Thank you for your valuable videos, Derek. Any chance of a series on Anxiety in Freud and Lacan? Currently treading my way through Lacan’s Seminars on Anxiety and finding it a challenge.
That's a great suggestion. I have a paper on the topic of white anxiety just published in the journal Psychoanalysis Culture and Society. I've tried to keep the Lacan material brief so as not to inundate the non-laconians but I'd love to do a short video or two on the topic. Thanks for the suggestion.
Curious how one would consider death drive vis a vis Tod McGowan’s recent video on the relationship between sacrifice and value. I had nearly changed my thinking on jouissance in full to say, “jouissance is what preserves the Being of the subject, whereas the pleasure principle-whereby the subject attempts to master or “use” the object of desire-is what inevitably affects our undoing”, which of course seems insane, but Dr. McGowan’s notion that what is sacrificed is in a sense withheld from the voracity of the drives-maybe we could say, those things which are rendered symbolic via negation?-become sublime. Not to say that what is sublime is necessarily full of jouissance, even if this connection would suggest itself. The connotation as I understood it was that what is absented takes the object away from the subject such that the subject (via the drives) cannot encounter it and thus is spared the inevitable experience of the falling out of the cause of desire and the disruption of Being that results. Perhaps my question is, is there a jouissance of contemplation? Is the jouissance of this sacrifice or absenting (or the sublime) what is called feminine jouissance (insofar as the organ has always already been absented)? Left a like and have been consistently recommending your videos to friends. Thank you for your work.
What your comments made me think of was the apparent move posited by Lacan in Seminar XI from being a subject of the desire to being a subject of drive. This is offered as one prospective end-point of analysis. Interestingly, such a move can be read as prospective revisiting and alteration of his earlier famous remarks in Sem VII 'the only thing the subject can be guilty of is giving way on their desire'. I mention it here because to be the subject of desire always positions the subject in a relation to an object (even if object understood as object a) and in relation (necessarily) to the desire of the Other. To be a subject of drive by contrast means that that one is not locked into a relationship with the desire of the Other or in a relation to an object (at least in theory), but rathe to the ceaseless activities of drive and jouissance. That is all very schematic, and I've not seen Todd's video on sacrifice - but just thought I'd share a few thoughts. Thanks for the ongoing support!
How would you say the internet and the age of information effects the lacanian subject? I feel like the constant call to meaning and truth of today's age must have some really interesting implications for psychoanalysis.
In the context of the Death Drive lectures one could say that it is becoming harder and harder to achieve symbolic death or pure anonymity given the number of traces of online presence. It seems that increasingly there is a fascination with going off the grid. In respect of your comment on truth my own sense is that we are constantly being bombarded with requests to signify not so much though with injunctions to produce truth particularly not truth in the Lacanian sense of unconscious desire.
@@derekhookonlacan Very insightful thank you! I'm a high school student and I am in a research course and I was thinking of writing my paper on psychoanalysis and the humor of younger people in the face of growing up with the internet. I was wondering what you would think about using the death drive to try and explain some of the absurdist humor found on the internet since it seems to be some sort of destruction of social structures and meaningfulness. Thank you for the input your videos are an incredibly valuable resource for explaining more of the nuance when moving from Freudian death drive to Lacanian death drive.
Every 'DRIVE' is a Death Drive. Why is this guy missing Oral/ anal/ scopic & Invocatory - realms? Jouisssance has no reason and rhyme. So is the Death Drive. Drives are concerned of its own satisfaction and nothing else. Why does he simply miss the most elementary teaching of Lacan?
Hi Buddy. Yes, there are particular (oral/anal/scopic/invocatory) aspects of the drive, you are quite right. I think those are worth exploring in a series of talks focusing on the drive in its own right. Right now I’m focusing particularly the philosophical/psychical aspects of the death drive drive and so am trying not to add too many complications. You say jouissance has no rhyme or reason, but surely fantasy provides precisely the arrangement and/or the frame or narrative that attempts to make sense of jouissance...? Racism seems a case in point. It seems to me jouissance (at least in neurotic subjects) exists only relatively rarely in what we might guardedly call a non narrativised/‘autistic’ kind of way....?
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Man am I glad to see you're back to posting again. It's hard to find this level of intellectual engagement on RUclips. Your work is appreciated Derek!
Thanks for the support!
Glad to see you back !
What an incredible channel. I’m ploughing through Zizek’s less than nothing, and your videos are so so helpful. Extremely well-researched.
