A particular insight of Lacan…

a particular insight of Lacan

https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/05/31/a-particular-insight-of-lacan/
— Read on doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2019/05/31/a-particular-insight-of-lacan/

Interesting bit.

For sure I lean toward Harman as having come up with the most significant move in recent philosophy. Yet also, my particular formulation of object orientation is slightly different than Graham. My version concerns orientation upon objects, whereas The Doctor is making a claim toward a particular ontology.

I like how Harman’s comes into view:

““to do something heroic, try to put yourself into such a position that you can be betrayed with impunity.”

It is interesting to me that he would come upon this in that manner.

I would put it this way:

The betrayal is already a part of the hero’s journey, inherent to the heroism.

I have said it in the blog post a few years ago somewhere:

Why would one do something, devote oneself to a cause that will never be noticed or understood?

The situation is described by Lyotard, and answer is found thoroughly in Kierkegaard. That is the absurdity of the situation at hand.

[the Two Routes]

36 Comments

    1. I mention Heidegger at various parts in the Hack. But you’ll just have to wait. 😄. I’m almost got the Second part edited. I don’t mention H in it though.

    2. … in the first part i write that I take Dasein as intact. ( I forget how exactly I put it). Exactly how it is. I conflate his and other phenomenalists and just say that Dasein is the field wherein everything occurs. Hurs and hied talks about what that could mean, and thus, by virtue of their assumption, meaning occurs inherently within of Hegelian-Kantian Reason-history (in a short way of speaking about it). There is no way out of this correlation except to rely upon an “out” that is granted by the Subject of Reason, who is able to be inspired to new things and ideas. I am not suggesting that anyone can get beyond this or that it is somehow an incorrect way of Being. That is, except in as much as they might see a new configuration of terms as indeed a new thing or idea which gets around it. I call this redundant motion a phenomenal fact. There is no way to get around this except to deny it, which then argues my point.

      Hence, The phenomenal subject speaks, thinks, Be, as I say, along two routes. The issue then is whether one can see it, or whether they understand their being through a “one” reductive reality, the Phenomenal Reality (where one is inspired to new ideas and this is the ubiquitous truth of all existence from which nothing escapes.)

      Once The phenomenon is understood as something which exceeds meaning, then the question becomes about whether “meaning” itself encompasses a totality, and what that “Is” over what that “means”.

      As I say, if I run into that light post with my car, myworld will be a bunch of shit, no matter what meaning I make out of it. That’s a fact.

      If everything reduces to semantics and definition, as though those hold the potential to address everything despite definition, then the fact of that occurrence shows that Dasein is not just a human centered phenomenon, and thus that human ‘thought’ is likewise not a unitive category. That is, there is thinking that occurs outside of the phenomenal correlation which can be communicated, and that, despite what the Phenomenal orientation would want to assert or impose.

      The light post is a fact that is included in my phenomenal reality as something that defies what meaning I might put to it. It is a tool that has being, Just as this I am a tool being. I do not have a privilege of phenomenal dominance, except that I can and most often do. Two routes.

      1. The problem with Harman is that he hasn’t identified anything new. Everyone from Thales down through history has articulated an outlook which can be said that philosophy aims at an object to be united with, striving to achieve, or wrestling with. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of philosophy can see that.

        And to suggest Plato, Augustine, or Heidegger’s view of things is commodity fetishism shows gross ignorance of the transcendental idealism of the first two, and the historicist bodenstandigkeit and geworfenheit of the latter. These men deal with subjectivity and consciousness in a way that commodity fetishism, as applied to fantasizing utilitarian relations with material objects, does not. To suggest commodity fetishism applies does disservice to the aforementioned as well as to what commodity fetishism is in the classical Marxist tradition. It’s not a surprise that the old-line Marxists are the ones who have been most critical of SR and Harman in particular. Why wouldn’t they? SR and OOO is just a recast nihilistic form of liberalism with edgy language which, as I said in the first post, simply provides fanciful language and thought masturbation to reconcile us with nothingness. If true why bother with these people. Just join the anti-natalist crowd; they’re at least open and honest about “reality.”

        As for your writings on Heidegger I guess I’ll just have to wait. They say patience is a virtue–that’s true with reading German philosophy from Kant to Habermas! LOL. I’ll probably email you from my personal account just to make things easier when the time is right.

