Today, I would like to expand on my previous post on Lacanian psychoanalysis and the Wound of Split Subjectivity by understanding its relationship …Lacanian Psychoanalysis and the Subversion of the Split Subject
———-Ok. Bobbi put together a good explication of Lacan psychoanalysis.
My question, which has started to perplex me, as I will address soon, is still why it should by the case and what relevance has it actual human experience.
But also, it is my tentative contention, that while Lacan came up with a good philosophical idea, therapeutically it is no more or less effective at explaining and offering solutions for actual people and their mental conditions than any other theory of the psyche. But probably less effective.
However, it does work good for an analogy for the condition of the modern human being; especially the “mirror stage”.
Beyond that, it would propose that modern man is able to get out of his correlational condition through application of his theory (to remove the fantasy?) I don’t think that has happened even one time since it was written. I think his is an apology and operation which maintains the modern human within its correlation, and attempts thus to solve for “X”. Very modern in its base.
I think perhaps Lacan was only speaking of himself: the perfect deconstruction of his own narcissistic modern identity.
Also; I love Zizek, and it is interesting that he employs Lacan’s ideas so well, but then we should note that Zizek Mostly is concerned with social theory, and at that media. So Zizek It’s mainly concerned with a particular condition under which subjects arise. And he does this by talking about the larger ideological structures in which subjects cohere. What is becoming more significant for me is that he’s really not talking about the human being except in so much as a human being, as I would say, “has faith“, that it is indeed ideology which is granting the human being and ability to have reality.
And so in that way we could say that both of these guys including Hegel, as Z does, really work to inscribe, maintain, and perpetuate the modern human identity as indeed the only thing that matters. It is not difficult to see the Marxist tradition in this sense, because then it is easy to see how people might want to use these mid late 20th century 21st century ideological tropes that are rooted in a particular kind of historical sign, or designation, to give themselves a more profound sense of world. And this is to say that the idea,I guess, is if somehow people can draw upon a more dense discourse, A more dense conceptual forest, they can use this density to establish themselves more surely and more securely in a world.
But what we find when we get away from these abstract ideological concepts and come back down into dealing with human beings that are actually in front of you, human being to human being— when we actually get real with ourselves, we find that these huge dense ideological abstractions fall short and really do not function to or toward a healthy human being.
In fact they create a human being who is, essentially, mentally sick. And we are finding this more and more now. Because now these sick people go to search out a solution to what most often is merely an ideological problem, ofideology being forced down the throat of a person ideology being forced down the throat of a person. And then we have people that seek to help them through, again, these dense ideological constructions as if the dense concept will be the solution to the problem of a persons identity.