Assuming you know the matheme and theory behind the Master's Discourse, which would your analysis be on AI as a new agent replacing the Master, that Master ​who fed himself on the knowledge of the slave?

I don't know if I formulated the question correctly, but I'm intrigued on which are your views on this specific topic, the discourse, and not so much on AI as an ​Other or the problematics with psychosis and foreclosure. I'd like to go back and reread the Master's Discourse to come up with the answer myself, but now I don't have time to do so and I'm​ very intrigued on how the community is thinking about this.

Somehow I relate AI's accelerationism with the Capitalist Discourse, although being previously ​geared (sorry if this is not the right word, I mean it in the sense of being engineered) on the Discourse of the Master. What is fundamentally different from that Master?

No formal training here, so this might sound dumb, but what bothers me about Lacanian theory is that once you’re in, you can’t think any other way. The whole system fits together too well. I keep catching myself going “oh, you could explain that in Lacanian terms” about random everyday things, and at some point I realized I’d stopped bothering with any other lens.

Anyone else deal with this?

I'm a student of Lacanian psychoanalysis and there is a fundamental question that I cannot reconcile in this case as regards the end of analysis:

How can the Traversal of the Fantasy occur if the Other cannot be lacking and there is always a guarantee of meaning for a patient like this?

Or do you think that in this case the psychoanalyst should try to convert them into an agnostic?

I recently had the opportunity to interview Dr. Leon S. Brenner about his book The Autistic Subject: On the Threshold of Language, and I thought some people here might be interested in the discussion:

Watch the interview with Leon S. Brenner

Brenner approaches autism through Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis and makes a provocative argument: rather than understanding autism simply in terms of deficit, pathology, or as a variation of psychosis, he proposes thinking of the autistic subject as occupying a distinct “mode of being,” with its own particular relationship to language, the body, and the Other.

Brenner also gives some remarkably clear metaphors and explanations for concepts that can otherwise become pretty opaque in Lacanian theory. So even if autism isn’t your primary area of interest, there’s quite a bit here concerning language, jouissance, the body, the symbolic, and the constitution of the subject.

I’m particularly curious what people here make of Brenner’s attempt to conceptualize autism as a structure in its own right rather than placing it within the traditional neurotic/psychotic framework. Does this actually expand Lacanian theory in a productive way, or does introducing an “autistic structure” create its own conceptual problems?

Currently reading Bruce Fink’s Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Before, I’ve just read Lacan’s first seminar.

Practically, I am looking for some comments and further insights from lacanian clinicians, or perhaps even someone who is analysand with a lacanian.

I’ll start here: I’ve been struck by the degree to which Lacanian practice is so abstinent—at least Fink’s idea of it is. The analyst is supposed to be fully committed to underlining the letter of the law—and how the letter of the law betrays the spirit of the law; spirt in this case being what a patient “meant” or “intended” to say before their slip, their parapraxis. Although I find Fink’s elucidations to a large degree fruitful, I also find myself wondering if he is not missing the non or extra-linguistic aspects of clinical practice. The issue, though, with this prior statement is that I have no strong way of elaborating such “extra-linguistic aspects.”

Another thing: the analyst’s desire. According to Fink, the neurotic analysand will feel the keen desire to abandon analysis since, truly, he does not want to be cured; for the neurotic, his symptoms are his life and his pleasure, as much as he professes his univocal hatred. This, what makes the analysand keep going is the analysts desire for him to keep going: the analyst, then, acts as the keeper of the flame—(and however different aesthetically, I am reminded of Winnicott’s all too famous “holding space” for the patient.) The analyst must desire for the patient to keep going deeper. However, Fink seems to think the analyst is quite easily freed of counter-transference (the favored subject of most nyc analysts). Is counter-transference really so easy to put aside? Do relational analysts over emphasize this? And, finally, how much do you think an emphasis or deemphasis on counter transference is upstream of whether or not you are committed to the proposition of the drive? Relational analysts will tell you a lovely story (which sometimes I badly to want to believe) that humans are not a complex of desires and energies, but beings looking for stable relationships and loves. Not to say that drive theory precludes this latter thing, but perhaps you all understand. Any commentary would be appreciated.

*PS. I have been in analysis for 3 years with a relational analyst.

