A Tour of Lacan's Graph of Desire
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2020
- A tour of Jacques Lacan's famous 'Graph of Desire', as elaborated in 'The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire' in his Écrits. We check in at each of its points, explain what all the algebra means, and go through the concepts behind it. Plenty of real-life examples to help explain.
Contact me for psychoanalytic psychotherapy - www.lacanonline.com/appointme...
For more exploring psychoanalysis through the work of Jacques Lacan - www.LacanOnline.com
Hello, this is LacanoPedia, a Greek-speaking channel for Lacan's teaching. Congratulations for your video! Your work is of high quality!
Your understanding is evidently greater than that of almost anyone else on this matter. You are doing humanity a service, thank you so much. ♥️
This took me around ten days to go through, stopping the video every sentence or so. It's a very good overview of the graphs, well done.
@Thomas Miller The title is interesting for sure. Unfortunately my French is just slightly better than my German. I will try anyway. Thanks for the tip!
Well I spent 20 years and still have no clue. U r awesome
@Thomas Miller The channel you suggested is really interesting, thanks again.
_yes! such Lacan!_
@No One There's also an actual connection. They do not represent the same thing but they're closely related.
Stunning work, thank you. Would happily pay a subscription for more frequent, longer length videos such as this.
An extraordinary account of Lacan's graph, at once enlightening and evocative. Bravo!
On enunciation , I’ve often found that having depression restricts me from identifying with my own thoughts,i.e, I could speak but not feel it is an “I” who is doing the speaking. The thoughts are floating in a way that’s external to my identification- it’s weird. But Lacanian theory captures this quite well. With depression, I wonder what becomes of the signifying chain ? Obviously there still is a semantic value to all I say, but this observation of never really feeling an “I” in what I say has always baffled me. In writing, I never feel it but in speech- I always do; some have even told me I speak between my teeth.
Thanks for putting this into words.
Where on earth am I going to find real life friends to talk about this kinda thing with? Or has the ego ideal image of the friend imagined as the subject of the other created an anxiety that causes me to have no friends anyway?
You talk in jokes, to discuss it while avoiding the pain it causes the various egos ;).
@@melanieenmats like zizek?
Lol I feel you
Let's talk about it then instead of cuddling our big intellectual balls :D
You know, what I dislike about Lacan and Žižek is that both of them became just bitter cynics and decided to frustrate other people instead of helping them arrive to the same conclusion. This isn't something that's impossible to understand :)
What I like about all of this is the potential to not take oneself too seriously and to play with this fucking graph from within. When we understand why we think, feel want to do things, and we want conflicting things all the time, we can tweak that to achieve the best possible outcome for ourselves and others (through the manipulaition of signifiers). Is it ethical and moral? Why ask that question?
look here
Just finished reading this chapter in Ecrits that talks about the graphs and thank you for this video, and as an academic, I appreciate the quotes
Amazing work! Please don't stop! This is really inspiring me to get into Lacanian psychoanalysis. We have very limited resources and people who can explain to him in simple terms.
I'm really pleased to have found this channel.
Outstanding exposition. Thank you!
Thanks for this video, it has been extremely helpful to understand Lacan's theory. I am currently writing a seminar paper where I need to discuss Lacan and Freud, and the fact that you integrated all these quotes from the Écrits really helped me to find the relevant passages I needed. Good job!🙏
Genius explication of Lacanian desire & psychoanalysis. Absolutely brilliant.
Amazing, I was looking for such video since long time!
I was hoping for more discussion about the topic but most of what I see are thank yous and good jobs and a lot of generic gratitude.
this is the best video i ever seen! happy birthday to me! it makes sooooo much sense
Incredible. Your videos changed my life. Thank you
Brilliant work, thank you!
Прекрасное, содержательное объяснение!
Brilliant video. Another great text by J.A.Miller where he explicates on s(bar A) and suture, is his paper from Lacan’s seminar on the fantasy. Miller explicates Boole’s logic in the paper which might be more illustrative than Frege’s arithmetics.
