A number of religious movements have functioned as apologetics for economic and political conditions throughout history.
Dr. Sinthome, I haven’t researched the Texan situation enough to assess whether or not it is true, but if it is, then the liberal-democratic movement to which you apparently belong is equally complicit in the apology. However you have persistently and with such consequential rigor refused to put Saint Zizek and Saint Clinton under criticial scrutiny, that you have perpretrated the fundemantalist operation yourself, much more than I see Anthony or Adam doing it. Furthermore it’s nearly ridiculous for someone who believes in Lacan to have such a distrustful view of religion. Lacan studied Kabala vigorously, for God’s sakes! parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:12 am Untrue Dejan, you just need to dig through the archives more. I’ve been consistently critical of liberal-democratic movements in a variety of contexts and have levelled some pretty scathing critiques against Zizek on a number of occasions. I just don’t have a black and white view of the world where because I see one aspect of something problematic the whole thing must be rejected, that’s all. A lot in Zizek leaves me grumbling and I find other things to be illuminating.
I think you’ve misread Lacan if you believe he endorses religion. He studies religion in much the same way Freud studies religion in Civilization and its Discontents: As a phenomena of the subject and desire that must be explained immanently in terms of desire, drive, and jouissance. Lacan clearly states, on a number of occasions, that he’s an atheist. Of course, in the clinic this shouldn’t matter as the analyst’s beliefs are irrelevant. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:26 am It seems a bit strange to use a political system that is necessarily one-dimensional to measure the diversity, or lack thereof, of anything, much less religious belief. Chris said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:38 am I just don’t have a black and white view of the world where because I see one aspect of something problematic the whole thing must be rejected, that’s all
OK I will do that, although with respect to Zizek, it is precisely that one crucial ”aspect of it” that you refused to look into, because if you did, you would see democratic fascists, and I think that idea is a ”heresy” in your system. I think you really believe the American Left is GOOD, and that’s why the fundamentalist right is such a BAD threat.
Lacan’s musings on the Real as Paradise Lost, the Phallic order, his explanation of Desire and the petit objet a, and ultimately even the idea of the de-centered self, all resonate strongly with Christianity, as does his oft-repeated injunction to ”die for something” et cetera and so forth. I didn’t know that he declared himself atheist, but then I get the impression he was not as wary of religion as you are. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:44 am Lacan’s musings on the Real as Paradise Lost, the Phallic order, his explanation of Desire and the petit objet a, and ultimately even the idea of the de-centered self, all resonate strongly with Christianity, as does his oft-repeated injunction to ”die for something” et cetera and so forth. I didn’t know that he declared himself atheist, but then I get the impression he was not as wary of religion as you are.
He repeats this on a number of occasions, claiming that psychoanalysis is the only truly atheistic discourse (Seminar 11) and even going so far as to proclaim psychoanalysis an a-theology. Lacan always recommended the study of theology. My take is that he saw theology as tracing the fetishized structure of the unconscious and desire, in much the same way the Feurbach felt that religion contains truth but in an inverted and distorted form. Your remarks are interesting. You seem to suggest that aspects of Lacan ring true because of his Christianity. Why not instead say that aspects of Christianity ring true because they are manifestations of psychoanalytic structures of desire? If psychoanalysis gives us an accurate picture of the subject, then we would expect to find psychoanalytic themes in any cultural formation. The real as “paradise lost” is not unique to Christianity, but nearly every religion has a nostalgic myth of a time before time from which we are fallen. I’m not seeing the other connections you’re making, so I’ll leave it there.
As for the American left… I don’t believe it exists. I dislike fundamentalists of all sorts, whether they be religious or otherwise. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:50 am and even going so far as to proclaim psychoanalysis an a-theology.
the way this was explained to me by other Lacanians and psychoanalysts, and I believe it myself, is that analysis was never meant as priesthood, or a method of deliverance. While many people who don’t dig analysis see it as a form of confession. But analysis won’t save you. Once you’re rid of the neurosis, it’s up to you what you do with your life.So Lacan’s remark this way makes perfect sense.
The real as “paradise lost” is not unique to Christianity, but nearly every religion has a nostalgic myth of a time before time from which we are fallen
However I was addressing HOW the Paradise is lost. I can only make a parallel between Christianity and the psychoanalytic account of the Oedipus narrative. As dr. Zizek duly noted in PUPPET AND DWARF, it is Christianity that proposes la differance, isn’t it? I don’t see strong parallels between that and Buddhism, really.
I dislike fundamentalists of all sorts, whether they be religious or otherwise.
However there are fundamentalists (in this case: Slovenian nationalists) in leftian disguise, … but never mind. The thing is since the external policy of the American Right and Left does not differ one tiny bit, and I know that the fate of Yugoslavia would have been the same under Clinton and Bush, I tend to see your Left and Right as being in a Moebius strip style relationship. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:01 am I don’t like Zizek’s fundamentalism. Happy?
