Відео

@@RobertBryanClough Thanks for working through them alongside us!

A degraded version of God's "Let there be"

Quilting points are in the analytic sofa itself. Carl Jung gives best example in "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" (1963). Also, "Meno". Also, Karl Abraham: "Part Object" - for dissecting emotions. Hallucinations are normative: fill in the gap between each eye's field of vision. The floating > 🌭 < hot dog experiment in psychophysics.

@@davidspisak7494 Agreed, BUT have you had any of this peer reviewed?

​@@thevanishingmediators does David Hume qualify?

@@davidspisak7494 🤔 no probable cause

@@thevanishingmediatorsPrecisely? "And cause never was the reason for the evening - Or the tropic of Sir Galahad"

I think this gets us to a helpful way of seeing the different ways different quilting points organize how we think about the social field. There’s a big difference between quilting the field with “billianaire capitalist” and quilting it with “capital”. The former gets us thinking that the big problem is one of human greed, which means the problem is one that stems from the moral failures of certain individuals. If we quilt it with the latter, however, we come to see that the core issue is one of an impersonal and structural mechanism of accumulation (M-C-M’). For me, the latter is a better quilting point precisely because capital is the structuring principle of our mode of production whether we recognize it to be or not. Humans were greedy long before capital escape from our traditional systems of values.

@@TheDangerousMaybe I dig it. (if I understand correctly) It sounds like "billionaire" is a particular that can take us off track from more universalist framings of inequality, so even if "billionaire" might be an obvious, and not even bad choice, it could get bogged down in the idea that THIS billionaire or THAT billionaire is the problem, or leave the underlying structure unchanged for the people at the bottom, even if we achieved 'net zero' billionaires. It would be nice to have something as tangible as a quilting point to focus on as, say, "Elon Musk" or "Jeff Bezos"; do you think it's possible that locate a particular for capital that has a kind of tangibleness, but also captures the universal structure of accumulation, or do you think that a certain minimum level of abstraction is needed? You mentioned communism as a common quilting point (pretty abstract, I think, with the multitude of different meanings it holds to different people), and climate change is my most salient personal one, but I wonder if in my search for a really concrete particular to represent climate change I'm always going to be veering back into techno-optimism (and just looking for magic bullets), like "maybe the right new widget will save us". Sorry for the long series of follow-ups, but this response you just made gives me something to chew on, so thanks!

I am a hungry man 😂 That was another good one from Brenner

Shout out to Max!

@@Parsons4Geist from the womb to the tomb, presume the unpredictable

@@thevanishingmediators BRO!!!!!🥰

Tricked the system with the wisdom that imprisoned my son Smoke a gold leaf I hold heat, nonchalantly

Hey Cutie 😘 I see you're still fighting the good fight

@@exlauslegale8534 mmm, subject me, daddy

@@thevanishingmediators No need for you to prove my point.

@exlauslegale8534 I love it when you tell me what to do 😘

@@Kuhanapomaranca get a little dangerous, maybe.

@@ossen5411 I’m going to upload them here if you wouldn’t mind subscribing: youtube.com/@freebeertomorrow329?si=2pLVuQ8XdpZbVvJX

Wouldn't mind the least bit

Thanks for listening and struggling right along with us!

My gaze would be perfect if weren't for these vile jellies!

I believe I was referring to this one: ua-cam.com/video/G3fjGStI7BE/v-deo.html

Also, here's an essay by here on the same topic: www.e-flux.com/journal/33/68292/not-mother-on-freud-s-verneinung/

If we see everything as content we are all stupid my friend. If we see everything as knowledge then we are just as stupid and you came to the right channel to unlearn with psychoanalysis 😂 Thanks for viewing our channel

