Lacan, the Phallus, and the Oedipus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2024
- Our mission is to re-imagine psychology for the 21st century through connection, exploration, and innovation.
stillpoint.org/
Instagram: / stillpointhq
Facebook: / stillpointhq
Twitter: / stillpointhq
LinkedIn: / stillpointhq
---
In this lecture, Dr. Leon Brenner talks about how Lacan re-works the Freudian account of the Oedipus complex on several occasions. In, Seminar IV: The Object Relations (1956-1957), Lacan associates it with his understanding of the phallus - annexing it as a fourth term in the Oedipal triangle of the child-mother-father. Defining the phallus as a signifier of lack, he accounts for its role in the course of the Oedipus complex in three different forms - the real, imaginary and symbolic phallus. But what exactly is the function of the phallus as a signifier in the Oedipus complex? What is its role in the most primordial stages of the child's integration in language as a desiring subject?
Leon Brenner, PhD, is a teacher and a scholar specializing in the fields of Lacanian psychoanalysis, contemporary French philosophy and autism theory. Brenner has graduated with the highest honour a B.A and M.A in Psychology and Philosophy. Brenner has received two excellence awards as a junior university teacher. He is currently engaged in several scholarly and artistic projects in Berlin and is a resident instructor at Stillpoint Spaces Berlin.
Finally! Someone who doesn't run from metaphysics in lacanian psychoanalysis.
Yep!!!
34:20 " primary repression "
43:25 lecture continues after questions.
49:10 "a mythical unity"
51:10 "demand for love"
52:45 "desire in lacan"
55:20 Summary
59:45 What is this nail?
1:01:40 where does the object of desire appear? In such a thing as psychic reality.
1:03:05. "Signification of phallus extended to Oedipus complex in Freud"
Real, symbolic and imaginary lack.
1:06:00 "constant attachment to the mother, a mythical unity, and no division"
1:08:00. Needs of child unpacified and the absence of the mother, opposed to mythical constant unity. The lack not included in the language, and its attribution to the mother. The lack and its attribution to the absence of the phallus in the mother, as the imaginary.
1:13:35 "Father's prohibition in Freud and Oedipus complex"
1:17:00 "The real and the initiatory gap"
1:18:00 Oedipus in the symbolic, according to Lacan.
1:24:00 Object in articulated phantasy. Subjective desire and its structure, and the role of the signifier.
1:26:00 Substitute for authority for the lack of the phallus.
1:28:20 'What is mommy, by being, and how does mommy make daddy give her what was perceived as have been taken away?" Masculine desire. Feminine desire. Libido.
1:32:00 "mere Grammar in contradictions"
You all probably dont give a shit but does anyone know a trick to log back into an instagram account??
I stupidly forgot the password. I would love any help you can offer me
@Moses Watson Instablaster =)
@Daniel Lance thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and Im trying it out atm.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Daniel Lance It did the trick and I finally got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much, you really help me out !
@Moses Watson Happy to help :D
If only We could get a transcription of what the questions are, it's really hard to discern what the students are saying
18:30 "3 is already too much" - Yep, it's a video about the Oedipus complex for sure!
this amuses me way to much
Thank you very much for this great lecture!
More of this please!
Anatomy is destiny NOT because phallus is a signifier BUT rather, phallus is a signifier because anatomy is destiny. Today we know the mental architecture and psychological sex differences in humans are primarily determined by Nature or at the very least Nature VIA nurture. So, it's not just a random social construct or sexuation manifesting psychologically in isolation. The body and mind are very much intimately and intricately connected, in fact, a connection well established even before the dawn of mankind.
Dieser Vortrag ist so herausragend!
The nail that "sticks out"....I love it....I must say the lecture nail it!!!😁😁😁
Fascinating talk, thank you for sharing these lectures. And thank you dr.Brennon.
"a baby is a kind of silly pack of meat" - Leon Brenner
😆I caught that too! Methinks he's a fan of veal parmigiano.
@@peace_cat76 I am!
