My point of addressing this topic was not simply to go on about my anecdotal development of psychology and philosophy.￼￼
I am always embedded in context, in a story, and so maybe that’s why I’m always contextualizing many things I have to say in the story of why I have to say them or why I am saying it in that way. Actually, I’ve had to learn how to be more to the point, as my friends will tell you.
And we could go back to some of my other posts, and a couple of my papers, that talk about the efficient cause as the usual conventional understanding to which everything must answer. And I call this orientation upon the efficient cause reality.
Whereas, what is true of the situation is actually its form, and that these forms constitute every object that exists in the universe. The story to me concerns more the formal cause. I take the formal cause it’s more substantial and meaningful than the efficient cause.
Anyways, that’s not really what I’m making this post about either!￼￼￼￼￼￼
It was actually to talk a little bit about Lacan. I would say 85% of my understanding of this psychologist￼￼ comes through Zizek. The rest comes through various commentaries that philosophers have made and then a little bit and reading him. So, my version may be a little skewed, but then again, my whole philosophy up on things is that, basically, it doesn’t really matter because every opinion on every author no matter how well Read a person is is always skewed; and, I would argue, it is always the same amount of skew.
But also I’m not here to make an argument about how everyone’s skewed Ness upon a text is the same amount of variation.
Because even if I don’t know by heart all the inns and outs of Lacanian ￼ psychotherapy, I know pretty much what he’s talking about and how it goes. What I want to talk about is that there are no psychotherapists who are Lacanian. It seems like everyone who wants to talk about psychology￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ is a philosopher, not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Now, I’m sure there are many Freudians and people who like Lacan theory as their basis of practice, I would imagine somewhere in New York and Europe maybe, but for some reason I have never come across one practicing psychologist or psychiatrist who knows anything about Lacan or even cares about Freud except as some sort of mystical founder of psychotherapy, and of course, the structure of the consciousness.
That is very curious to me.
But as of late, as I’m reading Lacan’s ecrits, and as I am getting more into actually practicing psychotherapy, I am realizing some things about the mental health world.
A big one is that pretty much every psychoanalytic theory that I’ve come across in my masters program, Lacan talked about from a theoratical standpoint.
I think that is so weird, because none of my professors and none of my instructors know anything at all about Lacan. Ive asked.
And that, to me, points out some thing that I think it’s very significant between Philosophy and what we know in general as psychology — indeed in one of Lacans lectures that has been reprinted, he basically points out the same curiosity in the field, albeit, much mire subtly than i am:
Namely that psychology as a practice, if I can generalize to include all the other kinds of psychotherapy in general, all the theories, all the practices and approaches, And despite what each approach would want to say is their theoretical grounding, all derive from a philosophical understanding that goes way beyond and way deeper and more thoroughly than the practitioners would even suggest to indicate as their basis of practice and theoretical understanding.
it’s kind of weird.
I don’t mean to say that Lacan had it all; but he does point out how the practice of therapy tends to want to just stick with a system of assertions and not employ those systems in the practice of investigating an uncovering what is really happening.￼￼ which is to say, people want a fixed understanding of things. And most people, even people who we consider are very intelligent and educated practitioners, do not use their intelligence and knowledge as a basis to investigate what is actually occurring in front of them. Rather, most people use it as a basis merely to assert what they understand is supposed to be true.￼￼
Lacan what’s an advocate towards a kind of non-systemization of practice. Even as most of us tend to understand that he has this great philosophical psychoanalytical system. Actually he was just constantly investigating and constantly changing and adjusting his ideas for what he was coming upon as the years went by. ￼￼￼
OK. I’ll do part five in a little bit.x