Parts of the discussion hover on “structure” which reminds me of Deleuze’s criticism of Oedipalization, a reflection partly from Lacan, where repetition (death drive) and the drives/zones constrain sexuality. The question arises whether Deleuze and Guattari’s alternative of schizophrenia, the rhizomatic astructure is plausible. Furthermore, another issue arises when the big Other, mOther, second other (‘father’) is held to account for the alienation of the child from the mother and the separation that opens up symbolic space for the child’s desire, is this a system in Nikolas Luhmann’s sense of providing both a reciprocal or reflexive relation and a paradoxicalization of beliefs about love, relationships, and family where the system takes on the role of big Other.
(2/2) addendum: Meera Lee is the first person I've seen give a survey of Lacanian casting of perversion in a way that seems coherent w/ how Lacan systematizes explanations of neurosis & psychosis. Hearing about how foreclosure isn't repression (isn't disavowal) always left me seeing disavowal as simply a diagnosis of exclusion. She was able to flesh it out as its own unique structure, so I can actually approach the literature on perversion now. It seems like a good mix of subclinical perversity (trying not to lean too much into sadism or masochism outside of consenting private relations), subclinical neurosis (also not leaning too much into obsessional or hysterical), and psychosis-though perhaps calling it "subclinical schizotypy"-would be the only way to avoid unnecessary suffering. But since no subject is positioned to be that flexible, coming to terms with one's structural patterns is the practical clinic, with my "good mix" as kind of a ideal form that we recognize as non‐existent (or only possible under certain circumstances), as a kind of psychodynamic model against which neurosis, psychosis and perversion can stand out via contrast? I also think that the "good mix" thing is a fixative distortion that some structures could create as a kind of superegoic ideal. I've met ppl who believe they can reset themselves to a tabula rasa of perfect balance, and they usually seem very dissociated and narcoticized to me. It could even be quasi Perverse if someone takes this to be an actual way that the subject can operate, like a way to disavow their own splittedness.
00:00-2:47min. No. Actually you begin with a simple clase to get a clear idea of where anxiety (jouir/torment) resides, or, is being delivered to. Or, how it circulates from a state of antagonistic non-identity in the psychopath to (almost what defines it: See De inconcientes Argentina) the way he/she relate to mortality aka resolving their state of inner splitness upon (this is crucial) a victim and it has to be a victim if they are to resolve their inner split/anxiety/jouir aka "not being free". The latter introduces in the psychopath their own inner division aka state of anxiety.
So a sadistic perversion is a kind of involution of Law where one takes it upon themself as a duty to assert themself as the subject supposed‐to‐provide‐phallic ‐structuring for victims, who the sadist distorts (disavows) the implicit part of the Law which would tell a neurotic "No, I can't provide in that way" (a neurotic structure sees the critical impasse of Law, castration, while sadistic delusion disavows this castration and sees it as their duty to be a phallic instrument of the Law)...? An involution of obsessional neurosis almost, but at the level of Symbolic Father's "names"..? Masochism would be the subject‐supposed‐to ‐ingratiate‐the‐providers (as some kind of attraction to being the one for whom the providers' anxieties have an outlet?) in a kind of involution of hysterical neurosis, which is why it seems similar to the "making oneself the objet a" at level of jouissance, but instead at the level of Symbolic, almost like it's like masochism is a duty to take on Father's "names", which is why even though it's an agentic "duty" it seems to outsiders to just be agencyless submission..?
So many mentions of Jouissance, and where is the interview with Darian Leader from the likes of yourself Derek, or other prominent Lacanians? Second, thank you for these interviews, as I don't personally have $200+ spare to buy Meera's book.
Parts of the discussion hover on “structure” which reminds me of Deleuze’s criticism of Oedipalization, a reflection partly from Lacan, where repetition (death drive) and the drives/zones constrain sexuality. The question arises whether Deleuze and Guattari’s alternative of schizophrenia, the rhizomatic astructure is plausible.
Furthermore, another issue arises when the big Other, mOther, second other (‘father’) is held to account for the alienation of the child from the mother and the separation that opens up symbolic space for the child’s desire, is this a system in Nikolas Luhmann’s sense of providing both a reciprocal or reflexive relation and a paradoxicalization of beliefs about love, relationships, and family where the system takes on the role of big Other.
(2/2) addendum: Meera Lee is the first person I've seen give a survey of Lacanian casting of perversion in a way that seems coherent w/ how Lacan systematizes explanations of neurosis & psychosis.
Hearing about how foreclosure isn't repression (isn't disavowal) always left me seeing disavowal as simply a diagnosis of exclusion.
She was able to flesh it out as its own unique structure, so I can actually approach the literature on perversion now.
It seems like a good mix of subclinical perversity (trying not to lean too much into sadism or masochism outside of consenting private relations), subclinical neurosis (also not leaning too much into obsessional or hysterical), and psychosis-though perhaps calling it "subclinical schizotypy"-would be the only way to avoid unnecessary suffering.
But since no subject is positioned to be that flexible, coming to terms with one's structural patterns is the practical clinic, with my "good mix" as kind of a ideal form that we recognize as non‐existent (or only possible under certain circumstances), as a kind of psychodynamic model against which neurosis, psychosis and perversion can stand out via contrast?
I also think that the "good mix" thing is a fixative distortion that some structures could create as a kind of superegoic ideal. I've met ppl who believe they can reset themselves to a tabula rasa of perfect balance, and they usually seem very dissociated and narcoticized to me. It could even be quasi Perverse if someone takes this to be an actual way that the subject can operate, like a way to disavow their own splittedness.
00:00-2:47min. No. Actually you begin with a simple clase to get a clear idea of where anxiety (jouir/torment) resides, or, is being delivered to. Or, how it circulates from a state of antagonistic non-identity in the psychopath to (almost what defines it: See De inconcientes Argentina) the way he/she relate to mortality aka resolving their state of inner splitness upon (this is crucial) a victim and it has to be a victim if they are to resolve their inner split/anxiety/jouir aka "not being free". The latter introduces in the psychopath their own inner division aka state of anxiety.
Thanks for these fascinating videos. I look forward to reading the book.
This sounds an intriguing discussion on the topic. Sounds like an unconventional way to think about it.
So a sadistic perversion is a kind of involution of Law where one takes it upon themself as a duty to assert themself as the subject supposed‐to‐provide‐phallic ‐structuring for victims, who the sadist distorts (disavows) the implicit part of the Law which would tell a neurotic "No, I can't provide in that way" (a neurotic structure sees the critical impasse of Law, castration, while sadistic delusion disavows this castration and sees it as their duty to be a phallic instrument of the Law)...? An involution of obsessional neurosis almost, but at the level of Symbolic Father's "names"..?
Masochism would be the subject‐supposed‐to ‐ingratiate‐the‐providers (as some kind of attraction to being the one for whom the providers' anxieties have an outlet?) in a kind of involution of hysterical neurosis, which is why it seems similar to the "making oneself the objet a" at level of jouissance, but instead at the level of Symbolic, almost like it's like masochism is a duty to take on Father's "names", which is why even though it's an agentic "duty" it seems to outsiders to just be agencyless submission..?
You may read a book presented by someone close to them: the begginings of Chp4-5 of Zizeks ticklish subject.
So many mentions of Jouissance, and where is the interview with Darian Leader from the likes of yourself Derek, or other prominent Lacanians? Second, thank you for these interviews, as I don't personally have $200+ spare to buy Meera's book.