The way this was explained to me by other Lacanians and psychoanalysts, and I believe it myself, is that analysis was never meant as priesthood, or a method of deliverance. While many people who don’t dig analysis see it as a form of confession. But analysis won’t save you. Once you’re rid of the neurosis, it’s up to you what you do with your life. So Lacan’s remark this way makes perfect sense.
All of this is true, though I think Lacan is saying something more substantial than what you here describe. Recall that for Lacan traversing the fantasy consists in overcoming one’s belief in the big Other. Recall that the symbolic is organized around a master-signifier that transcends all the other signifiers and holds them in place. Recall that this structure is represented on the masculine side of the graphs of sexuation, where one term is subtracted from symbolic castration. For Lacan the masculine side of sexuation is theology. It would be organized around unconscious belief in something like the primal father of Totem and Taboo, call him Yahweh if you like, or some equivalent structural placeholder whether it be dear leader, the king, God, the primal father, etc. An a-theology would be a form of desire that is no longer organized in this way or no longer premised on belief in a subject not subject to symbolic castration. That is, psychoanalysis is a-theological in the precise sense that it rejects the discourse of the master or is the other side of the discourse of the master.
Now, it’s perfectly fair to ask whether or not Lacan has a suitably sophisticated understanding of theology. One could, perhaps, show that theology doesn’t necessarily entail a transcendent term like a God or primal father. But this, I take it, is nonetheless what Lacan has in mind when he describes psychoanalysis as a-theological. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:11 am And you know dr. Sinthome the really terrifying and apocalyptic thought about fundamentalism is THIS, namely that the Left and the Right merely mirror each other, and are at the same time completely united in their common goal - the imperial spread of capitalism. So the identity crisis that the Left experiences is a faux-crisis, we all know what the REAL crisis is. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:12 am That is, psychoanalysis is a-theological in the precise sense that it rejects the discourse of the master or is the other side of the discourse of the master.
Of course I understand that, dr. Sinthome, you know I believe in psychoanalysis as subversion, however what makes you think that Christianity is a Master discourse? I for one do not experience it as such. I believe Christianity also asks you to give up on the Master discourse, the big Other, in a number of ways, the most important being its request to abandon the illusion of selfhood. This what would be troublesome about only considering religion in terms of its sociological consequence, because I know from Christian Orthodoxy that faith IS the praxis. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:24 am I mean the Christian subjet is the decentered subjet, fundamentally split, and Christ is adamant in the Bible on earthly Paradise being inaccessible to humans in THIS life, so whatever fool (like a rabid US Christian fundamentalist) tries to bring it into this life will be judged hardly later, in Kingdomcome. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Dr. Sinthome, I haven’t researched the Texan situation enough to assess whether or not it is true, but if it is, then the liberal-democratic movement to which you apparently belong is equally complicit in the apology. However you have persistently and with such consequential rigor refused to put Saint Zizek and Saint Clinton under criticial scrutiny, that you have perpretrated the fundemantalist operation yourself, much more than I see Anthony or Adam doing it. Furthermore it’s nearly ridiculous for someone who believes in Lacan to have such a distrustful view of religion. Lacan studied Kabala vigorously, for God’s sakes! parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:12 am Untrue Dejan, you just need to dig through the archives more. I’ve been consistently critical of liberal-democratic movements in a variety of contexts and have levelled some pretty scathing critiques against Zizek on a number of occasions. I just don’t have a black and white view of the world where because I see one aspect of something problematic the whole thing must be rejected, that’s all. A lot in Zizek leaves me grumbling and I find other things to be illuminating.
I think you’ve misread Lacan if you believe he endorses religion. He studies religion in much the same way Freud studies religion in Civilization and its Discontents: As a phenomena of the subject and desire that must be explained immanently in terms of desire, drive, and jouissance. Lacan clearly states, on a number of occasions, that he’s an atheist. Of course, in the clinic this shouldn’t matter as the analyst’s beliefs are irrelevant. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:26 am It seems a bit strange to use a political system that is necessarily one-dimensional to measure the diversity, or lack thereof, of anything, much less religious belief. Chris said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:38 am I just don’t have a black and white view of the world where because I see one aspect of something problematic the whole thing must be rejected, that’s all
OK I will do that, although with respect to Zizek, it is precisely that one crucial ”aspect of it” that you refused to look into, because if you did, you would see democratic fascists, and I think that idea is a ”heresy” in your system. I think you really believe the American Left is GOOD, and that’s why the fundamentalist right is such a BAD threat.
Lacan’s musings on the Real as Paradise Lost, the Phallic order, his explanation of Desire and the petit objet a, and ultimately even the idea of the de-centered self, all resonate strongly with Christianity, as does his oft-repeated injunction to ”die for something” et cetera and so forth. I didn’t know that he declared himself atheist, but then I get the impression he was not as wary of religion as you are. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:44 am Lacan’s musings on the Real as Paradise Lost, the Phallic order, his explanation of Desire and the petit objet a, and ultimately even the idea of the de-centered self, all resonate strongly with Christianity, as does his oft-repeated injunction to ”die for something” et cetera and so forth. I didn’t know that he declared himself atheist, but then I get the impression he was not as wary of religion as you are.
