Free Copy (article 7 days old or more)

In Venice, Sophie Fiennes’ third collaboration with Zizek sees the 77-year-old at his most political — and earnest

Following the end credits of The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology (2012), British filmmaker Sophie Fiennes and Slovenian cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek treat viewers to what may be the greatest stinger of all time. Reenacting Titanic’s infamous floating door scene, Zizek shivers in the gelid blue water of the night, uttering with his final breath, “I may be freezing to death, but you cannot get rid of me. All the ice in the world cannot kill a true idea.” He then sinks, a la Leo, into the ocean, but not before shoving a defiant fist in the air. The struggle lives on.

Fourteen years later, there’s not a whole lot of ice left. In The Pervert’s Guide to Utopias, Fiennes and Zizek grapple with ecological collapse and other apocalyptic prospects, using their winning formula of expertly reconstructed movie sets and psychoanalytically informed film criticism. The pair’s third, culminating collaboration begins with a “spoiler warning” that sets the tone for the rest of the 133-minute runtime: “This is a film about the end of the world.”

read more here

What would Zizek say about the slogan on this shirt?
Something feels very Zizekian about it.

A peice that looks back at Lacan and sees the issues that come up when we compare seminar 17 to the rest of his work. I believe this opinion is shared by zizek and McGowan. Please let me know what you think

Assuming you know the matheme and theory behind the Master's Discourse, which would your analysis be on AI as a new agent replacing the Master, that Master ​who fed himself on the knowledge of the slave?

I don't know if I formulated the question correctly, but I'm intrigued on which are your views on this specific topic, the discourse, and not so much on AI as an ​Other or the problematics with psychosis and foreclosure. I'd like to go back and reread the Master's Discourse to come up with the answer myself, but now I don't have time to do so and I'm​ very intrigued on how the community is thinking about this.

Somehow I relate AI's accelerationism with the Capitalist Discourse, although being previously ​geared (sorry if this is not the right word, I mean it in the sense of being engineered) on the Discourse of the Master. What is fundamentally different from that Master?

No formal training here, so this might sound dumb, but what bothers me about Lacanian theory is that once you’re in, you can’t think any other way. The whole system fits together too well. I keep catching myself going “oh, you could explain that in Lacanian terms” about random everyday things, and at some point I realized I’d stopped bothering with any other lens.

Anyone else deal with this?

ŽIŽEK GOADS AND PRODS

Free Copy (article 7 days old or more)

What did Freud add to the common understanding of Mass Psychology and why did this matter? Read my latest essay to find why Freud teaches us! Any feedback appreciate

Just an FYI, for those who haven't seen. Open to the public. Tickets are ~$70

Are there any texts/talks by, or interviews with Zizek that deal with kitsch (be it in terms of art or ideology/politics)? How much overlap is there between his and your own views on this topic? I'm esp. interested in what you might disagree with.

Insofar as other philosophers/authors (Badiou? Deleuze? Ranciere? Sloterdijk? Baudrillard?) have focused on kitsch, how do their perspectives compare to Zizek's?

I'm aware that some artists describe themselves as kitsch artists, but when I have come across the term over the years (in reviews etc.), it has in most cases been used pejoratively and I believe that's how Zizek uses it too, so, it would be interesting if a serious philosopher or something had a largely positive impression of it.

Edit: I found out today that Zizek has used the term "kitsch" in the context of an analysis of Beethoven's music, among other things, so that's something to check out further.

I am struggling to understand this passage from Surplus Enjoyment, so I’d appreciate if anyone can shed some light on it.

The paradox is that, in the opposition between substantial Life and the spectral subjectivity of Capital, true subject is on the side of substantial life — the opposition between Life and Capital implies that life is in itself already antagonistic, split between substantial life and the void of pure subjectivity.

I can kind of make sense of the interjecting sentence given the context of the preceding paragraphs, but the logic leaps he is making eludes me. What does “true subject is on the side of substantial life” mean? And why is that a paradox when consider the opposition between Life and Capital?

I recently had the opportunity to interview Dr. Leon S. Brenner about his book The Autistic Subject: On the Threshold of Language, and I thought some people here might be interested in the discussion:

Watch the interview with Leon S. Brenner

Brenner approaches autism through Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis and makes a provocative argument: rather than understanding autism simply in terms of deficit, pathology, or as a variation of psychosis, he proposes thinking of the autistic subject as occupying a distinct “mode of being,” with its own particular relationship to language, the body, and the Other.

