Psychology and philosophy, part four

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






4 responses to “Psychology and philosophy, part four”

  1. microglyphics Avatar

    You may appreciate this perspective on reality and perception presented by Daniel Schmachtenberger, a social philosopher. It’s not new. In fact, he references the well-known Flatland piece.

    My take-away in reflection of what I understand your position to be is the notion of ‘partial truths’ (my nomenclature). It’s only ~7 minutes long, so there’s not much of a time commitment.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. landzek Avatar

      I love that! Yes and…

      One of the things I am liking about Lacan is how he and those other 20th century people framed the ego. They did this through observing people who have mental disorders, such as paranoid psychotic and people with the more acute issues. That’s really where psychology gained its theoretical basis historically I think. It’s from the observation of people that are severely problematic. it was like the 20th century who decided to come along and say no what a healthy people look like. People like Maslow and stuff.

      But I like the classical version of the ego. The idea is that human beings are always only getting fragments of the situation, of any situation. The ego is that thing which nits all the fragments together into a meaningful and sensible picture of reality. And I would take it even so far as to say it’s not just my own situation that is consolidated by the ego Such that I can realize that my perspective is only partial and then other people are having the same condition, so we can get together and talk about it and then come to a more complete picture of what reality is, say. But rather that this whole picture that I just described, including going to other people and talking to them about their perspectives, is all knit together by the ego. It is all of fragmentary cents that is consolidated by the ego.

      and so, yes, perspective, but also no, it is only the ego. It is both at the same time, never an either or, always both occurring at the exact same time. And the issue that arises in the contradiction involved with those two essentially discrepant ideas upon the matter, that is the problem of existence. And coming to terms with existence is exactly coming to terms with the problem of that discrepancy. And the way I am dealing with it is to call upon “orientations upon objects”.


    2. landzek Avatar

      You must’ve been a really good guitar player. All those tunings and all the various uses for the different guitars.
      I don’t know if you’ve gathered from my posts but I play guitar. But I really just like to play guitar. I have two electrics and three acoustics. And between those two electrics I get all the different towns that I play with that I like. And I’ve never really ventured into alternate tunings except that I do turn them down to E flat all across.

      And I think I only play one style. Which is my style which is kind of grateful dead mix with punk rock. Like Jerry Garcia meets captain sensible😁. I’m not great but I’m pretty good I’d say.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. microglyphics Avatar

        Good is a relative term. lol Competent is more fitting. Bored artist is the motivation. And I did know you play guitar.

        I started playing guitar in the mid-70s because I was into the players of the day: Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, the usual suspects, but I found the genre too repetitive and got into Jazz-Fusion and Experimental Progressive. Jeff Beck, John McLaughlin, Allan Holdsworth, and so on

        Then I got hung up on alternative tunings—open and modal—until about the ’90s, when drop tunings were all the rage for Grunge, and then low tunings for Nu-Metal and post-Grunge.

        Nowadays, I rarely plug in, and I’ve gotten nostalgic for the stuff I overlooked in my youth—Neil Young, Rolling Stones, and some Country Blues, so I am back to Standard, Drop D, Open G and Open E.

        Artistically, the reason I like alternative tunings is the it’s easy to get into routines and ruts, so the licks and patterns become repetitive and predictable.

        One of my activities is to relearn songs in one tuning in another, plus it helps me to orient me to the new fretboard layout.

        Wrapping up, when I was a kid learning, there was no YouTube. Man, that place is a goldmine for material and lessons. I still love to check out lessons when I am not viewing philosophy, politics, and scientific vids.

        I miss playing in a band, but we’ve all been cast to the winds/ My last live performance was on 12.12.12, so that seems like a perfect date to stop on.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to landzek Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: