“You Know?”: A Self-Analysis | Le sujet supposé savoir

Feel free to reach me at my email [e-mail] for a chat!
Le sujet-supposé-savoir est une structure qui consiste à supposer à un autre un savoir sur notre propre inconscient. Cette structure permet au patient comme au psychanalyste de débuter le « travail ».
The subject-supposed-knowledge is a structure that consists in supposing knowledge about our own unconscious to another. This structure enables both patient and psychoanalyst to begin "work".
#lacan #psychoanalysis #carljung #philosophy #freud

[@vigdragon]

Interesting! you know?!

[@ianian4162]

Brillient video! I'm a student myself, and I love seeing new content on psychoanalysis. You've just got yourself a new subscriber.

[@LacanofWorms]

Deeply appreciate it! Welcome!

[@brunovillalobos4706]

Thanks a lot for sharing!

[@honestytube2944]

Interesting, looking someone who knows, who knows you and what your saying. Pretty relateable, nice reflection!

[@clevergadget]

Subscribing to this channel feels like getting in on the ground floor of something 👌

[@LacanofWorms]

🙌

[@adamaenosh6728]

I relate to this a lot, to the desire for someone that knows; but for me it is not only imaginary, it is also real. Because I desire for someone to do the act of imagining something about me, anything, even to be wrong about me. I want them to imagine that I am interesting, but I also don't care if they really think I'm interesting or not, because I just want them to do the thing of paying attention to me. I think that's a 'real' - what exists in the dimension of the verb, rather than the adjective.

[@mr.crankyargueta]

🔥🔥🔥

[@Peter-ew5bq]

Beautifully witty and thoughtful. A 'Laplanchean' thought occurred to me: I wonder what might happen if we saw psychoanalysis as less to do with knowing - i.e., we try to suspend our imaginary presuppositions as we enter the psychoanalytic experience - and see it instead as an invitation to improvise, to riff off our associations and our analyst's words, to translate unknowable puzzles implanted in us by the enigmatic signifiers we all accumulate in growing up?
Just a thought, you know? I'm also a new subscriber to your evocative and thoughtful channel. Keep those spontaneous associations coming, as an analyst might say! They're illuminating to all of us.

[@LacanofWorms]

Absolutely! Brilliant idea. This is exactly what the surrealist did vis a vis painting and art. They riffed off of their free associations visually, through automatic drawings and writing.
I definitely think if we all did that with our discourses we would have some really interesting and yet strange (in a good way) conversations 😂.

[@Peter-ew5bq]

@@LacanofWorms Great answer - thanks. I've come to the notion that we're all perpetually improvising ourselves as we meet new experiences and old enigmas get mobilised. Only when we get trapped in the lures of 'phallic jouissance' do we risk getting stuck in/clinging to our beliefs (and turning reactionary in relation to novelty and change).
Analysts who actually believe they really are 'the ones who know' (rather than being illusorily positioned in the transference as the ones we 'suppose'/assume to know) abandon the position of the analyst - the position of enigma - and collude with our more authoritarian/defensively rigid selves.

[@LacanofWorms]

Once again brilliant remark. You mind expanding on “phallic jouissance”?

[@Peter-ew5bq]

@@LacanofWorms I pinched it from Lacan’s formulation of ‘sexuation’ - or, how we weird ‘speaking animals’ try to manage the potentially dangerous excitation/arousal he called ‘jouissance’ that comes from drive, not instinct, after our bodies have been divided up and named by signifiers.
If we choose phallic jouissance, as I understand it, we recoil from the potential limitlessness of bodily enjoyment (which can obliterate distinctions between pleasure and pain) and channel it as far as we can into goals and targets. But jouissance doesn’t lend itself well to that ‘solution’, which means that what I call “the phallic club’ tend always to be haunted by paranoid fantasy of a lawless ‘total enjoyer’ - a primal father figure who steals ALL the enjoyment at everyone else’s expense.
I think this excess that can’t be subdued in phallic jouissance often returns in the form of fascistic/racist/sexual fantasies of an ‘alien/predatory other’ who steals ‘our’ enjoyment; it seems to make people pissed off, angry and paranoid.
The alternative, feminine jouissance, isn’t confined to anatomical females but available to all, as it’s a kind of ‘open set’ that anyone can belong to and kind of implies that no one can enjoy totally as it’s impossible - but we CAN, in a totally non-paranoid way, enjoy some (“not-all”) of the jouissance the signifier unleashes when it names and divides our bodies into parts and zones and organs and openings, and estranges our corporeality from us.
Sorry - long answer.

[@Lfkfmfnfhdhdhdbhd]

Your explanations are very clear, can you also make a video about obje petit a, symbolic, imaginary and the real 🫶🏼🫶🏼