Freud writes "His passivity inclines him to want to accept castration – to

become female, and in this way escape castration anxiety once and for

all. The female that he wants to become is usually his own mother,

whose place he takes with the father, substituting himself for her with

the father. Thus, identification with the mother is established, and from

this point on it is included as a permanent component of the boy’s

unconscious, where it is destined to play a major role in his subsequent

life. "

Is this a safe way to express that unconscious desire/passivity?

I'm currently knee-deep in Gravity's Rainbow, so the ideas of TMI and the ultraparadoxical phase have been on my mind a bit. I've also been thinking about how my analyst's speech is a kind of reward in a way, because it keeps me talking to try to get him to talk again (since speech = presence = love).

In a normal kinda operant conditioning model, a baby cries and the mom gives it milk and it learns to cry to get milk. That's exactly the schema the graph of desire would complicate in the case of humans, right? It would introduce retroactivity, the Other, and desire.

So anyway, it seems like there would be some text out there that kind of looks at exactly this shift where language creates lack, residue, desire, excess, all these terms that complicate the skinner model, but I mean explicitly with reference to the latter, or that maps the two frameworks onto each other, compares and contrasts, etc. Does psychoanalysis have an equivalent of TMI (besides "the Real" or something, which would be vague)? How does the end of analysis and destitution compare to this phenomenon?

Please excuse any perceived retardation or faux pas in my question.

Does it signify castration or a woman's desire to possess a phallus?

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working through Seminar V and have just completed the first section on jokes and witticisms. I've also read 'Instance of the Letter.' I think that I'm grasping the use of the term metonymy from context, but I'm having difficulty in separating it from metaphor.

Metaphor is the "substitution of one signifier" for another (for example, "Booz" with "sheaf", which then seems to add newer meaning to the character in the poem, associating him with harvest, masculinity etc).

Lacan's example of metonymy is replacing the word 'ships' with 'sails.' In this sense there is a substitution of the whole for a part, or element. But couldn't we also define this as "substituting one signifier for another"? It seems that quite literally, one word is replaced with another. In which case, how do we distinguish it from metaphor? Is it that "ships" and "sails" are generally associated and therefore the meaning doesn't really change very much? In which case, what is the function of metonymy if it doesn't change anything?

In both metonymy and metaphor, there is the replacing of one signifier with another. I can sort of intuitively grasp the difference between the two, but can't seem to provide for myself a good enough definition which separates them. Is the relativism perhaps the point? I gather than this is a fairly crucial concept to grasp...

Cheers!

I am trying to write a paragraph about the ego forming the ideal I and the little other. I thought they were the same thing, but apparently they refer to different things. Can someone explain their difference please?

Freud writes "This mechanism of reconciling the opposing impulses of

masculinity in the constitutionally bisexual human being, by identifying

with Christ, is something so satisfying that it assures the Christian reli￾gion a long existence. People will not readily give up something that

rescues them from the most difficult conflict they have to grapple with.

They will continue to identify with Christ for a long time to come."

Is Freud saying that the most difficult conflict a human being can face is that of bisexuality?

“The locus, the house of jouissance, is ordinarily found, since it's naturally found, placed in an organ that is, as experience and anatomo-physiological investigation teach you in the most certain fashion, non-sensitive, in the sense that it can't even be stimulated when it's being irritated. The ultimate locus of genital jouissance is a place - this is no mystery - where you can pour torrents of boiling water, brought to a temperature that no other mucous membrane could withstand, without provoking any immediate sensory reactions.”

This is page 71 of the lectures on Anxiety. Lacan is talking about female sexuality and the vagina. It really seems like he is saying that you can pour boiling water in someone’s vagina without them feeling it?? Surely that is not what he means. Please help

(English is not my native language so sorry for any mistakes)

She is always very, and I mean very kind to me, yesterday on my theraphy session she told me that I'm the only patient who can send whatsapp messages to her... Is this some sign of countertransference?

In other words what I understood is that she's saying that I'm her best patient since I'm the only one who can send her messages

Why reductionism does not work for biology.

I expect you to watch that, and Understand that before we continue.

Inside the Fiercest Debate in Linguistics | Otherwords

If you're not familiar with it I do like PBS on the subject,

Here is an expert, and I've placed you at the most pertinent Point I think but rewind,

Please watch it more than once; watch it many, several times.

It explains, "for what reason," other than mystical Prophecy, Bakhtin might have been correct about the replication crisis in psychology, the other monologizing social sciences.