Also part of Miller’s seminars are published loosely. But two papers from his seminars “from the symptom to the fantasy and back” are very illustrative of the function of fantasy. For anyone wanting to unjam Lacan, Miller is a great go to.
Amazing video, man! Great work and awesome contribution.
This is a VERY GOOD explanation. Thank you very much for it.
I didn't know your channel but now I do. A letter always reaches its destination. *blows airhorn*
Brilliant Owen. Thanks so much for making this accessible. I'm much clearer on the graph than I ever was before. Would love to see more videos. May I suggest Lacan's optical model?
Thank you. This is great work.
Thank you for your helpful work !
brillant and not an easy exercise. Bravo.
Not many folks mention the “Träg-” part of Nachträglichkeit.
Afterwardness, sure. But “träge” also has to with being sluggish and inert.
I propose: after-inertness.
Aside from that, it also emphasizes the point du capitonage-ness - the fixed quality of it.
Amazing, amazing, amazing. do more and more of these videos.
Very impressive work! Thank you
i am not going to pretend i now understand the graph, but this was a great overview that i will return to.
Bravo. Thank you. This will be a very useful video for me for a long time.
Fantastic video. I hope you do one about the unary trait soon, thanks
Very enlightening. Subscribed. Thanks!
Very helpful. Graph 1/4 is making some sense to me now, going to return to Ecrits for another pass
Amazing-- thank you for your work!
Excellent, thank you!
Thank you for this video! great help, mate!
It wouldn't be Lacan if we didn't have a painstaking discussion regarding whether a graph about desire can be called a graph of desire or not.
That literally made me burst out laughing. Not even 5 minutes in and we already started with the pulling the rug from under you bullshit
amazing video. so well done.
“You are fucked by the symbolic, and you can't unfuck. ”
Gold.
Thanks for the lecture 👍
This was amazing. Thank you.
Excellent!!! I was struggling to understand reading texts and now it is pretty clear!!!!!!!
Now I can just give people this video when people ask about my Graph of Desire tattoo! Thanks! This is a great review!
Cant wait to bump into you at a bar...good grief
Are you trying to impersonate Brian Griffin? Jesus Christ
Excellent work
Thanks for the effort you have put into this great video. To make even more helpful, you may want to also add a TOC of the video's thematic order.
A very good explanation of the so-called graph of desire. Congratulations and thank you for your very important work, because Lacan is very difficult to read and to understand.
Superb! Encore!
More of this please.
awesome content, man! Congrats!
really good video I'm going to have to digest in fragments with a lot of supplementary reading.
You are so correct; it is so exquisite, and one of the most excellent presentations I have witnessed so far on Lacan’s ‘graph of desire.’
Thank you
Hey, congrats, what an amazing explanation, I would like to know which software are using to make the video (the black background). Thanks
Lacan’s Graph of Desire and Metal Mickey have never been seen in the same room as each other.
Pahahahaa! Brilliant
Thank you for this amazing tour and for reminding us the levels of the graph!
Is there a transcript of your commentary anywhere?
Excelent video.
Stunning
I was a mute from age 5-10 in school. I started young with disinterestedly observing others without participating with them. And I remember analyzing them in my silent unspoken thoughts. This graph/concept makes sense because I remember being consciously aware of this strangeness of language, how strange, I thought, was what the other kids talked about. One day a kid pointed to the heavy girl who got teased a lot. The kid asked me, "Do you like her?" I nodded yes, thinking to my self that this was the right thing to do, although I was disinterested in the heavy girl in and of herself. This is very real, this graph/concept. I see that the girl was really asking me, " Do you think it's ok if I (she) liked the other girl--she was getting my permission--and I gave it to her, knowing that this would be the effect. Til this day, I still am very cognizant about my real intentions, I question them, and often see the folly of my mis-communication. Lacan is spot on. thank you sir. signed, an INFJ
Oh lord 🙄
Hope you make many more videos!
Thank you for this :)
I am having trouble understanding the process order of Graph two with the examples you gave.. why does the punctuation or quilting point come before the A or Big Other?