        I absolutely despise Harman and OOO — if you couldn’t already tell! 😛 Difference is, I’m open about who I regard the enemy to be. And don’t care to make compromises with them. They must be destroyed. End of story! xD

      2. Lol. Yes; I can feel your distaste for those guys. — and I love it!! 🤣

        But I think we’re getting a little tangled up in ideas here.

        I don’t think myself nor Harmon is saying anything about consciousness trying to achieve its object. In fact, Harmon says that real objects with drawl from view.

        But I would also add that what you just put forth, what you just replied, the content of your reply, is correlational: it assumes that your thought is able to achieve world. Within that world you talk about various definitions as and authors as though those definitions and authors exist outside of the phenomenon of thinking world. I am not discrediting that manner; on the contrary, I am totally accepting it.

        And so I’m not arguing against that, nor am I saying that those authors did not already come up on various things that I might be talking about wwith that Harmon mightbe talking about.

        I am saying that once we realize this redundant phenomenal list philosophical world, then the question is what is going on with that?

        Hence Laruelle, Badiou, Zizek, And then once that particular grouping of ideas is understood as dealing with that specific phenomenal issue, taking it to its end, “the last reduction”, then we have the speculative realists addressing the repercussions of that situation .

      3. I wouldn’t lump OOO in with SR. It was a conference of new thinkers. And each has their own version. Harmans in think is the most poignant, the least wushu washy, but he does run into problems that are internal to the move, and not quite the philosophy itself really.

      4. ..part of the correlation is understanding that philosophers past a certain point are merely repeating the same arguments through different terms, different clausal structures. The Phenomenal Subject sees the different arrangements as indeed saying something’s different, and indeed as showing a historical progress.

        Harman likewise falls into this phenomenon, but he doesn’t account for it. That’s the problem I see if his work. But then again, he doesn’t think he should have to due to the issue of the phenomenon.

      5. I guess I’ll just never understand the craze! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        Harman popped up when I was finishing my UG degree in philosophy. Wasn’t impressed. Still not impressed. LOL. By 2050, he’ll be forgotten. If I actually had money, that’d be one thing I’d invested in. xD

      6. Wrong. Plato is 2500 years old and not forgotten. Same for Aristotle. Augustine. Aquinas. Hegel. Some philosophers and their ideas are persistent. 99% of philosophy is forgotten. But a chosen few remain. 😉 I know his is an ontology of objects. That’s why he’s not interesting. Sartre, Adorno, Heidegger, Marx, Hegel, Bacon, and Augustine all addressed this issue in far greater detail, profundity, and psychological depth than Harman. But the tension with subjectivity and desire in Augustine, Hegel, and Heidegger, and the turn to objectification is far more insightful and meaningful than Harman’s empty platitudes which just recast Bacon’s arguments.

        Have you ever read Henry Oldenburg and Samuel Pufendorf? Exactly. Really important during their lifetimes. Forgotten very soon afterward. Only known and read by specialists and historians of philosophy (like myself) for no other reason than it’s expected. Can’t say I’ve met a Oldenburg or Pufendorf scholar. No reason to bother with the fads in my opinion, other than to know what’s going on. Harmon will be in the same camp as the vast majority of philosophers. Has his moment of the moment under the sun. It will set. And only a few specialists and historians will remember him.

        Who are you dealing with in your book? My point exactly. People who haven’t been forgotten. Even though some have been dead for quite some time. 😉

        And this is a perfect example of why the academy is a dying institution — a body passed over by the spirit of life. Philosophy began as an open forum. It is returning to an open forum. Though in object form! 😛

      7. Yes, perhaps I over generalized about who may or may not be forgotten.

        But then we would have to talk about philosophical fashion also.

      8. Can you give me a comparison between what Harman is saying about objects. And what someone else you mention who says it better ?

      9. What is your philosophy of objects, or might you write a post about a philosopher who talks about objects besides Harman?