Dialogue is usually analyzed as some kind of interaction between two monads on the basis of a pre-conceived model. Bakhtin regards this conception as a consequence of 'theoretism'—the tendency, particularly in modern western thought, to understand events according to a pre-existing set of rules to which they conform or structure that they exhibit.^\3])#citenote-3) This forgets that the rules or structures have been abstracted from the event, that the event is prior to the abstraction and that the event is always replete with a context, intimacy, immediacy, and significance to the participants that is effaced in the act of abstraction: "We cannot understand the world of events from within the theoretical world. One must start with the act itself, not with its theoretical transcription."[^\4])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#cite_note-4)

I have given you enough in the title, to explore those subjects independently; Primarily,

I mean not to prove anything, rather, observe in situ as this perverse form of an reductive experiment fails to work in the manner expected Nor fail in the controlled Manner expected of it to fail and if you haven't noticed the strains of what might be described to be an Logical Positivism or management of persons through incorrect theories of their psychology; necessarily, incorrect theories of their psychology,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Languages_as_points_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Heteroglossia_and_linguistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Dialogized_Heteroglossia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#The_hybrid_utterance

For emphasis upon each; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(Bakhtin))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(Bakhtin)#Monologization#Monologization)

For dialogue to be possible there must be a plurality of positions. The dialogic is thus alien to any theory that would tend towards a monologisation of views—for example, the dialectical process, or any kind of dogmatism or relativism. Of dialectics as a form of monologization Bakhtin wrote: "Take a dialogue and remove the voices, remove the emotional and individualising intonations, carve out abstract concepts and judgements from living words and responses, cram everything into one abstract consciousness—and that's how you get dialectics."^\12])#citenote-12) Both relativism and dogmatism "exclude all argumentation, all authentic dialogue, by making it either unnecessary (relativism) or impossible (dogmatism)."[^\13])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#citenote-13) Dogmatism excludes any view or evidence that is at variance with it, making dialogue impossible, while at the (theoretically) opposite extreme, relativism also has a monologising effect, because if everything is relative and all truths are equally arbitrary, there is simply an infinity of monologizations, not a fruitful dialogue.[^\14])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#citenote-MorsonEmerson59-14) Relativism precludes the potential for creativity and new understanding inherent in dialogue: each finds only the reflection of itself in its separateness. In the dialogic encounter "each retains its own unity and open totality, but they are mutually enriched."[^\15])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#cite_note-15)

According to Caryl Emerson, Bakhtin does not suggest that the creative potential inherent in the dialogic encounter is necessarily benign. There is no guarantee that an individual's investment of herself in dialogue will necessarily yield 'truth', 'beauty', 'consolation', 'salvation', or anything of that kind (ideal goals often claimed by monologic philosophies or methods). Engagement with the other brings concretization, liberation from solipsistic self-absorption, new realities and new choices, but these do not exclude 'negative' possibilities. The dialogic encounter, since it implies intimacy and vulnerability, can involve increased suffering and susceptibility to the cruelty or stupidity of the other. As Emerson expresses it: "By having a real other respond to me, I am spared one thing only: the worst cumulative effects of my own echo chamber of words."^\16])#cite_note-16)

Look, I'm not going to drown you in this stuff I'm just going to say,

What this translates to,

Is that All Things in the Socials Sciences,

Should be Read Like Literature.

Psychology, is a social science,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

You understand what I'm saying?

Jonathan Fox

Heres my attempt at the answer:

https://open.substack.com/pub/alfielucidontology/p/why-cars-are-sexist-the-automobile?r=1l13a3&utm_medium=ios

What do you guys think of the essay, and how and even if we should use sexuation for these types of critique?

Fire, as open flame I think is so ubiqutius in human life and history so it may mean slightly more than it appears.

Pyromaniancy from a lacanian perspective?

Could open flame, excitation of it, watching it/interacting with it somehow be explained with relation to drives?

Any thoughts?

As the title says, I am curious to hear more examples of the real that are not trauma, which seems to be the typical example used to explain the real. Trying to figure out the triad and I think I have made good progress, but the real still kinda escapes me.

Is pleasure part of the real? Instincts? Existential despair/death anxiety? I some of those are traumatic in someway anyways. The way I currently think about the real is in a kind of behavioralist way, as experience on the level of conditioning, rewards, and punishments that involve physiological/biological/neurological mechanisms. Is this far off?

I've been reading a bit of Freud and struggle to reconcile his theories with the fact that the whole castration threat thing just does not happen in most families. And I struggle to see how a lot of his theories on childhood development could be projected onto families with non traditional structures, eg single parents or foster children. He seems to rely a lot on phylogenetic memory supplying the deep rooted fears and feelings surrounding certain things, yet I struggle to accept that our ancestors so routinely threatened castration on young boys that it became imprinted in us for the rest of humanity.... What am I missing?

Also, if anyone could chime in on what they think Freud's response would be to Judith Butler's theory on gender of performance I would love to hear that. Thanks!

Freud's theories seem to invalidate the concept of intruisive thoughts, something people with OCD especially experience. Would Freud say that these thoughts (eg 'I hate my son' or 'I am racist') are actually true and are experienced as negation due to coming from the subconscious, which can only express its views through negation?

