Transcript for:
ဇီဇက်နှင့် လာကန်စိတ်ဗေဒသိပ္ပံ သာလွန်ခြင်း

[Music] the late freudian who seemingly developed what we now know as lacanian psychoanalysis it is no secret lacan is one of the most difficult thinkers to read and it's not just the way he speaks the way he writes within a certain language and his language being french it's that within french a common language we can technically learn he has a sub language within it a lingual structure that is also applied with striking graphics algebraic like ways to concretely visualize what he is trying to say to begin this we must address to many the constant question amongst all the confusing language confusing graphics what the is le khan really trying to say simply put there's a whole lot of things if freud was popularized for being one of the first to attempt to understand the very human psychological disturbances within us what then is lacan a freudian trying to get at well according to g-jek for lachan psychoanalysis at its most fundamental is not a theory and technique of treating psychic disturbances but a theory and practice that confronts individuals with the most radical dimension of human existence there is something else we must impart before moving on that is simplest way there is one constant look on and parts that is often ignored it's that for every sentence everything he technically says there are multiple different meanings and different interpretive things you can project onto it and that's the point because of his free-flowing style much of lacan's work is in seminar form speech telecon offered an immediacy to things speech if anything allowed things ideas developments to exist in the most imminent organic way thus his seminars can be found in text form and is one major actual text the accrete with confusion in mind lacan notoriously said the accrete is one major book isn't necessarily meant to be understood therefore in any video where i talk about lacan i state that confusion is the proper process with him on the very interpretive eminence of lacombe we will be using jijic's application of him here we will learn lakhan via the lens of xiz and hopefully give further context to both before getting into the body of this video it would be wise to understand the philosophical history gisek brings with him as jijek goes he can be seen as someone who brings together lacan hegel and marx with some authors there sprinkled in via marx himself with g-check this is brought to the forefront into the very synthesized socio-political and psychoanalytic analysis he is known for but for a majority who also don't really understand what g-shack is talking about as the internet seems to insultingly fixate more on him as a wacky celebrity regarding zizek with this video we will be putting la khan to the front and how gisek incorporates him we will be doing this with an extra emphasis on xizhik's text how to read lacan with all this out of the way let's get into the video this is how to read look on just in video form getting right into it if we are able to understand lacan via the lens of zizek the most underspoken aspect about xi jiax's interpretive element of lacan is this we students of philosophy and also we had a very good background in frankfurt school hegelian marxism german idealism heidegger and so on so of course we felt closest to that part of so-called structuralist later called the construction materials which was closer to the tradition of german idealism german philosophy the other reason is that from the very beginning we were reading as a thinker enabling us to analyze power relations ideological mechanisms and so on and for us lacon works worked much better than foucault or altisser in this domain so it was mostly for these reasons but i think the dominant reason would have been philosophy we are all philosophers in slovenia lacong was from the beginning exclusively a philosophical movement a movement of philosophers who are basically hegelian the first proper way to understand g-jack and lacan is to view lacan through a hegelian lens and then from here an application of hegel and lacan with the further socioeconomic lens of marx and later marx's thinkers such as all thus air and the frankfurt school according to g-check the dialectic is present throughout lacan and psychoanalysis as a whole not only this psychoanalysis can be seen as something very material reflective of and within human organization social structures and institutions here we can see the kernel of marx seen with a synthesis of dialectical materialism something that jijic claims is applicable surrounding lacanian psychoanalysis this is why jijic points out lecon's claim that the symptom in psychoanalytic context was first found and marx not freud the symptom in psychoanalysis being noticeable behaviors or negative functions that may stem from repressed trauma or internal issues like a sneeze maybe a symptom or a biological indicator of allergies in psychoanalysis we can use this in social and psychological context around certain human behaviors that indicate larger social pathologies for example marx's notion of commodity fetishism commodity fetishism being the people's worship of say capital money commodities as something deified religious and something innately natural to marx we abstracted commodities away from its core foundation that being the labor that produced them thus this fetish this warship and abstract religious thinking around commodities could be seen as a symptom of capitalist economics before we get intellicon we must establish a baseline a sort of universal for human existence this goes beyond lacan to many other thinkers of the past as well but this universal driver can be seen as desire our behaviors actions can in one way or another be seen as a product of said desire this is the root from here we emerge as subjects where in psychoanalysis we would claim split subject split