Humans are silly packs of meat
And they grow up to be serious packs of meat.
nah, the phallus is a serious pack of meat
It's very interesting but we don't hear well what the students say and my opinion it is very interesting that the lesson be interrupted by student's questions, but sometimes they talk too long and we want to hear the one who is supposed to know, Leon Brenner.
Excellent recorded session!!
Excelente! I would like to know more about your work. Where can we read something about your job ? By the way, the class is beautiful but I’m not sure the academic level of the student group but this is a class that it would be for someone already -read something -about Lacan at (less small background ) ✔️
Thanks Oliver. You can find more on my website leonbrenner.com.
Good lecture.How could it apply to the addictive person whose parents were hardly available because of their own addiction and where violence, sexual abuse (not by father) were all part of the experience of growing up and of being grown up?'Is there still a type of lost wholeness in the background?Could the person be in a situation of a demand for love rather than desire for love that leads to repeated traumas?How would the phallus come about in such a situation if indeed it would come about.
Dutch proverb: "That of which the heart is full, the mouth flows over."
^^
Right, next topic.
Really great presentation.
I'm not familiar with Lacan, I mostly read Jung, but it seems like discussion of the phallus would make equal (or more?) sense if "phallus" was replaced by "libido". Libido, that is, in the more general sense where it is associated with life-energy, which of course is inextricably linked to sexuality but not only sexuality. Did Lacan ever differentiate sexuality from the phallus itself?
Toward the end Dr. Brenner hinted at novel or creative ways to fill in the lack of the phallus. Sounds similar to Jungian individuation of the Self... except for Jung this creative engagement would lead to the uniting of opposites symbolized as the _Hieros Gamos_ , paired with a resulting androgyny of the personality.
And what's up with the reduction of the phallus to a grammatical entity?
Yes, exactly, for Lacan, the phallus is a signifier. Not a symbol of virility or a the force of libido.
11:00 Bedeutung Semiotik 14:00 Phallus = Signifikant 16:15 der erste, leere Signifikant (Phallus) zeigt auf den nächsten Signifikanten (die Sprache/Welt fängt an zu sprechen) 24:05 der primordiale Leib 30:15 Gödel: language has always a blind spot 35:12 Geld = Sprache?! beides zeigt das primal repressed object an, siehe ab 36:00 38:15 money as the primal repressed thing 56:23Funktion Phallus: nails together 3 types of lacks (wie ein Nagel) 1:08:38 Absenz der Mutter
What is a bit surprising is Freud thinking of the external genitalia as the nexus of sexual differentiation, utterly missing the significance to that distinction of the ability to bear a child.
It is important because it opens the pathway for sexual difference outside of the physiology of genitalia. I.e the transgender subject being affirmed as the sex they identify with
@@Jakecmuir When you say 'It is important..', what does 'it' refer to? And just to avoid confusion: I mainly wanted to point out that, apparently, Freud's theory of sexual differentiation seems to center on the external genitalia, rather than the organism as a whole.
@@paulmertens5522 ah my bad not only
Did I misunderstand you but I also misspoke. Perhaps I should have said “it is important to open up pathways for sex and gender outside of the material conditions of the body” - we are bodies captured by discourse, not physiological. Here I am not a Freudian but a Butlerian via Lacan.
Excellent lecture🏆 Question: Am I to take then that "the phallus" is a kind of evidence? Evidence of the unity of a mystery, let's say? If so, it reminds a little of how in Sartre Nothingness comes *after* Being. That is, if there could exist any relation at all between the two, which there really can't, he stresses, Nothingness becomes the being of negation, yet we need *something* first in order to negate later. Now this might seem similar to primary repression; but to gather all this into some usable, practical device, it points to freedom, does it not? Lacan in this lecture seems to suggest that the signifier is part of a larger matrix of signifiers, and then it is negatively asserted, so to speak, through the underscoring of *difference,* (which also brings to mind the "différance" of Jacques Derrida); but all this to give us wiggle room, no?