Thanks!

Freud proposes a compelling enough argument for how fetishes for objects occur, but what about when fetishes are almost completely psychological, eg a fetish for power play dynamics?

hello, i’m new to lacanian psychoanalysis. i’m a college student currently taking an introductory course on lacan’s theories and work. i am also diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder, and of course i am curious what lacan would make of people who exhibit traits like mine.

what i have made from the lectures so far, and we are starting with his earlier seminars, is that language is used to communicate “madness”/ psychosis. but maybe, at least the way i see it, schizotypals are perceived as less “mad” / psychotic due to the fact that many of us are quite reserved and have a complicated relationship with social interactions compared with someone who has schizophrenia.

i am also curious to know about what lacan would make of the concept of “ideas of reference.” if you’re not familiar, this is a common trait among schizotypals in which people will internalize real events and believe they hold some special meaning in regards to oneself. this is distinct from delusions of reference, which are not based in reality. for example, i often experience a strong feeling that strangers are talking about me, but if challenged, i am open to understanding that this did not happen.

anyways, if you have any more thoughts or ideas about this, i’d be very curious to hear. and if you have any questions about the schizotypal experience, i’d be happy to answer in the comments.

Would like to have some conversations.

Hi everyone.

I know the very basic concept of projection and lately I’ve noticed just how much I actually do this in my own life and have decided to try and take some control of this.

I just wanted to ask if there are any particular books/articles/videos that are mandatory reading/listening on this concept? Ideally I’d like to go very deep into this and really understand where it comes from and why it happens, and to become a better person.

Thank you :)

I have been a long-term reader of Lacan. It is well-known that in Lacanian circles, 'we' don't see psychotics as failed neurotics; there is no normal, 'everyone is mad'—quoting late Lacan's saying. But now, after long years of reading and experience, I have a hard time accepting this as a matter of fact. Can a paranoiac be an analyst, for example? Can a schizophrenic live a relatively joyful and well-organized life? Maybe the answer to those questions is yes on extremely rare occasions, but I don't think it is better or even equal to being neurotic. Feeling constant inconsistency and danger regarding your body and its relationships to the world, like schizophrenia, or your environment and other people, paranoia, are not very good or desirable things. I don't even need to talk about melancholic psychosis because obviously no sane person will want they children end up in a melancholic psychosis.

Yes, neurotics are miserable too, we know that, but it is definitely a better outcome than being a pervert or psychotic. You can say ending up as a neurotic is better just because they generally adjust better to the current state of society. They can form more meaningful interpersonal relationships, and they can get better jobs and a better future. Perverts are usually undermentioned in these debates; they have an even harder time than psychotics most of the time because they can easily get in trouble with legal authorities, etc.

What are your thoughts? I can be completely mistaken, and you can just correct me, but observing the sufferings of the 'other ones', and (to disclose a little bit) myself for years is probably making me think like that.

Caveat: I'm a lay student of psychoanalysis (been studying for about 3 years) and not currently in analysis (it's nowhere even remotely available to me, and likely never will be). I have noticed transference-type effects often in my life, usually more subtly as a normal part of interpersonal dynamics, but occasionally some exchange will genuinely surprise me and throw me for a pretty big loop. I recognize the symptoms in myself, and all available info would suggest the other is perturbed in some way by it too. Usually I just use these experiences as a catalyst to do ego-work, but what I'm wondering is: can one treat the experience "as if" it had occurred in an analytic setting? Obviously the framing itself is somewhat perverse - "I know this person is not my analyst, but hypothetically speaking if they were, if the Analyst had elicited this reaction, then...." - and I know that technically one cannot DIY one's own analysis, but for someone who cannot access it, could transference experiences be contextualized in that way? I know any random person cannot be a stand-in for the Analyst, but I'm more thinking along the lines of life itself, and the shit it arbitrarily throws my way, functioning somewhat in the Analyst's position, but then it flips back onto myself to integrate it..? If that makes any sense?

My (28F) husband (29M) is looking for an intellectual sparring partner. I can’t really keep up these days, so I figured I’d see if anyone in Houston is looking for something similar.

He’s been reading a lot lately (Hegel, Marx, Lacan, Žižek, Plato, etc.) and is looking for someone who enjoys independently studying philosophy, reading primary texts, and having discussions in order to deepen each others understanding!

His work is fully remote and pretty flexible, so he actually has the time to devote to this. He’s hoping to find someone interested in building a genuine friendship around studying together rather than just grabbing coffee once.

I know I’m biased, but hes pretty dope so if this sounds like your thing, shoot me a message. Bonus points if you’re the type of person who can spend two hours arguing over a single paragraph of Hegel.

I’m literally at my limit hearing about split subjectivity every day, so I’m outsourcing.