339664504.jpg -(79804B / 77.93KB, 843x917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Psychoanalysis
So I first learned of Lacan and the enduring legacy of that wacky cokester Freud from my well-read friend who is incidentally also a Stalinist, since fringe opinions come in clusters. Now I'm reading more Lacan and Freud, and some Deleuze & Guattari, for a grad seminar on critical theory (so it's from a literary/cultural standpoint rather than a clinical interest). This is the kind of spooky shit I like to study, esoteric and abstract and more about asking questions than getting answers. Who's got opinions? Anyone been analyzed?
Nell Sabblefitch - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:25:47 EST jYcEvk8u No.207812 Reply
>top left
>repress death drive


Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass executions during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II.[2] He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940,[2][3] making him the most prolific official executioner and mass murderer in recorded world history.[2][4] Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, Blokhin died in 1955, officially reported as a suicide.

I don't know anything about Lacan, though Zizek talks about him a lot. I've only read a bit of Frued and some Jung. What's Lacan's deal? I remember Hegel is relevant somehow.
Phyllis Goodman - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:15:07 EST cpwKmCz1 No.207813 Reply
>taking abstruse theoretical concept at face-value
>as though a drive has anything to do with anyone else's gratification but the subject's
>entirely ignoring historical and material conditions, to include the imperative to rapidly industrialize an agrarian backwater, in the interregnum between a civil war where most major global powers intervened on the side of the ousted regime, and an imminent fascist invasion


Advocating for a return to what he claimed to be Freud's most fundamental discoveries about the unconscious, Lacan was about two major things, in the readings I've done: desire is predicated on lack, and the unconscious is structured like a language. Rather than Freud's ego/superego/id distinction, Lacan drew the major distinctions as between an Imaginary order (found in the mirror: imagery, falseness, narcissism and self-concept), the Symbolic Order (where language facilitates the ascendancy of Law and Structure), and the Real (not reality, but beyond language and unassailable by analysis, and hence unattainable). The desire–lack thing is where Hegel comes in handy, and I'm woefully behind on my Hegel, but it seems to be about a complex of recognition and a displacement of desirability involving an inscrutable Other: you desire to be desired by the Other, who is very much like Freud's mother figure.

Lacan's also got a pretty nifty tripartite distinction of mental illness, distinguished by reactions to the Symbolic castration (cf. Freud's phallic stuff): the resentful neurotic, the Law-fixated pervert, and the paranoid psychotic. I was told that as soon as you start learning about these categories, you annoyingly start diagnosing yours and everyone else's behaviors in their terms. And just wait til you get to the pseudo-algebra, now there's where you can really blow your systematizing and totalizing load. Jouissance!
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:27:19 EST 3OceFGwp No.207824 Reply
I am extremely suspicious of Lacan. In short, I do not believe that behind the curtain there is anything of theoretical value. Positivist dullards like Alan Sokal have said this about almost every postwar French thinker, but let me try to make the case that unlike Jean Baudrillard or Gilles Deleuze, who were entirely capable of lucid prose and whose occasional difficulty is a stylistic choice, Lacan's density is an intellectual smokescreen, expressly designed to disguise his fraudulence.
Watch this video of him reading Proust, or for that matter any of his public lecturing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

What's impossible to miss is how affected and grandiloquent his speaking manner is. I've attended my share of lectures given by professors with a taste for theatricality, but Lacan's affective display extends to almost every dimension of his public personality, down to his outrageously foppish cravates and silk shirts. That he possessed an electrifying manner is not just my opinion, as Elisabeth Roudinesco was inspired to argent revelry in describing him as "[a] sorcerer without magic, a guru without hypnosis, a prophet without god." Even more significantly she noted that "students had the impression that the master was speaking... in a coded message secretly addressed to them alone."

The fact of his virtuosic charisma leads me to believe that Lagan was a malignant narcissist, whose entire intellectual career was a sophisticated strategy to win him praise and adulation. Consider: Nietszche's prose is soaring and possessed of a brilliant wit, while Nietzsche the man was entirely ineffectual and forgettable. This is the way you'd expect it to be; the artist is dwarfed in stature by his work. Lacan is just the opposite. In person he was magnetic, while his writing is unbelievably turgid, almost unreadable. Why is that? When you realize the essential fraudulence of Lacan's personality and oeuvre, it becomes obvious. His writing was intentionally obscurantist so as to allow him to keep the con going. In another time and place he may have ended up a cult leader, but it so happens he became a French psychoanalyst instead.

In fact, the army of disciples and epigones that surrounded him in his later years has much of the appearance of a nascent cult, ended only by his death; when Lacan began to suffer extended aphasic episodes as a result of his deteriorating mental faculties, some students attempted to interpret his silence through the lens of his theory.
Hamilton Desslespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:05:33 EST Ya59RsKY No.207847 Reply
I always felt like I was being too pretentious for not liking Lacan simply because of how overblown and pretentious *he* is. I always kinda assumed that there just was something 'behind the curtain' that I just hadn't read or wasn't getting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:35:02 EST 3OceFGwp No.207848 Reply
Lacan thrived, even depended, on that uncertainty. When the charismatic narcissist begins speaking he wins over some in an instant, while a few see through him just as quickly. The larger fraction of the audience, though, remains uncommitted, and it is by vigorous exercise of charisma that he convinces them to suspend their disbelief -- "perhaps I just don't understand it, perhaps I'm a philistine; perhaps he really does have it figured out."

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.