man i was thinking about doing a 15 page essay on the transition from freuds death drive to lacans death drive but i'm starting to realize that this might not be possible to put into 15 pages :/
Very much looking forward to part five. As a practicing clinician who has been “driving” these terms without a psychical tune up for some time, these are much appreciated.
Hi, I commented in an earlyer video where you told me to ask my questions: I'll do it here hoping it is easier for you to see them. I would like to start answering a question you asked at the end of this video: in Lacan’s conceptualisation, why are all drives potentially death drives? You already partially answered in one of those videos: it is because death drive isn’t a particolar kind of drive by itself, like Eros and Thanatos, instead it is one aspect of drive in itself. That’s the first element. The second one is about the signifier “death”: all drives are death-ly in the sense that all drives imply an imbalance inherent in themselves (that’s why, I think, Lacan considers drives as always partial drives, never totally accomplished or balanced). This inevitably places a distance from Freud's theorization of drive, because as you said in Freud the dychotomy between Eros and Thanatos implicitly presuppones the possibility of a balance between the two, and also the possibility for the pleasure principle to reign again. This second element therefore doesn’t concern death drive as much as it concerns drive in itself: in your videos you joined death drive with the Symbolic order, while I think that drive in itself has much to do with the Real, particularly the imbalance inherent in drive itself that makes drive repeat itself relentlessly, in a continuous and enclosed jouissance (which in itself is the satisfaction of a drive, as Lacan says in Seminar VII). At last I can move on to the questions, and I apologize for taking so long but I needed to introduce some context for my questions. 1) How does the conceptualisation of death drive change along with Lacan’s teaching through the years? 2) What’s the relationship between drive and death drive? I know it is a broad question, but I’m specifically interested in two aspects of it. 2a) What’s the relationship between the elements of Symbolic in death drive and the elements of Real in drive itself? (I apologise if the question isn’t clear, please let me know and I’ll try to clarify) 2b) In the last part of Lacan’s teaching in the foreground there is the One of the Real, or in other words the Real of the One, so the jouissance enclosed in itself and the Real as an “act costantly in action” (I’m particularly referring to Seminar XIX): what’s the relationship between drive and death drive in this final part of Lacan’s theory? I guess my questions mostly revolve around the relationship between drive and death drive, so it may only be one broad question in the end. Anyway, thank you very much in advance and congratulations for this very informative and useful channel!
There are varying attempts to think death drive through the symbolic in the 1950's but with seminar VII and the idea of between the two deaths and seminar XI and the notion of lamella, Lacan clearly takes a different turn. My research on death drive has largely followed Zizek's tracing of these concepts which has led me to Lacan but I have not focussed on the seminars, post seminar XI in this respect. To be frank, drive I think is real. Early Lacan tries very hard to reconceptualize many many concepts via the symbolic, some of these attempts work better than others but to my mind drive is fundamentally real although we do find elements of repetition automatism within the symbolic. All drives are potentially death drives in as much all drives can take a turn beyond the pleasure principal towards something damaging or lethal.
Thank you so so so much for spending the time with these videos, it is so appreciated!!!!!
Thank you so much for doing these !
Awesome video. Nice variable length session style ending.
I am excited to finish this series and keep learning from you
man i was thinking about doing a 15 page essay on the transition from freuds death drive to lacans death drive but i'm starting to realize that this might not be possible to put into 15 pages :/
Very much looking forward to part five. As a practicing clinician who has been “driving” these terms without a psychical tune up for some time, these are much appreciated.
Thanks Lacanian_Lifter you were the impetus to get us filming again! Look out for installment number 5.
With every video we see more garden tools!!! These are so amazing and helpful...thank you!!!
Hmm.. Still not getting it :/
Hi, I commented in an earlyer video where you told me to ask my questions: I'll do it here hoping it is easier for you to see them.
I would like to start answering a question you asked at the end of this video: in Lacan’s conceptualisation, why are all drives potentially death drives?
You already partially answered in one of those videos: it is because death drive isn’t a particolar kind of drive by itself, like Eros and Thanatos, instead it is one aspect of drive in itself. That’s the first element. The second one is about the signifier “death”: all drives are death-ly in the sense that all drives imply an imbalance inherent in themselves (that’s why, I think, Lacan considers drives as always partial drives, never totally accomplished or balanced). This inevitably places a distance from Freud's theorization of drive, because as you said in Freud the dychotomy between Eros and Thanatos implicitly presuppones the possibility of a balance between the two, and also the possibility for the pleasure principle to reign again.
This second element therefore doesn’t concern death drive as much as it concerns drive in itself: in your videos you joined death drive with the Symbolic order, while I think that drive in itself has much to do with the Real, particularly the imbalance inherent in drive itself that makes drive repeat itself relentlessly, in a continuous and enclosed jouissance (which in itself is the satisfaction of a drive, as Lacan says in Seminar VII).
At last I can move on to the questions, and I apologize for taking so long but I needed to introduce some context for my questions.
1) How does the conceptualisation of death drive change along with Lacan’s teaching through the years?
2) What’s the relationship between drive and death drive? I know it is a broad question, but I’m specifically interested in two aspects of it.
2a) What’s the relationship between the elements of Symbolic in death drive and the elements of Real in drive itself? (I apologise if the question isn’t clear, please let me know and I’ll try to clarify)
2b) In the last part of Lacan’s teaching in the foreground there is the One of the Real, or in other words the Real of the One, so the jouissance enclosed in itself and the Real as an “act costantly in action” (I’m particularly referring to Seminar XIX): what’s the relationship between drive and death drive in this final part of Lacan’s theory?
I guess my questions mostly revolve around the relationship between drive and death drive, so it may only be one broad question in the end. Anyway, thank you very much in advance and congratulations for this very informative and useful channel!
There are varying attempts to think death drive through the symbolic in the 1950's but with seminar VII and the idea of between the two deaths and seminar XI and the notion of lamella, Lacan clearly takes a different turn. My research on death drive has largely followed Zizek's tracing of these concepts which has led me to Lacan but I have not focussed on the seminars, post seminar XI in this respect.
To be frank, drive I think is real. Early Lacan tries very hard to reconceptualize many many concepts via the symbolic, some of these attempts work better than others but to my mind drive is fundamentally real although we do find elements of repetition automatism within the symbolic. All drives are potentially death drives in as much all drives can take a turn beyond the pleasure principal towards something damaging or lethal.
@@derekhookonlacan Thank you very much for answering, it helped me clear things up a bit.