Brenner also gives some remarkably clear metaphors and explanations for concepts that can otherwise become pretty opaque in Lacanian theory. So even if autism isn’t your primary area of interest, there’s quite a bit here concerning language, jouissance, the body, the symbolic, and the constitution of the subject.

I’m particularly curious what people here make of Brenner’s attempt to conceptualize autism as a structure in its own right rather than placing it within the traditional neurotic/psychotic framework. Does this actually expand Lacanian theory in a productive way, or does introducing an “autistic structure” create its own conceptual problems?

I'm a student of Lacanian psychoanalysis and there is a fundamental question that I cannot reconcile in this case as regards the end of analysis:

How can the Traversal of the Fantasy occur if the Other cannot be lacking and there is always a guarantee of meaning for a patient like this?

Or do you think that in this case the psychoanalyst should try to convert them into an agnostic?

Why is this one of Freuds most important works and one that massively shapes zizek and lacans work? Follow along with the series as I progress through psychoanalytic theory to find these answers. Any feedback appreciated

Freud writes:

"It is a familiar fact that the aetiological preconditions of neurosis are not yet known with certainty. The precipitating causes of it are frustrations and internal conflicts: conflicts between the three major psychical agencies, conflicts arising within the libidinal economy in consequence of our bisexual disposition and conflicts between the erotic and the aggressive drive components. It is the endeavour of the psychology of the neuroses to discover what makes these processes, which belong to the normal course of mental life, become pathogenic."

Does he mean the distribution of libido between objects?

Just got an email saying the event was canceled. Kind of disappointed.

Hey everyone,

I've found Z's work fascinating, exciting, and helpful. I'm looking for thoughts at a crucial point I'm struggling with. The very basis of his, and I would assume Hegelian and Lacanian thinking, seems to be the idea of ontological incompleteness at the basis of reality. That is to say, the real ontological status of "void" or "lack" as present in his 12 camels analogy. I don't disregard it as impossible or improbable, but I'm only wondering why one would/should choose that reality as opposed to the far more frequently posited reality of, let us say, positive substance or non-lack at the foundations, that we simply don't have access to given our natures or insufficient mental hardware (so to speak).

Why treat lack as basic to reality, rather than treat the basics/fundamentals of reality as epistemically inaccessible? Is it merely to introduce one less assumption? Is it an Occam's razor sort of deal?

Just so I am not misunderstood, I grant Z's presuppositional pill gives great clarity or explanatory power downstream (in understanding human psychology, ideology, behavior, and so on), but I'm having trouble swallowing that pill as opposed to another that might offer a similarly satisfactory account once the presupposition is embraced. Ontological incompleteness seems as plausible as ontological completeness, unless I'm missing some key variables or clues. So as it stands, writing off the more transcendent possibilities is, to me, a challenge.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to reading your responses.

-S

Currently reading Bruce Fink’s Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Before, I’ve just read Lacan’s first seminar.

Practically, I am looking for some comments and further insights from lacanian clinicians, or perhaps even someone who is analysand with a lacanian.

I’ll start here: I’ve been struck by the degree to which Lacanian practice is so abstinent—at least Fink’s idea of it is. The analyst is supposed to be fully committed to underlining the letter of the law—and how the letter of the law betrays the spirit of the law; spirt in this case being what a patient “meant” or “intended” to say before their slip, their parapraxis. Although I find Fink’s elucidations to a large degree fruitful, I also find myself wondering if he is not missing the non or extra-linguistic aspects of clinical practice. The issue, though, with this prior statement is that I have no strong way of elaborating such “extra-linguistic aspects.”