He repeats this on a number of occasions, claiming that psychoanalysis is the only truly atheistic discourse (Seminar 11) and even going so far as to proclaim psychoanalysis an a-theology. Lacan always recommended the study of theology. My take is that he saw theology as tracing the fetishized structure of the unconscious and desire, in much the same way the Feurbach felt that religion contains truth but in an inverted and distorted form. Your remarks are interesting. You seem to suggest that aspects of Lacan ring true because of his Christianity. Why not instead say that aspects of Christianity ring true because they are manifestations of psychoanalytic structures of desire? If psychoanalysis gives us an accurate picture of the subject, then we would expect to find psychoanalytic themes in any cultural formation. The real as “paradise lost” is not unique to Christianity, but nearly every religion has a nostalgic myth of a time before time from which we are fallen. I’m not seeing the other connections you’re making, so I’ll leave it there.
As for the American left… I don’t believe it exists. I dislike fundamentalists of all sorts, whether they be religious or otherwise. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 4:50 am and even going so far as to proclaim psychoanalysis an a-theology.
the way this was explained to me by other Lacanians and psychoanalysts, and I believe it myself, is that analysis was never meant as priesthood, or a method of deliverance. While many people who don’t dig analysis see it as a form of confession. But analysis won’t save you. Once you’re rid of the neurosis, it’s up to you what you do with your life.So Lacan’s remark this way makes perfect sense.
The real as “paradise lost” is not unique to Christianity, but nearly every religion has a nostalgic myth of a time before time from which we are fallen
However I was addressing HOW the Paradise is lost. I can only make a parallel between Christianity and the psychoanalytic account of the Oedipus narrative. As dr. Zizek duly noted in PUPPET AND DWARF, it is Christianity that proposes la differance, isn’t it? I don’t see strong parallels between that and Buddhism, really.
I dislike fundamentalists of all sorts, whether they be religious or otherwise.
However there are fundamentalists (in this case: Slovenian nationalists) in leftian disguise, … but never mind. The thing is since the external policy of the American Right and Left does not differ one tiny bit, and I know that the fate of Yugoslavia would have been the same under Clinton and Bush, I tend to see your Left and Right as being in a Moebius strip style relationship. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:01 am I don’t like Zizek’s fundamentalism. Happy?
The way this was explained to me by other Lacanians and psychoanalysts, and I believe it myself, is that analysis was never meant as priesthood, or a method of deliverance. While many people who don’t dig analysis see it as a form of confession. But analysis won’t save you. Once you’re rid of the neurosis, it’s up to you what you do with your life. So Lacan’s remark this way makes perfect sense.
All of this is true, though I think Lacan is saying something more substantial than what you here describe. Recall that for Lacan traversing the fantasy consists in overcoming one’s belief in the big Other. Recall that the symbolic is organized around a master-signifier that transcends all the other signifiers and holds them in place. Recall that this structure is represented on the masculine side of the graphs of sexuation, where one term is subtracted from symbolic castration. For Lacan the masculine side of sexuation is theology. It would be organized around unconscious belief in something like the primal father of Totem and Taboo, call him Yahweh if you like, or some equivalent structural placeholder whether it be dear leader, the king, God, the primal father, etc. An a-theology would be a form of desire that is no longer organized in this way or no longer premised on belief in a subject not subject to symbolic castration. That is, psychoanalysis is a-theological in the precise sense that it rejects the discourse of the master or is the other side of the discourse of the master.
Now, it’s perfectly fair to ask whether or not Lacan has a suitably sophisticated understanding of theology. One could, perhaps, show that theology doesn’t necessarily entail a transcendent term like a God or primal father. But this, I take it, is nonetheless what Lacan has in mind when he describes psychoanalysis as a-theological. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:11 am And you know dr. Sinthome the really terrifying and apocalyptic thought about fundamentalism is THIS, namely that the Left and the Right merely mirror each other, and are at the same time completely united in their common goal - the imperial spread of capitalism. So the identity crisis that the Left experiences is a faux-crisis, we all know what the REAL crisis is. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:12 am That is, psychoanalysis is a-theological in the precise sense that it rejects the discourse of the master or is the other side of the discourse of the master.
Of course I understand that, dr. Sinthome, you know I believe in psychoanalysis as subversion, however what makes you think that Christianity is a Master discourse? I for one do not experience it as such. I believe Christianity also asks you to give up on the Master discourse, the big Other, in a number of ways, the most important being its request to abandon the illusion of selfhood. This what would be troublesome about only considering religion in terms of its sociological consequence, because I know from Christian Orthodoxy that faith IS the praxis. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:24 am I mean the Christian subjet is the decentered subjet, fundamentally split, and Christ is adamant in the Bible on earthly Paradise being inaccessible to humans in THIS life, so whatever fool (like a rabid US Christian fundamentalist) tries to bring it into this life will be judged hardly later, in Kingdomcome. parodycenter said this on April 30th, 2007 at 5:29 am
No comments:
Post a Comment