Language cannot express everything, but everything expressed uses language, it seems. So as we stuff whatever it is that's exerting pressure on our psyches into word forms, something is registered as leftover, which all our groping won't succeed to grasp, thusly we lack this unitary perfection? And so, everything that might fall so neatly under "primary repression" is in fact retroactive, which I think is what that one woman was trying to articulate. The woman I'm referring to was one of the first lengthy questioners. She seemed to be talking in a second language to boot (so kudos to her🤜🤛). But anyway, she was saying that what the infant in fact does with the cry, for instance, is not utilize language so much as exert its plain existence, seeming to her to suggest what the lecturer exemplified in Jewish thought about the word, that "In the beginning was..." and "Be light made!"
She wanted to say I think that the relationship then would be as yet unsevered. But the professor countered with a reminder that the infant was already privileged to all the primary rhythm of language from the womb.
“...everything expressed uses language, it seems.” Is this true, though? What about instrumental music or visual artwork? I guess one could argue that language is the thing which allows these other systems of expressions to exist, but... I’m not sure how well that’s been demonstrated.
Isn't it more accurate to say that the fetus is not exposed to language, but that the fetus's language becomes apparent to itself? If we say that the interior experience of the fetus is a language, it can only be so far as the fetus experiences whatever is happening in the womb. The biological processes would happen regardless of the fetus's knowledge of them, in the same way that the processes happen for animals. Thus, it would be the fetus's apprehension of experiences and its attempt to make meaning of those experiences that is language. The outside language of symbolic order then grafts on to that. Perhaps that's what is meant by primordial repression. I wonder now if the chemical language of ants also "lack" something in their transmissions. It seems like it must since it's not reproducing the exact world in the chemicals.
The state of oneness the infant initially experiences, the state of bliss is NOT hypothetical, all babies start life psychologically as solipsist. It's only around 6 months of age, when there's proper sensory awareness, the I & the other forms, ego formation happens, this is when the blissful state of oneness disappears. It's this bliss state that later man searches for his entire life in external objects, forgetting the fact that the bliss actually comes from within oneself....realising this is called self realisation aka enlightenment.
how does identifying with the phallus manifest itself in the actual world? how would a person doing this behave?
1:16:22 is the answer
I would recommend reading Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae for some insights into this
In its extreme they would be grossly macho (whether man or woman) - brazenly confident / aggressive toward any perceived weakness in others. They would react strongly against insecurity/softness/vulnerability as those behaviors are antithetical to the constellation of belief in “absolute certainty.”
The irony is that the more they strike out at weakness in others the more obvious it is to everyone that they don’t possess the phallus.
Jerry Seinfeld as Kramer.
18:50 as a Brit I can conclude on this basis that counting starts with G
What’s the distinction between the phallus and the signifier for lack of the other ?
I believe that for Lacan the phallus is always a "phallus+1," (at least I heard that in another lecture). That is, the phallus refers to its natural objective? Which might be where the phallus would insert for procreation, in a rough, naturalistic explanation. We know now that no such coitus is actually needed for procreation. Whether I have a good handle on it, the whole thing reminds me of Darwin's orchid "noteworthy for its long spur and its association with the naturalist Charles Darwin, who surmised that the flower was pollinated by a then undiscovered moth with a proboscis whose length was unprecedented at the time." (Wiki)
@@peace_cat76 how do u understand the signifier for lack in the other
@@Onehundredpounds I guess I haven't yet arrived at a real understanding yet, to be honest. But I do tend to think of the word used often in translations of Sartre: "refers," refers to; presupposes, etc.
I'm just now reaquainting myself with Lacan after peering into Julia Kristeva's "Powers of Horror." She mentions him quite a bit, if memory serves.
The other in Sartre seems to mean *conflict* more than anything. Which then means we have to sort out that long talked about Lord/bondsman relationship in Hegel and before.