Yay great video!!!
such a helpful video
Jouissance: For example: washing your hands may be a healthy thing to do, but when you cannot consciously control it, and you begin to organize your life around it, even though you do not control it, and rules you to the point of suffering immensely for it. That circuit, that constant unable to stop iteration of something pleasurable repeatedly recursively to the point of painful, and existential dread that is known as jouissance. That is what analysts have to deal with. It could also be with trying to fix your pants (see my Asansi lectures here: audiomack.com/song/ivan-gil-munoz/lacan-for-beginners-asansi-lecture-section-one-part-iiwav), or, even reading: you cannot anymore, but you continue to try to do it even though you may have migraines, etc. Even though you may not be learning as much etc.
This is what i really need!
43:06min If the object of analysis, and his main contribution is object-a, or the minus-phi, then the object of analysis is also the subject depending on the dialectical rotation from which you are studying it. As in Hegel, and Kant paradoxical identity between universal, and particular, J.A. MIller being (zero, subject) is desire ("x" logical shape of unsconsious desire, or, point of identification [foundational]) unary trait. See Baily, Lionel, and the Sailor signifier in his Lacan book by oxford press "one world" series), or, Eidezstein´s "Otro Lacan" Zero is one.
So legitimate. Much credibility
47:51min Notice how misrecognition builds upon each other at the bottom, and top part of the grapth. The second misrecognition will move downwards again towards the (s(O)) of the bottom part of the graph. Misrecognition (alienation) is necessary, but flawed, and limited. It is the degree of separation from ourselves that allowed us to study ourselves in this manner, but it remains mortal, and flawed. The latter a crucial feature.
Please make more content!
Great video. One thing I would like to understand is what is Lacan's definition of "the subject"? Is it the notion of the totality of the human psyche (the conscious and unconscious)?
Listening to your explanation of the relationship between A and s(A), it made me wonder something: where does the intentionality of the s(A), in the formation of a subjective moment of meaning placed into relief from the negativity of A, what's the cause or determination of s(A), and wouldn't this mean there was some 'transcendental subject' with positivity, a will, that was then primary over negativity?
The great thing here are the examples
I think we all agree that the quality of these videos, in explaining lacans thoughts, is very good, but that when we compare them to other UA-cam videos !!!
There are some far simplifications here or there.
Thank you though, im waiting for a video about a case study ;
So, we may take the number 2514. The 2 is a two in the thousands position, The 5 is a number 5 in the hudrends position etc.
Now I can finally understand what the hell Lacan was saying about the graph in the book "Anxiety"
Humongous what?
Hello, I like your work very much, in addition, I have difficulties in translating the language part, maybe I'm translating an important topic wrong, so can you add Turkish subtitles?
Subscribed.
EINFACH SICH DAS SEMINARBUCH 5 HOLEN "Formations of the Unconsciousness" 3:55 Subjekt bedeutet etwas ist Subjekt zu 5:30 Subjekt ist gespalten durch die Effekte des Signifikanten 6:00 Kurve S - S' 7:08 9:05 9:50 Gegenstück zum Gödelschen Unvollständigkeitssatz 10:40 die Sprache / die Begriffe spricht durch das Medium des Subjekts, welches aus dieser Sicht (wo die Sprache spricht und nicht das Subjekt) nur die leere Bezeichnung "Ich" ist (siehe vorheriges Bsp. "I"), dem Subjekt muss dies allerdings verborgen sein und es muss die Artikulationsebene als seine eigene auffassen 15:20 das Objekt ist nicht entscheidend, sondern seine Symbolisierung 16:15 Start des Graphen 21:00 Kurve s(A) - A, s(A) ist das Sprechen anderer, das an mich gerichtet ist, A ist die vorherige Andersheit der Artikulationsebene, wo die Sprache und nicht das Individuum spricht und die Bedeutung dieser Sprache dem Individuum notwendig verborgen ist, der Teil der Bedeutung der verborgen ist, entspricht der Stimme; Bsp. siehe 40:00! siehe 57:50 s(A) und später S(A/) ist der EINTRITT IN DIE SPRACHE!!! 