@@DrDanLawrence Peer review…consensus…outdated….scholarly error: attempts to discredit Freud and Lacan rarely go beyond simply citing the lack of mainstreamacademic support for their ideas. If you believe psychoanalysis is outdated, then why not try counter the actual substance of the content? Leon Brenner is a Lacanian psychoanaylst who has dedicated his life to applying these concepts in his autism research. He obviously believes there’s something to these theories. Also, you’re probably thinking of the anglophone world when you refer to academia. Lacan and Freud are still highly respected in Latin America, France, Italy, and many other parts of the world. The US especially has always been hostile to psychoanalysis, but has never allowed its scepticism to prevent it from using these concepts (or dilutions thereof) to pursue its own goals (e.g. Edward Bernays and the birth of American advertising). Efforts to downplay the radicality of psychoanalysis has always formed a part of the imperialistic agenda of the US. Psychoanalysis crucially subverts the atomized invididualism upon which the capitalist ideology is based. But still, I’d be curious to know which features of Freud’s theories/Lacan’s teachings you find scientifically unsound. Mention of the academic consensus serves no purpose but that of declaring that Leon and ourselves are wrong in our belief that the study of psychoanalysis might reveal certain truths which other schools of psychological research neglect. Do consider the fact that the disinterested pursuit of knowledge and truth for their own sake has never been the most determinative factor in the academy’s prioritization of its aims. But I do encourage you to relisten to the interview and tell us at which points you feel Leon errs intellectually. If the statement you’re making amounts to little more than saying 9 out 10 dentists agree that Colgate toothpaste is better than Arm and Hammer, well then, I’m a little disappointed.

@@thevanishingmediators If I were being more tactful I would say I prefer more praxis with my theory (or really prefer a good theory to support good praxis). I'm not sure if you've ever spent time with someone who is experiencing psychosis, but Lacan is about as useful as a bag of wet socks in a real medical scenario (or worse, actually harmful). When my three year old daughter was hallucinating bugs in her bed and screaming and crying, I was thankful for peer-reviewed medical research. Lacan is the last thing you need when a patient is presenting with severe mental disturbance. I understand theory for theory's sake, and maybe that's what you are doing here, but as a viewer I prefer at least a little praxis. I intended this as UA-cam viewer feedback, since you popped up in my feed. The fact you muster a defensive instead of acknowledging or reflecting on feedback from a peer makes me even more suspicious of the validity of any of this content. Academia thrives on critique and feedback and reflection. (I think you know the bit about the toothpaste is not a good argument. I'm talking about consensus among peer-reviewed researchers across nearly every field at an international level. Even the cultural theory folks don't usually take Lacan at face value. I've spent the last 20+ years in academia and it would be very difficult to convince me that there is anything other than widespread interdisciplinary consensus that Freud and Lacan are wildly outdated. Evolutionary biologists don't just read Darwin--there's everything that comes after... and that's an extremely overly generous analogy, as it's not clear to me at all that Lacan is to psychology as Darwin is to evolutionary biology, but the point is hopefully a little clearer by the example.) Constructively, I would have just preferred to hear the three of you speak more of praxis and applications more than the coffee shop grad school theory talk, but that's just me. Or at least ground the conversation first or otherwise balance the theory with some science and reality. To go back to your first point above, it's not clear to me that there's any substance here to refute... and my comment has nothing to do with attempting to deradicalize your anticapitalist sentiment... that's plain nonsense. I encourage you to print off a few copies of whatever you consider to be Lacan's most seminal and important work or order a few copies of his books and volunteer some time discussing Lacan in a group with real people with real problems who actually live and suffer in the world with you. Go spend a few hours at a local homeless shelter having these conversations. Then report back to the peer-reviewed journals how much measurable good Lacan does for anyone. I suspect you would find the same thing that the entire scholarly community has found: it's all bunk and fluff.

@@DrDanLawrence Thank you for your comment. I am not a practicing psychoanalyst, but I do undergo Lacanian pscyhoanalysis and can attest to the strength of its effectivity in changing the mode in which I enjoy. You can choose to believe me or not. All you’ve done here is reasserted all the points you’ve made above. It’s bunk, it’s fluff, the academic community (internationally apparently) has disproved these theories and moved past them, etc. but when I ask you to comment on the substance of the concepts being treated in this conversation, you dimiss us as grad school flunkies and have not a single thing to offer besides reitering your contention that Freud and Lacan have been superseded. I’ve been undergoing Lacanian pscyhoanalysis for about a year now and it has fundamentally affected the way I experience my own being in the world, but again, my own anecdotal testimony probably isn’t enough to convince you. What you’ve given me here is not “feedback”, all you’ve done is dismissed my analogy as bad, called the theory which I and many people in this community have dedicated a great portion of their lives to studying bs, deemed my objections to your dismissal as “pure nonesense” and told me to basically touch grass. Maybe myself, Andrew, and Leon Brenner are deeply misguided and you might be able to make our errors more evident by assailing the actual points made in the video, but to equate complete dismissal of us with proffering feedback comes off as dishonest. I don’t see any substance here to refute”. How convenient for you. If a genuine critique of the theory isn’t worth your time then I’d say jumping in the comment section of a YT channel dedicated to Lacan for the sake of letting the world know that his and Leon’s work is all “fluff” and “bunk” is also not worth your time. (Mind you he’s worked with autistic children applying Lacanian theory for years now). I just can’t believe your response amounts to anything more than telling us we’re wrong, telling us the theory (the practice of which Andrew and I experience by undergoing psychoanalysis) is quack science, and refusing to attempt to counter any point made in this conversation because, surprise surprise, there is none…Thanks for the brilliant “feedback”. Also, do you make a habit of reading your dissertation at homeless shelters? Are we talking about the consensus surrounding research within academia or what underresourced people would make of an academic work?