Just shooting from the hip now (and thanks so much for even asking me what I think. I have to admit it's kind of thrilling; so just the same, I will ask you!) anyway, perhaps the other has a very natural signification in that it lacks *me*?
@Erika Okay, I think I am finally piecing together an answer for your original question...🥁... *No difference* !
1) "the phallus" signifies only lack of its own incompleteness (due to its being only one of an infinite possibility of signifiers);
2) behind the -ier there's no signif-ied, only *more lack* ??
Well, that's an attempt. I found the following vid pretty helpful. I also like his style.
ruclips.net/video/0yYEP9jIUbE/видео.html
Anyway, this by no means settles things for me. I really intend to get my head so fully round this discourse as to see it in the light of an aerobeacon⛵ Which means then to make it practicable. ✌
The fail-us is a kind of numeral zero, no? As in Sartre, whose "being of negation" is called "Nothingness." It's nothing to be sure, but just the same slips in there, at the heart of being. There must be an accounting for it somehow, though it defies as surely as the advent of zero.
It is desire as lack, a thing that means no-thing. And it is used then as some utterance, some incantation to ward off pain, yet it never works completely because what the mother lacks (in the case of an offspring endeavoring to materialize what seems surely to be missing) is something that extends far back to what's been called the "primary suppression." Besides, as it's been explained to me in that same video, the Name of the Father, in this Oedipal schemata, aka the Law, superego, etc., comes to the rescue before the hero exhausts himself in trying to land a bull's-eye on this ever moving target called a mother's fulfillment. In short, we are not allowed to supply what can never be supplied?
This is another stab at it.
Why the blinkered drive toward the hermetically-sealed single entity? The baby's need is the mother and father's need, is grandmother and grandfathers need, is the culture's need. Moses was picked from the reeds. Our heart breaks at other's pain. There is no reason why chains of relationships of meaning making need to terminate at or germinate from 'individuals'. In the clarifying argument at 44 mins, through the wider definition of inter uterine behaviors as 'language', what results is a subject. The construction of an individual subject is the essential 'result' of the argument. It is ridiculous to imagine that the baby 'uses' signs. It is better to think that the Other is filtered through language and culture to constitute the concept "child", which, if it identities with the concept (which it will) will forever feel a lack because it is not, in fact 'the child'. The process of subject formation does not happen from the inside out, as there is no 'inside' to function 'at' the 'outside'.
good attempt at a knotty topic
rustyroche borromean knotty
@@Onehundredpounds that's probably the worst kind of knot i can think of right now
I don't think the significance of phallus can be just dismissed as grammar based semantics, especially when it actually forms the basis of perceiving language, structuring Law & Cultural order, that distinguishes man from animals.
So, it's more representive of the SPIRIT or consciousness (intelligence) symbolised by the masculine (ORDER) while feminine is symbolic of embodying NATURE, the unconscious (CHAOS).
Hence, it's no surprise almost all societies and systems around the world are predominantly formed, structured, & governed by men including the patriarchal social order. In essence, the mental is masculine and material is the feminine.
The phallus can actually be considered a "sign" that can manifest of the Absolute Truth.
He is reall good
Semiotics is the general theory of signs, not a subfield of linguistics.
Lacan recognizes the real problem then approaches from the wrong angle ( psychoanalysis ).The essential problem. A child's experience with a mirror that leads it to see itself as
an independent separate entity, and from then on feeling isolated and alienated from the world. Thence a hole that can never be filled. Perhaps mother/father/phallus are the first things it tries to plug that hole with .Psychoanalysis is a misstep in solving this because its fundamental tenets are the reality of mind and self. Which I assert are naturally arising fictions stemming from the perspective of a world out there and a self here in a body. The only unity that can be found is in the abandonment of the imaginary self/ego. But can this illusion pick itself up by its own bootstraps. Psychoanalysis maybe a good sticking plaster for some of life's problems but not this one. This father/mother/child/phallus thing is just a side show to the essential problem of the imagined separation/alienation from the world. There is no mind/ego/self in the first instance. Oh, and something else, no such thing as volition. Once cognized this goes a very long way to making life much more bearable
"But can this illusion pick itself up by its own bootstraps."? Do you mean "But can this illusion pick itself up by its own bootstraps?", Adrian, or is it a rhetorical question? Anyway, Narcissus was enchanted by his reflection; are we all narcissists? And once we've seen reality as we do, can we ever "unsee" it again, however mistaken we may judge it, theoretically?