29:22 30:08 32:00! 33:20! (siehe Text) 33:50 wir sehen uns durch den imaginierten Anderen, den wir darstellen möchten; dieser ist jedoch den anderen Menschen entliehen, die sich ebenfalls von einem imaginierten Anderen betrachten 34:50! mein Blick durch den imaginierten Anderen auf muss symbolisch vermittelt werden, also unterer Weg UND oberer Weg mit Bezeichnung, sodass sich der gr. A der Sprache selbst verkörpert und uns diese Bedeutung verschlossen bleibt, also A (siehe oben), siehe Bsp. ab 36:20 41:23 Beginn des Begehrens 42:35 Kritik der Happiness 44:50 EXPL objet a ab46:17!!! wie Phantasie konstituiert wird bzw. die Struktur der Phantasie 50:30! 55:50 lack of the other ist die Bezeichnung einer Leere, einer Nichtexistenz 57:50 complete jouissance is impossible because its runs through the signification of the language as an other with a lack (Herrensignifikant?!!!), so wie die "Coke", "der Liberalismus", der " Kapitalismus", die " Kohlenstoffkompensation"; die konkrete Beudetung der empfundenen joissance basiert auf dem Herrensignifikanten, der nichts anderes ist als die Positivierung einer Leere / eines Mangels (deshalb "is structured around a lack"); S(A/) ist der EINTRITT IN DIE SPRACHE!!!, dort erscheint das objet a als durch die Sprache hervorgerufener Mangel im Objekt 1:00:05 Phallus: der Signifikant der jouissance 1:01:00 ALLES ZUM PHALLUS WIRD ZSMGEFASST IN 1:02:46! 1:03:57! Def Neurotiker 1:04:40 Def Obsession und Hysterie 1:08:40! ab1:09:28!!! ZSM.FASSUNG
Very complicated, in new to Lacan.
Whenever I read psychoanalysis I ask myself "Weren't they aware this applies to themselves as well?"
Because the undertone of all of his research shows me how much of a MAN Lacan was. Everyone thinks of Ben Shapiro when they think of "Facts don't care about your feelings" but I think Lacan was waaaay better at making this message clear :D
What about men who beat around the bush? Now when we know through genetics, and history that "cisheteronormative" (cisgender + heterosexual + monogamous) is just a ritualized form of copulation between humans.
Bravo
I am german and I love to have all the important term as every day expressions 👌
Please, If you don't want to be misunderstood as Lacan himself started starkly pointing out as soon as he became famous, "From Rome 53' to Rome 67'. Psychoanalysis. Reason of a failure", up to his 1980 Caracas Seminar class, knowing he is to die soon, he dissolves his school, and not to his surprise or regret: his constant ambivalent treatment of Freud, both at the same time needed as Platform from which to claim Legitimacy (yo call himself psychoanalyst and rival the IPA) and difference, disagreement and dismissal of the main concepts of Repression, Ego-Superego-Id, pleasure/death principles, representation, drive, Oedipal theory, in a word, every single major notion not to talk about its foundations. Just to at the same time call on "Freud's Truth" or "Return to Freud", only, as history proved, to be absorbed completely and surmised into 21st century Freudian psychoanalysis (the contradictions on that name itself evident)- please, distance yourself from Freud, There's nothing there for Lacan "to take on" and develop, if not to change the core meaning and/or epistemic backdrop of its place in theory. I don't know what would have been if Lacan from the start started something completely different, maybe like Jung, after his death, little development has continued leading to a fossilized theory, with a somewhat now (after Hillman's death) dead American School. Either way, all the lacanians, that is, the 80% of the world's Psychoanalysts, refer to and treat Lacan's Theory as part of Freud's and surmised, always, to.