Hurrah, you're back! Have really appreciated these videos.
Please do a whole mini lecture series on drives as you promised in 18:00!!
And Derek,
Where do I find the lecture for the "drive is an a subjective force?". Would love to watch a lecture on that
Thank you for your valuable videos, Derek.
Any chance of a series on Anxiety in Freud and Lacan? Currently treading my way through Lacan’s Seminars on Anxiety and finding it a challenge.
That's a great suggestion. I have a paper on the topic of white anxiety just published in the journal Psychoanalysis Culture and Society. I've tried to keep the Lacan material brief so as not to inundate the non-laconians but I'd love to do a short video or two on the topic. Thanks for the suggestion.
Curious how one would consider death drive vis a vis Tod McGowan’s recent video on the relationship between sacrifice and value. I had nearly changed my thinking on jouissance in full to say, “jouissance is what preserves the Being of the subject, whereas the pleasure principle-whereby the subject attempts to master or “use” the object of desire-is what inevitably affects our undoing”, which of course seems insane, but Dr. McGowan’s notion that what is sacrificed is in a sense withheld from the voracity of the drives-maybe we could say, those things which are rendered symbolic via negation?-become sublime. Not to say that what is sublime is necessarily full of jouissance, even if this connection would suggest itself. The connotation as I understood it was that what is absented takes the object away from the subject such that the subject (via the drives) cannot encounter it and thus is spared the inevitable experience of the falling out of the cause of desire and the disruption of Being that results. Perhaps my question is, is there a jouissance of contemplation? Is the jouissance of this sacrifice or absenting (or the sublime) what is called feminine jouissance (insofar as the organ has always already been absented)? Left a like and have been consistently recommending your videos to friends. Thank you for your work.
What your comments made me think of was the apparent move posited by Lacan in Seminar XI from being a subject of the desire to being a subject of drive. This is offered as one prospective end-point of analysis. Interestingly, such a move can be read as prospective revisiting and alteration of his earlier famous remarks in Sem VII 'the only thing the subject can be guilty of is giving way on their desire'. I mention it here because to be the subject of desire always positions the subject in a relation to an object (even if object understood as object a) and in relation (necessarily) to the desire of the Other. To be a subject of drive by contrast means that that one is not locked into a relationship with the desire of the Other or in a relation to an object (at least in theory), but rathe to the ceaseless activities of drive and jouissance. That is all very schematic, and I've not seen Todd's video on sacrifice - but just thought I'd share a few thoughts. Thanks for the ongoing support!
How would you say the internet and the age of information effects the lacanian subject? I feel like the constant call to meaning and truth of today's age must have some really interesting implications for psychoanalysis.
In the context of the Death Drive lectures one could say that it is becoming harder and harder to achieve symbolic death or pure anonymity given the number of traces of online presence. It seems that increasingly there is a fascination with going off the grid. In respect of your comment on truth my own sense is that we are constantly being bombarded with requests to signify not so much though with injunctions to produce truth particularly not truth in the Lacanian sense of unconscious desire.
@@derekhookonlacan Very insightful thank you! I'm a high school student and I am in a research course and I was thinking of writing my paper on psychoanalysis and the humor of younger people in the face of growing up with the internet. I was wondering what you would think about using the death drive to try and explain some of the absurdist humor found on the internet since it seems to be some sort of destruction of social structures and meaningfulness. Thank you for the input your videos are an incredibly valuable resource for explaining more of the nuance when moving from Freudian death drive to Lacanian death drive.
Every 'DRIVE' is a Death Drive. Why is this guy missing Oral/ anal/ scopic & Invocatory - realms? Jouisssance has no reason and rhyme. So is the Death Drive. Drives are concerned of its own satisfaction and nothing else. Why does he simply miss the most elementary teaching of Lacan?
Hi Buddy. Yes, there are particular (oral/anal/scopic/invocatory) aspects of the drive, you are quite right. I think those are worth exploring in a series of talks focusing on the drive in its own right. Right now I’m focusing particularly the philosophical/psychical aspects of the death drive drive and so am trying not to add too many complications. You say jouissance has no rhyme or reason, but surely fantasy provides precisely the arrangement and/or the frame or narrative that attempts to make sense of jouissance...? Racism seems a case in point. It seems to me jouissance (at least in neurotic subjects) exists only relatively rarely in what we might guardedly call a non narrativised/‘autistic’ kind of way....?