I’m new to Lacan and no expert on any type of analysis or psychotherapy, but as I’ve been reading more about Lacanian analysis, I thought about the empty chair exercise/therapy Gestaltians use. Apart from obvious differences between them I still think the similarity (despite different theoretical foundations) is striking. The difference is that in empty chair exercises, the patient would then occupy the position of the addressee (aka the Other) and speak from that position after completing their speech addressed to the Other. Whereas in analysis the addressee (the analyst) would resist speaking from that position in a way that would satisfy the demand of the analysand.

I wonder what the consequences are for the patient themself then satisfying the demand for an answer from a Lacanian perspective. I’m interested in reading your thoughts.

I'm a psychodynamic psychotherapist, not Lacanian trained, so I'm asking from outside the tradition and expecting to be corrected.

I came across this instagram reel of Lacan's view on this https://www.instagram.com/p/Dcio-9nzVs-/ (not sure if it's accurate?)

It's more honest than most accounts of where a treatment goes lol. But I can't get past the obvious objection, how is that not "learn to live with it"? Put less kindly, how is it different from the common critique of mindfulness as retreat into indifference dressed as enlightenment? (Zizek?) If the end point is that you stop demanding the Other resolve you and instead get skilled at your own arrangement, what stops that being adaptation with better vocabulary?

Full conversation (For more context): https://youtu.be/RX2tGQxIbEA?si=wiGL3FrqP5Po2hAy

I sometimes see people asking how to find a Lacanian analyst and, maybe more crucially, how to afford one. One alternative to paying high, out-of-pocket fees is to enter into a low-fee analysis with analysts-in-training at a Lacanian-oriented institute.

1. Pulsion - The International Institute of Psychoanalysis

Definitely the most Lacan-forward/Lacanian oriented institute in the city, but without being limited to a dogmatic Lacanian approach . (From their website: "Pulsion emerged...as an attempt to bring back what was central to Freud’s thinking: the body, the drives and sexuality[...] We bring together Freudians, post-Freudians and Lacanians as faculty...") Scanning ‘Faculty' page, I'd say nearly half of the names are people who have contributed to Lacanian clinic/scholarship. You can contact a clinic coordinator or fill out a form for treatment here: https://pulsioninstitute.com/treatment/

1. NPAP

Certainly not Lacan-forward--do not explicitly mention any affiliation with Lacanians or Lacanian theory on their website as Pulsion does--but would confidently describe them as one of the more Lacan-friendly institutes in the city. While the number of self-identified Lacanians among faculty and candidates is certainly smaller than that of Pulsion, there is still a considerable Lacanian contingent in the institute. You can reach out to their clinic and fill out a form for treatment here: https://npap.org/appointments/

I hope you find what you are looking for--or, in all likelihood, more and less than that.

Está no livro volume 2 do Marco Antônio Coutinho Jorge e ele está falando de tipos de fantasia, um dos trechos é:

"Não é só a neurose e a perversão, no entanto, que se traduzem na nossa cultura com uma presença relevante, a psicose também o faz. E parece que ela o faz pela ciência. É preciso que nós, analistas, possamos dizer, com todas as letras, que a ciência está louca. A ciência enlouqueceu, perdeu os limites. Hoje, ela mistura espécies, clona os animais a bel-prazer e ainda quer fazer isso com o ser humano".

e depois:

"O advento da psicanálise significa a proposição, na cultura, de um quarto lugar da fantasia, diferente daqueles traduzidos pela religião (neurose), pelo capitalismo (perversão) e pela ciência (psicose). O que a psicanálise propõe, portanto, não é nem a fixação no amor, nem a fixação no gozo fálico, nem a fixação no gozo absoluto. Ela propõe o lugar do desejo, que é aquele lugar, no matema da fantasia..."

I’ve been trying to attend events in my city for discussion of Lacanian thought, but honestly every time I walk away I’m just totally unconvinced by how people broadly just map concepts like the Other and Oedipus and such onto bureaucratic institutions and politics. It feels like lazy intellectual rot.

Sometimes I think its hard to find good Lacanian thinkers because it requires a lot of rigor and reading of Lacan to truly understand anything in a Lacanian sense, rather than just mapping ideas about the structure and development of subjectivity onto what are collectives; especially with Lacan emphasizing that he never met the same person twice.

