The Oedipus Complex for Lacan (3 of 5) : What is the phallus?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2020
- Making reference to Darian Leader's 'What is Madness?', we sketch out three times within Lacan's reconceptualization of the Oedipus complex, moving from 1) the enigma of the mother's desire, to 2) attempts at explaining the 'beyond' of this desire, to 3) the phallus and the signifier of lack. Two factors are crucial in understanding Lacan's approach to the Oedipus factor: the imposition of law (through the Name-of-the-Father) and the role of phallus (to be understood as a signifier of lack/desire).
Link to board:
drive.google.com/drive/folder...
Didn't know Foucault did explanation videos of Lacan
LMAO
Derek, you are great! So fun, a natural teacher. Thank you for this. Well done, sir. You managed to so efficiently explain something complicated that it seems now easy, which it is not, only you, being a good teacher, demystify it. Thanks🙏
Desire in Sartre is pretty hairy as well. If memory serves, we want the other to *voluntarily* give us all their attention because their freedom keeps them in the subjective, which gives me my *objective* quality of that thing that is loved. But to love then, in return, is a *wish to be loved.*
From p 364 of Being and Nothingness, the beginning of chapter part entitled "Love, Language, Masochism"😬
Sartre: "EVERYTHING which may be said of me in my relations with the Other applies to him as well. While I attempt to free myself from the hold of the Other, the Other is trying to free himself from mine; while I seek to enslave the Other, the Other seeks to enslave me. We are by no means dealing with unilateral relations with an object-in-itself, but with reciprocal and moving relations. The following descriptions of concrete behavior must therefore be envisaged within the perspective of *conflict.* Conflict is the original meaning of being-for-others."
So in our quest to fill in as "the phallus," what if we get it right? What if we do fulfill the mother, without, of course, breaking any taboos. Can we *practically* be that Black Swan successful dancer that thrills a less neurotic example? (One that doesn't reach for the dreaded fingernail clippers?😬)
Or is the trip that no matter what, nothing can ever be the *one thing* ("Das Ding"?) or the one magic bullet, because the signifier refers to an infinite matrix of other signifiers?
I will watch this video again, because maybe you already answered this question; but is the problem that the "phallus" as signifer indeed cannot signify anything but lack (or this "primary suppression" I've heard it called)?
Aha! Got it! After around @13:00 you basically put forth that the problem is that the mother's desire is a *moving target* 🎯 Plus! The "Name of the Father" (the Law) ____blocks the child; but only to keep the child out of this trap!
This reminds me of the cherubim that guards the way back to Eden⚔
Hi John. Thanks for the detailed comments and the comparative references to Sartre's work. I wanted to offer a response to your question as to whether one can ever 'get it right' and effectively 'be' the phallus for the mother. I think the correct Lacanian answer here would be to say that although this is something the child (and we) might like to believe, it is structurally impossible. Why? Because the mother herself doesn't fully know her desire. Surely, if the mother is herself neurotically structured, then her desire is in part the desire of the Other (beyond herself). Just a thought. And that begs the question - a delicate one, because one doesn't want to be actively pathologizing here - of what occurs for a psychotic mother where desire would presumably not be operative or not operative in the same lacking way.
I know nothing about the psyche of males. Therefore, I'm interested in how males acquire a stronger identity by turning away from their mother, yet not eliminating her, altogether.This seems to be a massive challenge, however.
It's mind-boggling to understand the complexities involved in becoming a whole, healthy, well functioning adult who feels good about themselves and who can live in the present mostly.
Hello, i have to say i love your videos but I have a pressing question, i hope you can help me. Is the phallus the objet petit a? obviously they are different terms, but in a book about lacan the author said the phallus (as signified of NOTF) can itself become replaced by (equated to) objet petit a ( while NOTF can become replaced with master signifiers). I saw online people claim there is a huge distinction but what is it exactly?
thank you so very much for this, i was having such a hard time reading Lacan! do you have any tips on getting used to the kind of language in lacanian psychology?
My approach was just to try and collect definitions of the key terms and to consult the book by Dylan Evans, Introductory Dictionary of Psychoanalysis
oh wow. a lot of things in my life make more sense now.