between the conscious and subconscious there's a whole history debating on how our desire is shaped if it's shaped from society things a god but we will start from the base origin within psychoanalysis seen in the likes of freud that being desire as something unconscious an unconscious set of drives mediated repressed and shaped from external society around us but to look on the origin of this desire comes from a lack known as monkey this lac is the actual core real nothingness from this nothingness we build up an artifice an exterior to make sense of things things such as language social status society as a whole we will delve more into this nothingness a nothingness lacan calls the real and the atmospheric structures around us such as the symbolic and imaginary that protect us from this traumatic nothingness again a part of lacan is that you should be confused bear with me here we will get through the core terminology within lacon then get to the zhizhekian application of him the other dimension tulakhan that zizik has incorporated into his philosophical project is his description of signifiers symbols and lingual structures essentially analyzing modes of communication and how we navigate reality around us again these are the very structures that protect us from this said lack and real as we stated before lacan was deeply interested in the study of language that being linguistics and the study of signs and their interpretation that being semiotics and he was a large student of one of the founders of semiotics ferdinand de thus ashish states throughout lacan is not merely a clinical figure or uses psychoanalysis as a mere clinical tool this brings us into the symbolic order one of the three main categories corresponding to the quote-unquote reality that lacan imparts on us but when explaining the symbolic order imaginary and the real i will be using examples from jijek's how to read lacan and his contextual use here he gives very tactile examples that not only helps us understand lacan but also elaborates on the project that is g-check just know before we get into the core lacanian terminology i am purposefully focusing on jijek's more sociological use of lacan rather than something more clinical or abstractly philosophical something not vacuously related to lacan all by himself so on to the symbolic ggx states what then is this symbolic order composed of when we speak or listen for that matter we never merely interact with others our speech activity is grounded on our accepting and relying on a complex network of rules and other kinds of presuppositions first there are the grammatical rules that i have to master blindly and spontaneously if i were to bear these rules in mind all the time my speech would break down then there is the background of participating in the same life world that enables me and my partner in conversation to understand each other the rules that i follow are marked by a deep divide there are rules and meanings that i follow blindly out of habit but of which if i reflect i can become at least partially aware such as common grammatical rules and there are rules that i follow meaning that haunt me in ignorance such as unconscious prohibitions this is important what constitutes this externality of social reality is a set of unspoken innate rules and constitutions you measure yourself your faithfulness to this reality this order by interacting with said rules and standards jesus then speaks on the big other whom he claims operates within the symbolic order as an omniscient voice rather than the big other being merely the symbolic order itself which is often portrayed as the case within lacan if the symbolic order is of set external rules then this otherness is the other who pins these rules down into our psyche on the big other xi gives the example of a set of mexican soap operas where much of the acting is improvised and the director speaks to the actors via microphone and earpiece frantically telling them how to act and to speak on camera the director can be seen as the big other but the director's efficacy isn't simply in telling them what to do it's that amidst the frantic chaos he forces the crew to dig deep into the larger regulations rules and impulses as actors forcing them to interact deeply within the symbolic order around them as to improvise to zizek the power of the big other isn't his direct tangible power say as the director himself but as an affect a presupposition that we assume is real an empty power that still hones in on our agency as subjects hence the director isn't powerful it's the effect that exists after he speaks to the actor that is this is visualized as what we know as the quote-unquote subject supposed to know chew on that one for a bit the symbolic order the big other these lingual and symbolic rules are arguably the biggest piece in lacanian psychoanalysis that zizek focuses on for this we will continue to put extra emphasis on the symbolic order but of course we will touch on the imaginary and the real so let's do just that the narcissistic ideal of self and internalization of said symbols and internalization that develops the image of our full self or really what we simply think to be ourselves of course this is an image based imaginary of self that isn't true to lacan it isn't real it's a mirage thus this can be seen as the imaginary we won't go directly into the tragic origins here with lacan's mirror stage as time doesn't permit us so here are some resources on this above that you can watch after this video the symbolic order and the imaginary and its difference confuses some so here's an example in the realm of semiotics a field that lecon takes from immensely take a sign made up of what we would call the signified insignifier the visual component say this logo is the signified and can be seen with the logic of the imaginary then we take the phrase i'm loving it as the signifier