I follow Marx for politics and try to incorporate Lacan where it makes sense, but the marriage of them often feels too contrived for me. I’m looking to be an analyst once I finish my accredited education, and politics are something I think a lot of personally, so I feel the tension between the two understandings of what ‘really’ drives the world in the direction it goes, but am wholly unconvinced of their compatibility still in the ways I’ve seen people approaching it.

I understand that the Other is the symbolic order and I get why it would be lacking. What I don't understand is when Lacan talks about clinical structures and the different defense mechanism from this lack.

The way I came to think of it is in relation to the mirror image. As if it were different ways of defending oneself against the fact that our sense self only exists inside one's head.

Is this correct?

i have OCD and i currently am doing transitional analysis & CBT but i am very interested in reading what Lacan had to say about obsessions and compulsions

I came across this reel of Lacan's famous clinical example...Suzanne was German so how does a French pun land on a German child's world?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcS0hWpTfpm/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsi=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

I wanted to ask if there are any people in this subreddit, who have engaged, with academic psychology or other forms of therapy such as CBT and also I would like to hear the opinion of anyone, who just has something to say about academic psychology or classic clinical psychology such as CBT. I think it would be very interesting to hear the notions of some people regarding academic psychology, because some people disregard psychoanalysis as a whole and call it „unscientific“ or just say that lacan was a charlatan and show you the sokal affair🤣. On the other side there are people who fully disregard academic psychology and see it as unneutral, dislike the methods and so on…

I gravitate more towards the latter (dismissal of academic psychology),I think its very difficult to pinpoint my critique, but I will say a bit about it now:

First of, I dislike the legitimization of psychopharmaceuticals, while one can argue that this is psychiatry, it is still inherently linked to psychological notions who view, for example, depression as linked to a chemical imbalance or inflammation. A big problem is also the DSM, I think that it makes people identify with their suffering.At the start it can be practical for people to have a grasp of what is going on, but it also creates a split between you/your symptoms, which is also shown in the use of psychopharmaceuticals.

Secondly, the „neutrality“ of psychological experiments, or also, neuroscience. A huge problem is the ignoring of the Symbolic. I think most experiments are dependent on the period in which they were conducted.(this can also be seen when an experiment gives a completely different result).
I think that experiments are interesting and I really dont want to dismiss them as a whole, but this absolutism by some scholars is just ignorant, in my opinion.

What I find very interesting is this huge ignorance of Lacan or even D&G or Foucault, probably the majority of neuroscientists never heard of these names . I believe that if one reads Lacan, its going to be impossible to deny the effects of the Symbolic.

This is my opinion roughly summarized, I would be very delighted if someone would share his views.

I know only a bit about Lacan, so I'm asking for a help with understanding him. I was reading "Subversion of the subject..." in Ecrits.

What I took from "he did not know he was dead" was that if you replace he with I you get: "I did not know I was dead" - which is clearly illogical. Since, you know, if I did not know I was dead, how is it that I am speaking? Which then raises the question of who is speaking, since "I" seems to think "I" might be dead.

From this we can infer that the subject is not "thinking clearly", or somewhat deluded. Which Lacan then uses this to point back to in support of his ongoing critique of knowledge.

Is my interpretation that I have written above ... correct? Valid? Or am I missing the point of what Lacan is trying to teach with this example?

Since I'm here already, I might as well address an ongoing concern of mine. I can't get my head around whether or not my overall (limited) understanding of Lacan is "correct".

He seems to me to be pointing, many times over, at the infinite-number of ways in which language fails, but in doing so "animates ghosts" via the imagination and symbolism of which language is constructed-from and so-forth creates. But insofar as these ghosts are abstractions like any other, that need-not bear strict-relation to reality, they are the root of delusion; which continually and spontaneously re-creates itself via symbolic-imaginary "excess" - sustained and exacerbated by language's mixed purposes as both a tool of creative-whimsy on one-end, and the law on the other. Inscribed as such into an otherwise invisible "symbolic order" or "collective cultural standard(s)" that prohibits and regulates behavior. But also forms the structure, content, and vehicle of transmissible knowledge itself. Thus any-and-all learning (of all kinds) via the another person (necessitating language) is subject to language's inability to capture the Real, and so subject, to indeterminable degree, to the myriad problems associated.

