Відео

but lebron james had no father(parental function) but he made it tho, keanu got no father as well he made it in life this dude lacan be so mad negative tho

1:02:07 yeah i feel you, how do you even know that, have you been around block or in any block, thats some real hood shit

4:59 damnn

4:22 type shii

bro this teacher is amazing

25:47 Hey man You stole my Little (a), Give me back my Little (a) Mofu*er XDDDD

Hi, is " thank you " enough for the effort you always do? if yes, then thank you so much Dr.

thanks ❤

Hello Sam and happy Thanksgiving. I am grateful for you and your beautiful presentations on psychoanalysis. I’m going to start back here again at this lecture having followed through five or six lectures forward. I think the repetition and your idea of say it again say it better is helpful. There is so much to assimilate and I was wondering, if you have some sense of an approach in regards to this. I was wondering your opinion if you think it’s best that I just move forward as I’m six lectures ahead or start back here and reintegrate the information? Thanks and happy Thanksgiving.

There are so many brilliant things in this seminar and one in particular was that and I’m paraphrasing “when you’re thinking you’re not thinking and when you’re not thinking you’re thinking “that was so brilliant! If you have anything to add here, even a sentence or two that would be great also! I am loving your seminars… Thank you

That was amazingly accurate

Can't believe this is free to watch. Thanks Sam! 🏅

I return to this lecture over and over again finding the kernal i have always looked for.

Since hearing that last part, I can identify more and more with Tony Soprano.

Thanks so much for this!

Excelent! As always. Unique, Provocative, Scholary, Highly "Addictive" and thought provoking.

Thank you Professor. I was completely hooked on to it.

Zizek is focusing on using lacan for an analysis of the subject in relation to economy(marx in nature). Which is focused on an ideological analysis of individual subjects in society.

I have to disagree that it doesn’t have to be a mummy. I find it strange that we deny the universal reality of what babies came out of. Really bizarre tbh this reluctance of men to face this.

This gets me thinking about what are the contingencies between the perverse pleasure of speaking the impossible, and the idea of having "parrhesia" as an ideal possibility for speaking (Greek for candid / free speech).

Sam how easy is to assess if someone with or without penis is "man" or "woman"? Could a feminist be a "man"?

Many thanks to you for making this videos!!

So the Mythic Exception Man is like the Ultimate Unary Father. Like a Super Paternal Function. He has the Phallus and is uncastratable But every other man is part of this All Men group because they are all subject to Castration (Separation from the Phallus). They are unable to please the Maternal Function bc the Mythical Man, who CAN do it exist. And I guess while not directly saying it, it is also implied that All the Women belong to him, really. And All Men are subject to the social order of castration so long as this mythical man exist. You know, this sounds a lot like hierarchy as well. It’s just that the Mythical Exception man sits on top of it, unseen, but only heard of as a rumor. A rumor which explains to All Men why they are not able to satisfy all women (are castrated)

I’m new to lacan so I’m still trying to wrap my head around this stuff. But I’m looking through the lectures and bouncing around as I hear references to other lectures. I saw an earlier lecture the idea that: - neurotics -> Calm No castration - perverts -> Unstable No! Castration - Psychotic -> Rejected Castration In this case, wouldn’t the Psychotic be the Uncastrated Man? “The Uncut Daddy.” If so, That would be possible. And it also matches your condition because the psychotic is not a “man” in a neurotic sense. He is he exception & operates as such. The only issue is that to be psychotic ≠ get all the women. But, I can’t necessarily say that isn’t the case either. Is it not possible that someone (maybe not a “Man” in the castrated sense) who had no social constraints or sense of obligation under the castration, could just do what they wanted if they were smart enough to just subvert everyone’s attempts to castrate them (and were psychotic)? I’m thinking like a Ghangas Khan type character. I guess you could say he is still castrated but this highlights my confusion about the psychotic. what do you think about this line of thinking? And Is there any lecture where you talk more about the psychotic? Secondly, with the Feminine Jouissance, it seemed like it switched from talking about “number of women” to “amount of enjoyment” when you were describing the ‘Not All Women are Castrated’. What was the purpose of that change? I would think that this statement would be about women’s perception of themselves, collectively, as an undefined ocean of exceptions when it comes to Jouissance. Like how men look and expect castration in some form or another amongst all of themselves, women would look around and see “possibly Not Castrated” in some form or another among, “not all” of them. There is this tone of not knowing who amongst them is free from their castration and who isn’t because of the nature of the “Not All”. But when it is switched to “amount of Jouissance”, it’s like changing the units of the convo. Are all Men 100% castrated in this case? It wouldn’t seem that would be true bc while All Men are slaves in some form, there are Masters in the form of bosses, who experience the Jouissance of owning another’s body (which is another idea I heard you talk about in another lecture). So I would think, if it was by “amount” it would be >= 1% of Men are castrated. But that would mean there is a large spread of “amount” of castration happening. In some sense the “All” is talking about collectives. The “Exist” is talking about Individual. And my impression is that men see their collective as all subject to castration - as in they have certainty. However, women see their collective in a Not All, uncertainty about if they are or are not castrated. But on the individual level, men fantasize in and amongst themselves about the Existence of the Uncastrated man & are uncertain of his existence, like a mythical character. Women, instead, on an individual level have certainty and a knowing that there is no woman who has not experienced the castration, even though there is this suspicion of on the collective level that not all women are castrated. And this does deeply line up to me. There is an implied difference in feminine & masculine intimacy where the former commiserates on the “secret” that they too are castrated, while the latter commiserates on the “secret” that they might not be castrated.