      10. … but that’s totally OK.
        I think one of the problems with philosophy is that in general practitioners are there that have difficulty with humility. Lol. And I mean this in the sense that I can hardly say this of anyone who considers themselves a philosopher without them getting offended somehow or feeling like I have to defend my statement. But all I’m really suggesting is that, for example, where say you don’t understand what Harmon is saying, your reaction is that he’s wrong or he doesn’t make any sense. Or if we just keep it to what I’m talking about, that I’m not making any sense or that you don’t understand it. And I’m saying that just because you may not understand it is not reflecting upon your intelligence.
        The assumption with the category called “philosophy” is that it is a common human traits, not an object but indeed some sort of process that everybody human being has access to, and that this access really only has to do with perhaps some sort of biological constraints maybe but largely educational constraints.

        I am saying that indeed there is such a philosophy.

        But, because philosophy does not identify any essential components or aspect nor any particular reality whatsoever, that to say that philosophy is such a thing, like I just said above, is a contradictory statement. And in order for me to come to that conclusion all I have to do is understand all these various philosophers talking about it in different ways: no matter how much I want to discuss what philosophy is I am at once relying upon this category of philosophy in order to identify with it, while at the same time never coming to what that actually is except to say that I am a philosopher or I am doing philosophy.

        And so I am saying that this is a characteristics of all objects.

        To say that this is a fact of objects does not in anyway exclude or argue against any philosophy that Hass to do with phenomena. Because phenomena themselves likewise exist in this condition, and therefore are also objects.

        So what this says, what I’m really saying, is that one cannot be proven over the other. We have identified two different states of objects, two different routes of coming upon the truth of an object. And there’s nothing that I can say or argue which would reconcile those two states, because every move that I make in argument would argue that one state which we are never finding the truth of.

        And so this really is not saying anything about the nature of existence or the truth of reality or how human beings actually exist, Because any of those things that I would want to discuss automatically falls in to the phenomenal subject of the one universe.

        So really there’s no point in trying to argue whether or not this other way of understanding, this understanding in which I myself am indeed an object as well as a subject.

        And so what this condition really tells us or indicates is whether or not a person is able to be honest about the situation of their existence.

        But further, and this is kind of where my counseling thing comes in, we can’t even really say that there is a sufficient understanding or explanation that would allow someone to be able to prove this situation, again, because any argument that I would make naturally and automatically falls in to that phenomenal route.

        Hence, I couldn’t date reason it’s self, and as well philosophy, as to basic categories that are involved in upholding a kind of ideology that sees it self everywhere, that argues its own truth all the time.

        So this situation seems like it doesn’t have entirely to do with reason, but indeed involves an emotional response to the situation.

        Because honesty does not have entirely to do with what I can prove rationally. And in order to find the truth of that statement we only have to consider a bunch of philosophers and thinkers of all sorts that have talked about how rationality is not what we think it is an actually no one goes about their life in a state of pure rationality, that the very idea that I’m being a rational person is based in an irrational idea of what reality is.

        So that’s why I am talking about honesty. And then I get go to and date the very system of education in indeed what we call and consider intelligence. But again, again, I’m not saying that that particular system or that particular ideology of intelligence and education is wrong in anyway because I’m not making an argument about the validity of that particular situation. Rather I am only describing what is occurring.

  1. Speculative realism and OOO is just a passing fad, like effective altruism, will be dead and buried in a few decades except for those who have invested their life and career into promoting it. Just go back to Heidegger who is far deeper and more substantial than anything Harman and the SR crowd have offered who are influenced by Heidegger but have, like the Young Hegelians, totally inverted and appropriated Heidegger’s ontology for their own projects. Nothing but empty platitudes in the nadir of Baconian ontology and the collapse of the Kantian compromise with modernity.

    Grant’s “transcendental materialism” would fail any metaphysical 101 course. Sorry, if the cosmos is material than there cannot, by definition, be transcendental materialism. If there is just “more matter” than it’s not transcendental. Brassier’s “transcendental nihilism” isn’t novel either. It’s the fulfillment of Baconian-Hobbesian-Lockean metaphysics and ontology now combined with empty rainbow materialism post-Marx. Of course nihilism is the end result of materialist metaphysics and ontology. Hobbes implies as much in his many works, especially the first part of the Leviathan. All of this just shows the bankruptcy of the modern philosophical academy. A bunch of intellectual masturbation and self-congratulations as we prepare to reconcile ourselves with the big crunch.

    1. I agree that the SR are not so fabulous. But I disagree also: the SRs put their finger on the main problem of the whole phenomenal tradition.