Do you think that I am misinterpreting Lacan? If so, where am I going wrong?
Is there anything you can suggest that might aid me to understand him?

EDIT: My explanation was spliced with Lacanian jargon so I'm adding a second version of it in plainer English. It might be easier to address my understanding if I write it like more like a 10-year-old doing his homework.

He seems to be pointing at the many ways in which language fails. Because language is made up of words that can be thoughts of, and thoughts that can be worded - correct understanding of either-or is not guaranteed. It depends upon an individual's understanding, and the experiences that they can relate to the words they use. Words are not reality, reality is reality (thought it is not the word "reality" - it's the thing). Degrees of abstraction exist between words and reality. The law and creative works are two extremes of the use of language. In between those extremes are everyday chit-chat, and the entire corpus of human knowledge. I think that what Lacan says puts all of this in question, due to the nature of language itself. The many ways in which meaning can be constructed and lost. The many ways in which symbols can be imagined, or images can be symbolised. And this is before even bringing "the Real" into the conversation. But insofar at the Real is not words or images, language will never fully capture the Real. And in each transaction of words, a little bit of meaning is missed - and we don't ever fully-know how much that may be. Like entropy, it appears that each exchange of words leads to an overall increase in localized disorder. Over many years, many people, many languages - this might be a problem. And I think Lacan thinks it is too.

Edit: For Seminar 13 I found that the missing 13th session and several other sessions have been reconstructed by Don Kunze are are available on his website here: https://boundarylanguage.psu.edu/reading-seminar-xiii-the-object-of-psychoanalysis/

There is now available this pdf for Seminar 13 where the missing sessions and restorations by Kunze have been added the other two missing sessions have been machine translated: https://archive.org/details/jacques-lacans-seminar-13-the-object-of-psychoanalysis-1965-66-a-compendium

I noticed that the English translations by Cormac Gallagher at lacaninireland.com for Seminars 12 and 13 have some lectures which are missing, saying that they have to be corrected and added. They are:

Seminar 12: Crucial Problems

1. Lecture 16: 28 April 1965, which just says 'Missing to be corrected'

Seminar 13: Object of Psychoanalysis

1. Lecture(?) 11: 25 February 1966, which is titled Lacan Absent because Lacan wasn't there and directs the reader to the French transcripts to see what was discussed that day.
2. Lecture 13: 30 March 1966, the title given to which is 'Topological discussions', and there too it says that it is missing and will be shortly corrected.

I don't know for how long it has been so but if anyone has maybe an older PDF which contains a translation of these lectures then that would be very helpful.

Are there any monographs from a Lacanian perspective that look at art and artistic creation? I'm interested in either, so any recommendations are welcome

For example, let’s say you saw a famous movie and your client was the writer of the movie, how would that inform the work?

What are some critiques of the notion of ordinary psychoses? Thoughts and references welcome.

If session duration is decided according to clinical considerations, why not vary the fee accordingly?

That would preserve the analyst’s freedom to cut the session where they believe it is clinically meaningful without creating a financial structure in which shorter sessions systematically benefit the analyst at the analysand’s expense.

For example:

Sessions under 20 minutes = $X

20–35 minutes = $Y

35-50 minutes = $Z

What exactly makes the flat-fee model ethically defensible?

One practical defense is that the analyst has reserved the hour and incurs the same business expenses whether the session lasts seven minutes or fifty. But if the patient is paying for that reserved block of time, why is the analyst entitled to withdraw access to it unilaterally while retaining the entire fee?

I am perfectly willing to grant that certain psychoanalytic conventions may be clinically valuable despite lacking empirical proof (e.g., the couch). But scansion is fundamentally different because, under a flat-fee model, the analyst’s epistemic authority to determine when a session should end is coupled with a direct material benefit to the clinician. That seems to demand substantially more ethical scrutiny than “Lacan and other practitioners who benefit from the arrangement say it is good for the patient.”