Thank you Sam. Are the complete lectures going to be available at some point?

Hello Samuel, I’ve been spending quite a bit of time with your lectures and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. It’s absolutely wonderful! I have a quick question about language/voice, my question is how specifically we are influenced by being vulnerable in those first couple years of life as the subject of the parents Language and idioms, How much does that affect our ability to articulate our desire and needs as adult specifically utilizing voice in language ? Thank you.

Super interesting! Nyania ⇒ Losslack ⇒ Barred A ◇ φ (a, a', a'', a'''....) : a / -φ ◇ A. For all the logic of ∀x and ∃x it does seem as if the groundwork was already present to an extent in his earlier writing about transference. Maybe veiled by the concept of A, but later exposed through the focus on ones and the analyst discourse. In general, the obsessional belief in being more one than others, and the hysteric belief in the complete oneness of others seems a bit like proto-nyania if you ask me! Maybe it's not a direct transformation, but add an explanation of modes of jouissance and it's perhaps not far from a continuation.

We be dead if we did not desire anything. We end up denying ourselves.

Bonjour, il n'y a pas d'option turque dans les sous-titres, je ne peux donc pas regarder vos vidéos lorsque je vais sur UA-cam depuis mon téléphone. Pouvez-vous ajouter le turc à l'option de langue ?

Brilliant

Thanks to Lacanonline post about new books and things to check out i learned of your lecture series'. This set on Sem 19,>> really excellent. Ill keep this real brief. Thank you

Great lecture. Might I suggest a very minor possible amendment to your annotated diagram of the analyst's discourse. Is it possible that non-sense is a partial translation from the French? What I had in mind was to restate the labelling of symptomatic expression as 'no-sense' rather than 'non-sense'. In other words to clarify that the 'no' ex-sists in relation to the symptomatic expression in a similar way as the impossible real ex-sists in relation to the truth. This might not be it, but it seems relevant to how we go from a symbolic 'no' through the unconscious which conditions the imaginary of symptomatic speech, all to settle on the absent real and allusions of truth reflected back towards the analysand. That said, every time I think I've got it, something else slips away!

Brilliant. Thank you SO much bc I’m only on lecture 2 and I was STRUG GUL IN G.

I think the kids’ screaming at around 14 minutes perfectly captures the analyst’s resistance to the-object-supposed-to-go!!! The horror of AMA, APA and IPA doctors and Nurse Ratchets of the world inflicting and inscribing their cookoo’s nests on us, where we “live”, in torn pieces and bleachy-plasticy-saturated veins, reflecting off the walls of the hallway in the children’s screams. Juxtaposed on your teaching of a teacher’s teaching, in conjunction with an audience whose “learning” includes the screams, it’s a fuc*ing work of art! ❤

Excellent, as usual! Please will you post another vid after you finish reading the complete essay?

Yooo, what happened to your nails? They're so black.

Your characterisation of the lethargic, depressive master reminds me of Oblomov, by Ivan Goncharov, the lethargic Russian nobleman unable to make any decisions.

perverts do not have anxiety??

Hey so what about the fantasy of world peace? Or attempts at an ethical system? I think the unary trait has something to do with this. Fundamental fantasy n what not

Chronological time😮

Sam how is the truth value of a symptom being tested? What kind of logic is being used? Isn't logic being affected by the unconscious? Thank you so much for all this work. It is vey helpful and it generates questions.

homunculus

Excellent! Thank you

Thanks!

Also, you helped me to connect logical paradoxes with the so-called "logic of not-all". Check this out: some people try to "disarm" the Liar Paradox by substituting two-truth-values logic with three-truth-values logic. But, in response, people have offered a new version - "This statement is not "true-and-only-true"", which seems to get us back to square one. However! We can either claim that "All statements are either_true_or_false, but there are statements that are NOT either_true_or_false (like the Liar's)". Or we can claim that "There are no statements that are NOT either_true_or_false,. but being true or false is not_all that can be said ragarding its truthity or falsity". From this, second, POV, we can claim that "this statement is not true" is, yes, true, but not_all is said about it by calling it true! ...if you get what I mean. This requires some (a lot) of the same meta that sarcasm or metaphors use.

to the point . recognition . phallable . love that .

I don't understand even a quarter of it (sorry!)< but you speaking about "difference between subject and knowledge" made me think how mathematical paradoxes akin to Goedel's theorem show, inside the mathematics, "the difference between mathematics and mathematician". Goedel found a way to formulate in math-speak the utterance "there is no sequence of sentences that is a mathematically sound proof for that statement". Now, if this statement was false, then there would be a sequence of sentences that would "prove" it as true, but false thing cannot be proven true. So it is not false, then. And all the statements are either false or true. So it must be true. But then, if it IS true, then, if we take this sequence of sentences, from "Now, if this.." to "it must be true", it still is NOT mathematically sound proof of it being true. So, basically, mathematics does not recognize this as being true, yet a mathematiCIAN does! And the funniest thing is, well, you can axiomatize this statement to make it "true without proof", but then a new statement arises, that, yet again, mathematICS does not recognize, but a mathematiCIAN does!

Vampirism is probably an allusion to cannibalism, no?