      Yes Heidegger is more deep. And then what; so what? As I get into with the Hack; the only place to go from Heidegger (but Wittgenstien is the flip-side if the coin) is into “belief”. This is finally exposed with Laruelle, Badiou, Zizek generation. Then all that was left was to point it out, to call out what everyone was just turning a blind eye to and hoping it wasn’t true.

      Harman is the ballsiest of them all because he says You know what, there’s no point in continuing to try and argue something new out the the phenomenonal correlation. (Quentin helped with that identification also)

      So I just say phenomenal reality is a fact. And attempt to begin the outline (like a rubbing) of what is most offensive to the “deep subjectivity” of Being-Dasien.

      Further: that this showing of the parameter of Being does not thereby make another argument about it, but rather allows it thus to Be in-itself, and all the while then opening the space to be able to control for it.

      1. As your boy Zizek has said, OOO is just fancy commodity fetishism masquerading as edgy materialism. How much of Heidegger have you read? With that, what about Goethe, Fichte, and Schelling who were preeminent influences on him, or St. Paul and St. Augustine?

        The OOO fan club is precisely what Marx and Adorno said would be the consummation of objectified materialist philosophy from the liberal genus.

      2. I’ve read maybe half of being and time. Many of hiedeggers essay (I forget the name of the collection book) and “what is thinking”.

        I am not disclaiming or arguing against a historical or traditional philosophical any of what you have stated. I am saying that it is based in a phenomenal state. Yes: the fact is that what these guys talked about (Adorno, Delueze guattari , politically most poignant) is true. There is no arguing around it or to something better: they have outlined what is occurring with the phenomenal subject. We have before the description of what human beings do.

        But I do have issues with Harman: I defiantly am not a “object orieation ontologist” or whatever one would call it. But, I think he hit upon the significant issue with philosophy: philosophy is also and object, identified by various phenomenal motions and intentions.

        It is totally and exactly fetishized, but what isn’t? Heidegger’s ideas are themselves fetishized versions of what he meant. As well Augustine and everyone you can bring up. I am not making an argument about how it is or is not the case: I merely say: “yes” and?

        But that is a larger argument.

      3. I would do some more discussion but after a while with these comment threads everything gets kind of tangled up and it’s hard to really have a discussion.

        Which is unfortunate to me because I am in joying and I get A lot out of this kind of interaction with people. It’s what I want. So really I am feeling the limitation of this format for discussion.

  2. I read the post.. Lacan is quite enigmatic in his notions and therapy. It happens that I have a friend who is currently going through lacanian therapy. She explains to me sometimes how it goes, and the therapy is all about word and wording and interpretations.

    1. Wow. Are you familiar with Levi Bryant ?

      He’s a SR philosopher. He suffers/ has suffered from depression. And he actually got certified (i think) in Lacan psychoanalyst. And I feel like he must have explored that for his depression. And then/now is expiring philosophy (that’s just my idea) Becuase the Lacan /Zizek psychoanalysis didn’t really work for him.

      There is a kind of counseling theory called “Postmodern” subcategory “narrative” which is heavy set in viewing therapy through the stories presented.

      I enjoy Lacan/Zizek philosophy part, though I am developing a “counselor’s theory” which concerns objects, but also explains thus the psychoanalytical “object” use, I believe, more thoroughly: i.e. an object is that which ‘completes’ a libidinal drive.

      Is your friend liking the Lacan approach?

    2. I think the “insight” Harman comes upon is that the point of therapy for Lacans approach is to remove the therapist, for the client to realize that the therapist is, for a word, merely another object in the subject’s fantasy. Such a change is “heroic”.

      1. I don’t know Bryant but I know a bit of Lacan. I also enjoy the Lacan/Zizek therapy and dialogue. But now that u mentioned Bryant I will search for him. Thank you again for your interesting posts

      2. Psychoanalysis was 1st rejected by the Americans when Freud went to USA and presented it. I think because back then American society was puritan

      3. Most of us over here are more “spiritual” I’d say, than scientific. The psychologist/psychology is scientific. But counseling is a different beast. A lot of people it seems like Jung or Cognitive Behavioral kind of stuff. It’s weird. Lol. Freudian lineage does not have a huge following it seems like in my school.

Leave a Reply to maylynno Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s