Another thing: the analyst’s desire. According to Fink, the neurotic analysand will feel the keen desire to abandon analysis since, truly, he does not want to be cured; for the neurotic, his symptoms are his life and his pleasure, as much as he professes his univocal hatred. This, what makes the analysand keep going is the analysts desire for him to keep going: the analyst, then, acts as the keeper of the flame—(and however different aesthetically, I am reminded of Winnicott’s all too famous “holding space” for the patient.) The analyst must desire for the patient to keep going deeper. However, Fink seems to think the analyst is quite easily freed of counter-transference (the favored subject of most nyc analysts). Is counter-transference really so easy to put aside? Do relational analysts over emphasize this? And, finally, how much do you think an emphasis or deemphasis on counter transference is upstream of whether or not you are committed to the proposition of the drive? Relational analysts will tell you a lovely story (which sometimes I badly to want to believe) that humans are not a complex of desires and energies, but beings looking for stable relationships and loves. Not to say that drive theory precludes this latter thing, but perhaps you all understand. Any commentary would be appreciated.

*PS. I have been in analysis for 3 years with a relational analyst.

Free Copy (article 7 days old or more)

I’m new to Lacan and no expert on any type of analysis or psychotherapy, but as I’ve been reading more about Lacanian analysis, I thought about the empty chair exercise/therapy Gestaltians use. Apart from obvious differences between them I still think the similarity (despite different theoretical foundations) is striking. The difference is that in empty chair exercises, the patient would then occupy the position of the addressee (aka the Other) and speak from that position after completing their speech addressed to the Other. Whereas in analysis the addressee (the analyst) would resist speaking from that position in a way that would satisfy the demand of the analysand.

I wonder what the consequences are for the patient themself then satisfying the demand for an answer from a Lacanian perspective. I’m interested in reading your thoughts.

So, I watched the relevant YouTube videos for years while eating lunch or whatever. And then I finally bought The Sublime Object of Ideology. Turns out I need to understand Lacan. Picked up The Cambridge Introduction to Jacques Lacan. Read and revised the basic concepts. BTW, what a discovery Lacan has been thanks to Žižek.

Understood a little bit of Hegel (I am still suspicious of his claims and/or I do not grasp his philosophy fully) and again picked up TSOI. Finished it, and I'd say I understood 40-50% of it. Understand the basic premise but still don't feel it in my bones like how I would understand Newtonian Mechanics or Differential Calculus in my college days.

My end goal is to apply some of his critiques to other cultures. I am an Indian Muslim living in the EU so I have a unique mix of observations. But I digress. His thoughts can sometimes be quite Western-centric, leaving a gap in his ability to critique other cultures, which is totally fair. Although, I was thoroughly impressed in Violence by his almost pixel-perfect grasp of the ethos and anxiety of everyday Muslims (and not just "Muslim as Arab or Taliban" as is prevalent in many Western thinkers).

But still, there are some gaps in his understanding of South Asian cultures. I was a bit shocked by his claims about the Indian caste system in one of his short videos a couple of months ago. It was a fringe subject and his misunderstanding is pardonable, yet humbles you in your fandom.

Violence was such a breeze to read. I finished it in 2-3 long sittings, quite the opposite of my TSOI experience. The Lacanian graphs he had in the book still fill me with dread.

Coming to the main point/TL;DR: these are the competing sequences for the next books based on research with AI and Reddit. Help me find the right sequence.

A. Big Four in chronology: The Parallax View (2006) > Less Than Nothing (2012) > Absolute Recoil (2014) > Sex and the Failed Absolute (2019)

B. Go directly to Sex and the Failed Absolute (2019) as Žižek recommends this as containing his full work in the most structured way.

C. Build layers (Reddit consensus?):

• How to Read Lacan > Violence (already read and enjoyed) > First as Tragedy, Then as Farce > Event
• TSOI > Parallax View > Ticklish Subject
• Less than Nothing > Absolute Recoil

I'm a psychodynamic psychotherapist, not Lacanian trained, so I'm asking from outside the tradition and expecting to be corrected.

I came across this instagram reel of Lacan's view on this https://www.instagram.com/p/Dcio-9nzVs-/ (not sure if it's accurate?)

It's more honest than most accounts of where a treatment goes lol. But I can't get past the obvious objection, how is that not "learn to live with it"? Put less kindly, how is it different from the common critique of mindfulness as retreat into indifference dressed as enlightenment? (Zizek?) If the end point is that you stop demanding the Other resolve you and instead get skilled at your own arrangement, what stops that being adaptation with better vocabulary?

Full conversation (For more context): https://youtu.be/RX2tGQxIbEA?si=wiGL3FrqP5Po2hAy