I disagree with your assertion of a "fossilized theory". There are many places in the world where very lively creative ideas have been built from Lacan. But the work is fragmented over many persons and languages. I know for example in Argentina there are very interesting psycho-analytic ideas ideas that come out in many of the arts. Also in my language (dutch) there are some very interesting contemporary psycho-analists that have built on Lacan's theories in very interesting ways.
And as a great example I propose Zizek's books where he connects popular movies with Lacan's ideas.
It is inconsequential how"x" percent of psychoanalists treat Lacan. Just as Jung in my opinion perhaps abused Freud's theory, so Lacan's work was always going to be abused. In fact he made sure it would be.
@@melanieenmats OK, I re-assert that Psychoanalysis as a Program, active since 1902 (Freud's circle, later ring circle, later International Association) and fairly Institutionalized by 1913, to the heights of the great debate of A. Freud v. M. Klein and the third/middle/Winnicot group, to the post-war european migrated community around the Ego (later, 1970s Self-) Psychology, Pichon-Rivière's Operative Group in Argentina, to the 1980s appearances of new associations and schools after Lacan's, death, mainly in France, and including the largest, most active in terms of members, groups affiliated and publishing World Psychoanalysis Association, is indeed in an advance state of Regression after the 1950s generalized stagnation, in terms of Lakatos, say, of the Scientific Research Program.
One completely radical and different moment, to the height of that of Lacan's 1953 Rome Discourse and later paper "The Function and Field [...] of Psychoanalysis", different, is the 2018 Apola association public foundational opening and conferences from a 1999 society, group of researchers disenchanted by the auto-phagocytic Miller leading School and his rejection of Concepts for the apology of finesse (artistry and aesthetics over logic and formality), spearheaded by Alfredo Eidelzstein up until now.
No other case can be made (can you point me to?) inside the field of psy- professions. We can talk about Zizek and other political philosophers, stick up with Badiou's philosophy very much indebted to Lacan's anti-philosophy (anti-ontology more precisely), to B. Cassain's research on Linguistics and her offering/appreciation of J. Lacan as a unique figure in contemporary epistemology and their work and propositions.
To say that the IPA (traditional) or WAP (Miller's version) do something other than ad hoc "updates" to new situations would be very problematic without pointing to a single advancement (which wasn't there) taken seriously as opposed to syncretic and spurious mixing and downgrading of the whole spirit of the endeavor and the concepts, and one can trace this deprecation in Miller, Colette Soller & Jean Allouch (by the way, all as different founders of schools, also ex-seminarians of Lacan), specially in the concept of Juissance as mashup of libido and death drive.
My concern is not Lacan in Linguistics courses, or his study in critical film studies or philosophy of sciences, nor his development of number theory or commentaries for combinatory topology. But that of the discipline itself: Psychoanalysis and its endeavor. its specificity, its axioms and cultural underpinnings, to the corollary of the different schools, programs and consensus, debates (which has been dead for at least 65 years by now, and it's a fact).
Last, your last point, it is inconsequential the proportion of psy- professionals' treatment of Lacan's Theory: because there is none. Its an obvious consequence, I just wanted to point the magnitude of the issue. And I agree, he himself (Lacan) attacked the possibility, as it is absurd, of intelectual property and plagiarism. I have no beef on this, I think I just didn't make clear my concern with the state of the art of the Theory. Or maybe your point is precisely that it's irrelevant to the wide world and their academic, artistic, private proliferation and use and integration of Lacan's concepts and hypotheses, whether it's a dead thing in the academic departments and professional societies or not: and to this I react most violently, since it was developed as a mental/public health practice, very marginal but very powerful in terms of its place in modern societies, where a patient/client/analizand couldn't get help from medicine, psychologists, spiritual directors, self-help groups or alternative Tibetan pilgrimage/south american ayahuasca intense reprogramming therapies. Its loss indeed predicted by both Lacan and Freud, may be what it is, although given the evidence I doubt it.
Careful of those english translations, in French 'the subject' doesn't necessarily refer to a person. Due to french having gendered nouns, the masculine article "il" also means "it" as well as "he". In fact, I doubt if "subject" ever refers to a person in Lacan, as the Miller-inspired philosophers would have us believe...