which can be seen as the symbolic order when you hear this phrase it gives us the mental image the imaginary of the mcdonald's logo this isn't a one-to-one for an example per se but it's helpful to see how the symbolic order lingual structures rules and regulations gives us a set of visual meaning to go off of seen in the imaginary this is why lacan claims as children we are lost from our initial real state with the creation of language this real state is what lechon calls the real for the sake of time i can only elaborate on the reel in conjunction with the symbolic order in the imaginary the real is the traumatic nothingness the lack that is hidden by our construction of the fantasy that we experience as reality which is to say our reality molded together by the imaginary and symbolic order concepts of self language is just that a fantasy thus the real is often experienced within traumatic context the evisceration of the ego self and constructions around us of course as stated we won't go into a deep dive of the reel but i'll also link some resources here [Music] all right still with me now that we have the abstract understanding of the khan in order and how reality is structured to him his lingual approach to psychoanalysis from here we get to the application of lacan from zhizhak himself my opinion here's where stuff gets really interesting so like stated earlier gig has a sociological approach to this and he's coming from and building off of the background of critical theory off of the frankfurt school and marxists such as louis althuzeir thus he is concerned with the function of ideology like desire there is a long philosophical debate about exactly what ideology is and how it functions here zizek challenges the original raw marxist approach while still maintaining its form there's the bit of hegel in here by the way marx deemed ideology to be what he called false consciousness a set standard of ideals spawning from a ruling class whose core function is to uphold whatever social and economic system is still currently in place whether that be in a feudal society or a capitalistic one thus these ideals are constructed in tandem with the existing human organization of a given time period so ideology is a masking of quote-unquote true or universal set of ideals naturally we are on shaky ground if we are to rely on a concept of hidden truth no surprise quite a few thinkers challenge this notion one we have to be guaranteed access to this truth in general that this positivistic element of truth exists in the first place and two the presupposition doesn't match the general common ideology today that of radical cynicism this is jijac's main angle here if we are to take marx's definition of ideology at 100 we must accept the notion that people just blindly go about life without the knowledge of current exploitative class dynamics around them to z-jack it's the very opposite most people understand to at least some extent the exploitation they and others face people are rather skeptical they are not very trusting and this skepticism itself now functions as the new mode of ideology rather than the traditional pure marxist definition the false consciousness on ideology zizek takes the traditional marxist saying of they do not know it but they are doing it and flips it to they know it but they are doing it anyway let's say it again they know it but they are doing it anyways we understand the vapid nature of pop culture yet we consume it we understand the ridiculousness of buying a new smartphone every year yet we do it anyways we understand the flaws and the very real problems within our economic system yet in action we will defend it to the death and the name of fear and the current safety of the exploitation we are personally used to if the traditional notion of ideology was an artificial masking of reality the zhijeon position and arguably the lacanian one is that this ideology this artifice is reality itself as lacan theorized we build up a fantasy with language meaning seen in the symbolic order and within the visual imaginary an artificial building up from this black silicon our reality is just that fantasy at least an experience thus fantasy is really just our experienced reality and with zizek he brings this notion into the long philosophical discussion around ideology tajik when you're looking at applications of lacan the very realms of the symbolic and imaginary become an extremely efficient centerpiece for visualizing modern functions of ideology and struggles for political emancipation but it doesn't end there there's even more substance from g-jet you know how we talked about cynicism being the dominant ideology well there's psychoanalytical logic behind the function of this drawn from lacan as well this moves us into the psychoanalytic concept of just jouson's within context but what is this jousan's jousan technically translates to pleasure and english but as pleasure goes in english it's not exactly its meaning lecon designates different modes of jsons but regarding zigzag specifically the jouson's g-check typically references is something of pleasure and pain or a pleasure that derives itself from forms of trauma and repression this might not completely make sense at first but will contextualize it if now the dominant mode of ideology is one of cynicism just as a political factor seems to be one of the largest drivers this just can be seen as a negative pleasure something that derives a kernel of pleasure from what is necessarily a somewhat traumatic thing or something that instills a level of suffering say the stereotypical white liberal reliance on racism to be an anti-racist themselves in order to instill this meaning thus necessitating racism in the end the weird online personalities who obsess over aoc when people say i dare the government to take my guns or seen in films such as the hurt locker the pleasurable