@@DrDanLawrence Also in regards to the Lacanian praxis of treating psychosis. I highly recommend you read Darrian Leader’s work “On Madness”. He is a Lacanian analyst who has worked with several psychotic patients and recommends an approach which blends psychiatry with speech-based analysis: www.darianleader.com.

@@thevanishingmediators I've done much more than reasserted the initial points above, and gave you a direct, real life example of a serious medical crisis that occurred in my own family. If you want to ignore what I'm saying and instead pretend that I'm somehow attempting to deradicalize your ideology or whatever, then go on with the crocodile tears. Perhaps you do not have children or have not spent much time with people who are actually suffering from severe mental illness, but if you think tossing grad school jargon words around in this kind of intellectual masturbation is useful for society, science, medicine, and psychology, then by all means go on making your error of judgment. The rest of the scholarly community moved on at least half a century ago. Critiques of Freud and Lacan are necessary because these theorists have little bearing on the medical and scientific reality that is shared by the rest of us. As you age and inevitably get sicker or have children, you will be very thankful not for the Lacanians but for the people who are putting in the real work of understanding how our bodies and brains work. Whether you want to do anything with this feedback is of course up to you, but maybe it's not a random event that an academic is looking upon what you are producing with skepticism and giving critical feedback. The video showed up in my feed and I was genuinely surprised to see three apparently healthy adult humans discussing Lacanian theory in this way. This exchange has left me even more skeptical of Lacanian dogma.

Hiya. Derek Hook was a guest on our channel, so he isn't available to answer your question, but if I could perhaps venture an unqualified response to your question, I would say that in the instance he's describing in this clip, any concession given to his demand for love on the part of the analyst would have interfered with the transference. Why? Because giving in to the demand would have nourished the transference to same degree that it would have set up the analyst's counter-transference as an obstacle to work analysis aims to do on the unconscious. Had Dr. Hook's analyst given into his demand he would have slipped into the reciprocity of a social bond. If discourse is a form of intersubjective sociality, then the discourse of the analyst must act as anything but a reciprocal engagement. The ego is specular. It seeks its reflection in other egos. Whether it meets with love or hate in its search for reciprocity is irrelevant. The point of analysis is to reach the subject by undermining the ego. The act of refusing or acquiescing to a demand are both capitulations to ego's aim of finding its unity in the other's reflection. Should the analyst "acknowledge" the analysand's ego, the work of analysis will be bound to falter. The elaboration of the associative chain (free association) which reveals an unconscious structure through parapraxes, lapses in speech, etc. depends on the desire of the analyst remaining opaque and inaccessible. The moment a transparency of motives and affect is introduced into the dynamic, analysis ceases to function. Reciprocity degenerates analysis into the everyday therapeutics of ego psychology. I hope that helped to answer you question.

@@thevanishingmediators yes, That was helpful! Thanks for the added information!

bad exegesis = sloppy toppy

Not sure, Max is the resident aesthete, he found it. I think it works!

@@thevanishingmediators it does work, quite the mood!

@@thevanishingmediators I just googled Max and turns out he is the guy behind one of my favorite youtube projects "BewegtBild"!

It’s been a minute! Hope to have you join us for the quilting point episode!

thanks 💥

😂😂😂

Bummer of an ending. I feel bad for the guy.

@@thevanishingmediators Doesn't Taco Bell always have video-game deals? Just give him a VR headset with his meat house. He can have four families in his Brave New Meat. Winning.

198TORT-illa. Can I get you e-signature in blood blood? 😉@@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel

@@thevanishingmediators (kicks severed finger across the floor) I signed twice just to be sure. (straps meat hose to face)