Could you please explain that last statement? I get that not every 'subject' is 'necessarily' a person, but isn't every person a (barred) subject? Or are you referring to some kind of Althusserian ideological process by which the person has to be interpellated AS subject?
What's with the macabre true crime-type anecdotes to illustrate aggressivity in constituted rivalry, was that necessary?
Interested to find out what lacan ideas were and im engineer 😑😅
so this is complicated as hell to me, thanks alot by the way 👍
I studied this for 5 years in university, yet my feeling is the same :). But as one of the few things I'm quite certain I did understand: it is better to be in the position of not understanding it, than to prematurely think that one does understand. :D.
@@melanieenmats 👍👍 definitely
That's a quite weird state machine
4:38 *$* “What’s wrong with psychology is its criterion is the _unity of the subject.”_ -Lacan
Starting in 1975, Jacques Lacan clearly recognized, on several occasions, the aporias of psychoanalysis.
In 1977, on ethics:
"Our practice is a swindle, bluffing, making people stick, dazzling them with words that are shocked, [...] From an ethical point of view, it's untenable."
In 1978, on scientificity:
"Psychoanalysis is not a science. ...it is a delusion - a delusion that is expected to carry a science."
In 1979, on the conditioning of the analyzed:
"It is not a science at all because it is irrefutable. The psychoanalyst is a rhetorician. ...operates only by suggestion. He suggests, that's the characteristic of a rhetorician, he doesn't impose anything of substance."
On 5-1-1980, Lacan declared in his 'Letter of Dissolution':
"I have failed - that is to say, I have become confused. ...] Freud allowed the psychoanalytical group to prevail over discourse, to become Church."
His followers continue to try to understand his SIBYLLINAR TEXTS by avoiding taking seriously the last cities, however clear they may be.
So should we all pack our bags and go home? Or follow the ... to the other side/s of the so called aporias you mention?
"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly."
What Wittgenstein says here applies perfectly to psychoanalysis as well. Scientific discourse almost always end up simplyfing its object. The unconscious inherently resists being approached as a scientific object. One must, precisely, deceive the unconscious into expressing its truths, even through what you call aporias.
Hay alguien dando cursos lacanianos en español en la web?
How does this theory apply to people like myself where English is a primary language in conjuction with a secondary lanugage. Whereby in my secondary language I have different forms of 'I' when speaking to someone who is older, younger, male, female etc. Does this have an effect on the formation of my psychology and development?
I think it only adds another dimension to the symbolic order, a predetermined position of the signifier in the signifying chain, thus resulting in less slippage and a stricter order of signifiers. I think it might actually be a point de capiton. And in regards to the psychology,yes, this definetly affects your sense of self as a subject but maybe only in regards to the Other of the second language. It would be determined by many factors, for example if you use these languages interchangeably in your day to day life or if you only use them perhaps while visiting the country of its origin.
Just when I thought I understood Lacan’s work, I watch this video and realise I don’t know shit. I saved this video. Cheers.
this is so great. would it be a bother to ask to be subtitled, even in english?
Sure - click the Subtitle button at the bottom right of the video
@@LacanOnline yes but they are the automatically generated kind, narration is heard perfectly but that kind of subtitles omits or distorts some words that are key to understand, which is a problem if your native language is not english or french. anyway, still a great job.
Has uno para México.
This is so good thank you!
At 36:40 is now known as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_death.
How does this relate to Mad Men S1 ep7 "Red in the Face"?
Im pretty much watching this with no knowledge of psychoanalysis and im guessing thats why it makes no sense. do you have any advice on how to increase my understanding?
49:00min What they are doing is constructing, generrating, the different types of dialectical moments of different modes of alienation, or, consciousness: one generation another, generating another etc. What is important is effective dialectical formal shape of the constitution of the particular pathological mode of self-alienation, or, awareness. It is not simply a fantasy notice. It is his dialectically-sefl-recursive construction of the way he wil attain a particular self-consciousness.