proximity to war something that devastates you rips you apart but when you come home you cannot function within your built up fantasy without it films such as casablanca showing the traumatic and violent angle to love an angle that we so crave this has larger consequences to it too the new neo-marxist analysis that jijek makes is that regimes and governments now function in such a way that in which there is a distance from its set rules and regulations when you create this distance when a society revokes limits regulations and barriers allows you to perceive yourself as a free subject above the fray of ideology it is only then that you are now properly integrated into the system rather than clearly abiding by a set code ideologically going against a code is the proper integration it is the proper code this is why the notion of a post-ideological society claimed by individuals like tony blair is among the most ideological sentiment today clearly we see the tone of psychoanalysis here around desire libidinal drive but zizek further elaborates that hegel is here too the proper way to read lacan is with the dialectic and mind continuing the discussion of ideology and regimes g-checks claim that law like the subject in psychoanalysis is split from the social law we integrate within the adoption of language a given regime's rules seen in the makeup of the symbolic order to the more core libidinal innate law that finds itself repressed cut from innate justice and desire here modern regimes are more able to locate this kernel of desire and find mediation within social law by creating this distance by allowing you to perceive yourself as a free subject and in more accurate terms actually allowing you to be quote unquote free it is through this freedom that you are unfree and you are barred within the ideological system around you with this zig shares the view with foucault and marx that modern regimes are able to exert a power that is less visible and farther reaching than pre-modern regimes and it's through the proximity of jesusance and split law that they are able to do this now this is incredibly important you know how i said g-jek is primarily concerned with lacan's symbolic order and imaginary i sort of lied he's very much concerned with the real as well but i said this with good reason ggek's imminent analysis his more immediate political theory is mainly tethered to these structures of the symbolic and the imaginary as it mainly focuses on the artifice of society politics and language but there is an element of g-check that still contends with pecans real it's his notion of truth or rather how truth is subverted into the real itself but it's only this way through extension and gjx sublime object of ideology which we have covered link above g-check elaborates on a truth which he spells with a capital t through khan's notion of the sublime sublime is something that supersedes and overwhelms our senses something beyond reason and explanation sublime can be seen as going up to the swiss mountains and just being in complete awe of what you're experiencing it's something terrifying yet beautiful something that reason that rationality can't quite grasp on to here we see an approximation with the real something that resists the symbolic and imaginary here i have done little to truly get into the density of the whole project that is g-jack and the whole project that is lacan but when asking the question of the proper way to interpret and read lacan given his complexity it's as tricky as it is simple it's that there is no textbook way to read look on it's not as simple as deciphering his graph of jousson's cavoy his algebraic like code which is precisely why xishik doesn't do this in his text atari lacon the more tangible answer is to apply him lacan is seen presciently through situation one that pokes through kernels of trauma incident innuendo repressed desire and in many ways like film something that seeks to show the most radical nature of our existence and with the likes of g-shack we see the application of lacan and socio-political context in the vein of neo-marxism most of the literature you find in lacan this series of seminars aren't necessarily written by default with these seminars lacan operates as an analysin and analysand of a crowd and because of this there is a language that is to be interpreted heavily and left to the readers even his main text the accre operates in a forum that wildly oscillates in meaning to see lacan is to see him through the eyes of power relations that go beyond purely social bounds or individual bounds like freud we repress ourselves and through this we build up an artifice of fantasy a very sociological fantasy that we can only see as reality thus according to xi's and lacan it is through this negation this nothingness this complete vacuum that we experience reality as our quote-unquote selves thank you all so much for watching i have a giant request to make these videos take a ton of time and effort to create and without all the support on patreon and the youtube member section i simply couldn't do this as this is my main job and source of income now the youtube algorithm doesn't like the formula of fewer but longer indents videos much prefers a constant stream of video releases thus given the nature of this channel with theory and philosophy and attempting to make it as high quality as possible i'm kind of stuck here youtube alone wouldn't allow me to pay the bills and patrons and members allow me to do just that you get all kinds of perks like voting on future videos early access exclusive content discord and reading group access and more so hopefully along with keeping this channel going and the core content free i can make it worth your while and bonuses so if you could pledge a couple dollars a month this is the only thing that ensures our survival again thanks so much and i will see you all later you