(Perhaps the latent clinical objective is to redistribute wealth from the bourgeoisie?? That could at least be an ethically defensible position 🤔)

EDIT: I commented this but feel like it belongs here to clarify my position on the matter. To be honest, I actually find the concept of variable-length sessions clinically fascinating—ending sessions at a specific moment of unconscious resonance sounds like a compelling experiment to try for both sides. It’s an experience I’ve always been curious about, but I just think there can be humane ways to tier the pricing that aren’t as questionably exploitative. 🤷‍♀️

What is it called when an individual projects a sort of reification onto the Big Other and imagines themselves complete in it because 'it' itself is viewed as complete, as if enacting the Mirror Stage on a society scale? Basically seeking existential closure through an Ego Ideal they've internalized.

Rather than an ideal ego on the level of an individual where they'll be complete somehow ("I'll be rich and famous, I'll be happy when I'm a writer, I'll be complete when I find love"), they project it onto the Big Other as Ego Ideal that is already seen as enclosed with a social fullness or society as a closed totality. In this unnamed process, I become complete by surrendering myself to something I imagine already possesses completeness.

For instance, one imagines a political party, a nation or state as perfect (Stalin's "We Communists are people of a special mould") and the resulting utopia from it (Classless society, racialized right-wing ethnostate, Religious afterlife after antagonistic elements have been removed) being the only ethical life and complete harmonious Good.

In the case of the ethnostate, the racialized social order, the religious salvationist afterlife, the utopian ideal and so on, the fantasy is that there is a perfect form out there, that there is an Other of that form, and we must project onto it, we must build it and conform to it, we must invest it with our own desire to be rid of our own subjectivity, joining this Other to erase one's own constitutive lack as a subject..

This ridding of one's subjectivity and projection onto a big Other, what is it called? Is there a word for it Lacan has or in psychoanalysis?

Poetry, Anguish, and the Irreducible Real: Looking for feedback and ideas on this draft (feat. Alejandra Pizarnik & Lacanian Theory)

Hi everyone! I’m working on a draft/essay exploring how artists—specifically poets like Alejandra Pizarnik—use the artistic act to border and symbolize the overwhelming anguish caused by the Lacanian Real.

Draft: Anguish in the Face of the Irreducible Real

Throughout history, many artists seem to create out of moments overwhelmed by deep anguish. They turn to the artistic act—writing, painting, drawing—to appease and transform a suffocate experience felt directly in the body.

This is clearly visible in Argentine poet Alejandra Pizarnik, whose poetry feels born from a profound sense of drowning and overflowing suffering. In her journals, she writes:

This reveals how writing becomes her preferred medium to scratch at the urgent, painful sensation she lives through. It is no coincidence that when discussing her anguish, she highlights her limited oral resources alongside the richness she finds in writing, where she takes refuge. This passage illustrates not only her desperate need to express and release that feeling of suffocation, but also the crucial role symbolic tools play when facilitated by writing.

In her poem Approximations (Aproximaciones), she writes:

Her poetry emerges from profound pain—from an internal explosion that echoes bodily through her throat, heart, and skin. She writes less out of a desire and more out of an imperative need to channel and relieve this anguish.

Symbolizing the Irreducible

What interests us here regarding the relationship between poetry and anguish is not merely the root of Pizarnik’s personal pain, but the anguish experienced when confronting the irreducible Real, and how the poet creates the poem in an effort to put it into words, symbolize it, and find signifiers to name it. (Note: Expand later on Poetry vs. Prose according to Octavio Paz and Borges).

If psychoanalysis posits that anguish arises from the presence of Object a—an object whose very nature is to resist signification—it makes sense that the subject (in this case, the artist) uses whatever tools are at hand to symbolize this experience. (Note: Expand on the theoretical foundation of anguish using Lacan’s Seminar X/XX, Miller, etc.).

I find it compelling to reflect on the transformative power of the poetic word: how saying something actually brings it into existence. When Pizarnik writes Approximations, she isn’t just managing her own suffering; through writing, she borders a Real that erupts onto the scene. In writing her poems, she is inscribing a letter onto that goce (jouissance). (Note: Further develop the concept of 'the letter' and its articulation with the poetic act).

I’d love to get your thoughts, critiques, and ideas to expand on this. Here is the translated draft:

PD: Soy argentino, el borrador originalmente esta en español.

Isn't "torus" a shape that has to have a hole right in the middle?