Ain’t the phallus a barred zero?
Dope Casio
with starting counting from -1 being starts from a negativity
Love comes only after language? I truly doubt it.
What would a pre-language love mean?
Even that question doesn't make sense as 'meaning' itself is constituted by language. Love isn't a biological instinct. We may talk about the series of biological instincts that culminate into the idea of love for an infant (touch, eye contact, warmth, etc). However, once we are in the realm of grouping the singular biological needs into the concept of "love" we are in the realm of language. It's by logical necessity that love comes only after language
@@Jakecmuir so love is not natural?
@@mosheberman7049 depends entirely on what you mean by natural
@@Jakecmuir i.e., basic needs, such as air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep, protection, security?
@@mosheberman7049The thing love has that is different to this list is that it is social. I'd still call it natural, personally. I'd just say it happens post-language not pre-language. as language initials The Social.
11:30 language creating reality - is this not metaphysics?
Did he just say: “a women not wearing anything?” Nice Freudian slip. 😂
No, I don't think so. The point is that the female subject doesn't need to have anything (the red dress, or whatever, as a male subject would), but desires to be/embody the phallus.
@@SinoSene I’ve never wanted to be a dick myself.
why does he drink from the cup for an hour and half? how doesn't it get cold?
terrific lecture though
[redacted]
One lady speaks too much. It is always someone in these lectures or seminars speaks too much, for nothing just for the sake of speaking.
Ladies and Gents here we have a Graet example of Oedipus.
This dude’s never heard of icons and indices?
30:27 i dont know... everytime someone who is not a logician talks about Gödel is cringy to me. What Gödel proved is very concrete: every system in which you can express arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete. If it is inconsistent then just we all go home and wait for our deaths. If it is incomplete it means that we can find some (an infinite amout) statements which are coherent with arithmetic. This does not proves that 'every coherent system has a blind spot', we have completeness for many theories in math.
Of course this is not a logic course and what he vaguely said is vaguely true, even in some ways this is adding to his talk a good example of his blind spot. More, if we think that language somehow can be codified in arithmetic (we code maybe the alphabet as numbers in a recursive way) this has a concrete and i even dare to say direct mathematical consequence.
What theories are complete?
@@le-ore Dense linear order, Algebraically closed fields, Ordered boolean algebras. If you take any structure and consider its theory (all the statements that hold in it) T, then T is complete.
@@sufronausea Thanks!
Omg that woman who can't stop talking. Had to turn off. Unbearable.
i don't get what they're saying at all
Hard to imagine Freud believing a word of the metaphorizing of his notions, notions he created out of thin air and cocaine. Frederick Crews Freud:The making of an illusion, reveals the house of cards Lacan is build on.
It matters not the intention Freud had. His word were out there, lacan used them, lacan’s theories became useful. The author of the words has no ownership over the gains made using those words
@@Jakecmuir Moby Dick is a good story even if there never was a white whale...the power of a story.
Lacan seems more like Pfizer repurposing a heart medication for the phallus. Freud and Lacan, 'the high priests of capitalism' profited well with their obscure stories for the privileged. Psychoanalysis: the church of the truth, rests on shaky ground.
@@leanmchungry4735 Shaky ground or no, the theories have done good work, helped people clinically, and has made large theoretical moves within contemporary ontology. Contemporary philosophy - particularly in the continental tradtional - positions itself in relation to lacan.
Lacan profited, as a capitalist, from his theories? sure we can say that. Contemporary anti-capitalism still uses lacan as a vital theoretical tool.
Why do you keep saying "right?"