I like the fact that you always actually read out Lacan in the videos, but would it be at all possible to include page numbers you are reading from? This would be very helpful for locating the passages quickly from my own books.
In that passage from "Subversion of the Subject", where Lacan refers to himself in the 3rd person should, I believe, be taken as an immediate example of what he is talking about, even if it comes to us a bit cheeky and surreptitious. The name of the father, qua symbol, is what throws us out into the Other. This kind of reference to an authority elevates the name of that person to the position of a symbol, a symbol that is intended to cut, to "lay down the law", or is a reference to a phallic signifier. Lacan uses a strange sentence in the last session of Seminar XIX and the third (chapter 2) of Seminar XX, "The fact that one says remains forgotten behind what is said in what is heard". The imaginary father, i.e. the man himself, is forgotten behind, behind what? Behind the symbolic father, i.e. the name of the father, i.e. "Lacan says...". But what is heard is the real father, i.e. the effect of the signifier in the subject, that which creates the gap of the unconscious. Between what is said and what is heard is the ex-sistence of the subject. So, in giving this 3rd person reference to himself, he demonstrates to us or isolates for us the symbolic function of the "name" and shows us, who listen or read him enthralled by him as Other, just how extimate this is.
I'm terribly sorry, Derek. I don't mean to be hoity toity, but isn't "Who's your daddy" correct in lieu of "Whose (possession) your daddy?" Perhaps, it's a word game I had't taken in.
Who's your Daddy not Whose 🙂 "Who's your daddy" has kinda been supplanted by "you're not the boss of me now". The "now" here is important. The next line of the pop song, (from "They might be Giants") that popularised the signifier "you're not the boss of me now....and you're not so Big". There is no big Other 😀 says today's anti-authority big Other, politely acknowledging it's own nonexistence. But they might be giants.
Will correct the Whose. Thanks for spotting. I love your elaboration! That overlap between you are not the boss of me now but there might be giants is perfect.
I think it's in "Subversion of the Subject" where Lacan comments that the father in Freud's work is always the dead father which as you so humorously suggest means that for each declaration that the father is gone or that we are past the father ... the father is more pertinent than ever. Thanks for your comments they made me laugh.
Your channel is a wealth of knowledge. Thank you!!
This is amazing! Thank you so much for doing this video!
Very engaging discussion!
I like the fact that you always actually read out Lacan in the videos, but would it be at all possible to include page numbers you are reading from? This would be very helpful for locating the passages quickly from my own books.
Yes, will bear in mind in future video's. Thanks for watching.
Enjoyed this video & your humor
In that passage from "Subversion of the Subject", where Lacan refers to himself in the 3rd person should, I believe, be taken as an immediate example of what he is talking about, even if it comes to us a bit cheeky and surreptitious. The name of the father, qua symbol, is what throws us out into the Other. This kind of reference to an authority elevates the name of that person to the position of a symbol, a symbol that is intended to cut, to "lay down the law", or is a reference to a phallic signifier. Lacan uses a strange sentence in the last session of Seminar XIX and the third (chapter 2) of Seminar XX, "The fact that one says remains forgotten behind what is said in what is heard". The imaginary father, i.e. the man himself, is forgotten behind, behind what? Behind the symbolic father, i.e. the name of the father, i.e. "Lacan says...". But what is heard is the real father, i.e. the effect of the signifier in the subject, that which creates the gap of the unconscious. Between what is said and what is heard is the ex-sistence of the subject. So, in giving this 3rd person reference to himself, he demonstrates to us or isolates for us the symbolic function of the "name" and shows us, who listen or read him enthralled by him as Other, just how extimate this is.
Amazing explanation, helped me see things a lot more clearly.
Are you from cape Town sir 👀
Would "signifiers=death of the real" be the exact same thing as "signifiers=repression of the truth"? Thanks!
I'm terribly sorry, Derek. I don't mean to be hoity toity, but isn't "Who's your daddy" correct in lieu of "Whose (possession) your daddy?" Perhaps, it's a word game I had't taken in.
the videos in your playlists are in reversed order
I have tried to fix this
It means you are under the wing of the one asking!
Who's your Daddy not Whose 🙂
"Who's your daddy" has kinda been supplanted by "you're not the boss of me now". The "now" here is important.
The next line of the pop song, (from "They might be Giants") that popularised the signifier "you're not the boss of me now....and you're not so Big".
There is no big Other 😀 says today's anti-authority big Other, politely acknowledging it's own nonexistence. But they might be giants.
Will correct the Whose. Thanks for spotting. I love your elaboration! That overlap between you are not the boss of me now but there might be giants is perfect.
I think it's in "Subversion of the Subject" where Lacan comments that the father in Freud's work is always the dead father which as you so humorously suggest means that for each declaration that the father is gone or that we are past the father ... the father is more pertinent than ever. Thanks for your comments they made me laugh.