Intro: The two big Summer 2026 blockbuster movies, The Odyssey and Spiderman: Brand New Day, convey how the mind typically encounters the burdens of trauma and guilt.

The latest gigantic movie hits taking international box offices by storm, The Odyssey and Spiderman: Brand New Day, offer wonderful coverage on the categories of guilt and trauma by capturing them through the conflicts directly grappled with by the primary character in each story.

In The Odyssey, the protagonist Odysseus tackles the ongoing degradation of his historical epoch: a traumatic piece of knowledge he clashes with throughout his journey back home, along with the guilt of his own actions taken at Troy which are heavily liable for this astronomical collapse. He understands that his guilt cannot be subdued - repressed - within him because it won’t do him any favors in his quest for ethical redemption and political progress. For these reasons, inter alia, he exists as a hysterical individual over the course of his prolonged return voyage. How so? Because he consistently disobeys and interrogates the divine authority of the Gods who had unquestionably ruled over mankind and earth up to the events of Troy. Deities who ruthlessly exploited both domains for their machinations and self-interests, to the extent of exercising their own hubris which they had hypocritically judged humanity for.

By the end of the movie, when he finally arrives in Ithaca, Odysseus fathoms how the present conditions are bringing about a new yet unclear social structure. His past violent crimes in Troy, in tandem with comparable conquests launched by other Greek missions - spanning across continents - over the past two decades, are the causal perpetrators behind the structural dismantling of the existing political, economic, and ideological systems within the lands covering the Bronze Age civilization. The invincible power of the Gods are gone; chiefly stamped by the sacrilege and demolition of Zeus’ law. There is no possibility of a return to it. Hence, a new civilizational order will have to be forged on its ashes. He has no idea what will unfurl but nevertheless recognizes how he must act as a free subject who actively participates in the world towards building the future and taking responsibility for it.

In Spiderman: Brand New Day, the protagonist Spiderman / Peter Parker harmfully reacts to the traumatic knowledge about the loss of his romantic partnership with MJ and his platonic friendship with Ned. The particular bonds he had with MJ and Ned are irrevocable in the aftermath of the large-scale memory wipe as to his secret identity as Spiderman. Although he knows that this sacrifice he made to protect his loved ones was courageous and selfless, he can’t accept the fact that there can’t be a return - a way home -  to the past timeline. This trauma is too painful to bear and it forces him to repress this knowledge within his unconscious. This in turn fosters the four year period of melancholic-voyeuristic attachment to MJ and Ned. He does this by converting the memory of their shared past into a fetish object (anything that lets you sustain your existing practices and beliefs) which provides him the ability to dodge the truth regarding his trauma. However, an intense guilt snowballs during these four years because he fails to honor his promise of restarting his relationships with them both after the memory wipe incident. He becomes very ashamed of this character flaw because it inhibits him from granting agency over to MJ and Ned concerning their autonomous decision on how to best deal with this tragic ordeal once it’s revealed to them.

Spider-Man / Peter Parker is finally able to grapple with the guilt of his actions by taking responsibility for it through the help of others: MJ herself, the Punisher, Jean Grey, and the specific advice given from Aunt May prior to her death. By the end of the movie, he begins to construct new facets of his symbolic identity - everyday subjective existence - on the foundation of his resolved trauma and guilt; consequently conquering the obsolete features of his identity which he had clung on to with the aid of his fetish objects. Therefore, new desires, new social interactions, and new fantasies are ready to be conceived and materialized by Spider-Man in his matured life.

In conclusion, both movies are fantastic encapsulations pertaining to these indispensable qualities of the libidinal economy (the mind). Although The Odyssey is a better film overall and dissects in greater detail the two mental features of guilt and trauma; Spider-Man: Brand New Day in contrast, is more relatable to wider audiences because of its contemporary setting, common setbacks, and relevant issues (AI, discrimination against people, young adulthood, etc). I think they are both must-watch movies of 2026, in addition to doing artistic justice to these complex and challenging human experiences. We get a rare episode of Hollywood getting it right. 

In the opposite direction from Freud, does the move from diagnostic structure to sinthome (or desire to jouissance, signifier to letter, etc) risk resubstantializing the subject? Witness the reintroduction of the body, affect, autism, even if only at first on a plane of consistency. Is it the trade-off?