Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 According to Lacan, humans are born undifferentiated from the world. We are not a subject because we know no Other to be in relation to. At first, when the child sees an image in the mirror, it still replaces this image of the Other with some sense of the self. Gradually, though, the mirror image becomes an image outside of the self: we become both subject and object. The image becomes a sign for a self. Once we get to this stage of the symbolic (the mirror image is a symbol for the self), we can never go back to the state where we were a unified self, where there was no symbol separate from the self. Lacan uses the notion of the Ego-Ideal to describe the memory of the state before our creation as a subject where the child and the image were the same, where there was no Other. This is a state of delight and one which we will always desire. Thus, we constantly try to fill in the gap of our fractured ego. The idea of wholeness is illusory. Individuals are fragmented. " ...Lacan reminds his students over and over to stop trying to understand everything, because understanding is ultimately a form of defense, of bringing everything back to what is known. The more you try to understand, the less you hear—the less you can hear something new and different. " —Bruce Fink, The Lacanian Between Language and Jouissance, Princeton University Press, 1995. The words most commonly used to define the real are " ineffable " and " impossible " : " it is impossible to imagine, impossible to integrate into the symbolic order, and impossible to attain in any way " (Evans 160; see also Bowie 95). Indeed, the chief qualities of the real in Lacan's scheme are that it is unsymbolisable and unrepresentable, that it precedes, exceeds, and supersedes any attempt to give it a coherent and comprehensible form. " The undecidability of the concept `real' is scrupulously preserved. The real is an uncrossable threshold for the subject, and not one that can be sidestepped in the analytic encounter " (Bowie 106). Approachable only asymptotically, the real is most often defined by way of paradoxes; it lies beyond the network of signifiers, yet causes an uncontrollable upheaval within it. It is firm and obdurate, yet its intrusions upon the subject cannot be anticipated or forestalled. […] The real is more forcible than anything else in the world, yet it is phantasmal, shallow and fortuitous. […] The real is inward and outward at once, and belongs indifferently to sanity and to madness. In all its modes, it successfully resists the intercessions of language. (Bowie 110) Furthermore, this undecidability is a feature of the real upon which Lacan insisted as its most essential defining feature: " Lacan takes pains to ensure that the real remains the most elusive and mysterious of the three orders, by speaking of it less than of the other orders, and by making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is never completely clear whether the real is external or internal, or whether it is unknowable or amenable to reason " (Evans 160). In a realm characterised by the fundamentally negative mode of definition and differentiation (i.e. the RSI), the real stands out as extraordinarily negative and exceptionally undifferentiated. http://web.uvic.ca/~saross/lacan.html Best, Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 <snip> <<The idea of wholeness is illusory. Individuals are fragmented.>> Maybe so, but, fragmented-ness is inherent in wholeness Little bubbles rising to the surface, and then dissipating back into what produced it in the first place. What is real is what precedes, is the common thread, underlies it all. Blank canvas. The blank canvas << " ...Lacan reminds his students over and over to stop trying to understand everything, because understanding is ultimately a form of defense, of bringing everything back to what is known. The more you try to understand, the less you hear—the less you can hear something new and different. " —Bruce Fink, The Lacanian Between Language and Jouissance, Princeton University Press, 1995.>> Can you paint with all the colors of the wind? kindest regards, freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , freyjartist@a... wrote: > > <snip> > > > <<The idea of wholeness is illusory. Individuals are fragmented.>> > > Maybe so, but, fragmented-ness is inherent in wholeness > > Little bubbles rising to the surface, and then dissipating > back into what produced it in the first place. > LOL Was pondering tiny bubbles this morning while soaking in the bath...... ...fire mixing with water..........bubbles......breaking through the surface tension.......self-contained....complete little.....infinite.... universes...........semi-permeable..... mem-brain........only lets data in......never out........expanding....in time.........bursting......back into the emptiness........ shiney......mysterious........little bubbles........... ************************************* ((((((@)))))))) (f) ? ************************************* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , kip shared: > > <snip> > << " ...Lacan reminds his students over and over to stop trying to > > understand everything, because understanding is ultimately a form of > > defense, of bringing everything back to what is known. The more you > > try to understand, the less you hear the less you can hear something > > new and different. " > > > > Bruce Fink, The Lacanian Between Language and Jouissance, > > Princeton University Press, 1995.>> > > I recently saw a film called " Dopamine " in which the man did not believe in any mystery called 'love'. He attributed both the feelings of love and lust to the chemical activity of neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine and pheromones. (We are shown how part of this is due to conditioning...a father who loses all hope in something called love due to having a wife in the advanced stages of Alzheimers) The woman believed in something else...love. Essentially a mystery, this thing called love. In the DVD special features, the director says something very similar to this quote above, how in our quest to understand everything and eagerness to give up beliefs, we may miss quite a lot, and that it is OK to believe, listen to and trust feelings. He was not speaking only to falling-in-love/romantic attachment. good flick! imo DOPAMINE (2003) Sundance Film Festival, directed by Mark Decena DOPAMINE, named after the natural amphetamine our bodies produce when we're falling in love, is a romantic drama for the hi-tech age. Rand (John Livingston) and his two friends, Winston (Bruno Campos) and Johnson (Rueben Grundy) are passionate and driven computer programmers who have designed an artificial intelligence life form named Koy Koy. When forced by their investors to test Koy Koy in a kindergarten classroom, Rand meets Sarah (Sabrina Lloyd), the teacher to whom he was inexplicably drawn to at his favorite bar one evening. Sparks fly and and Koy Koy becomes the catalyst for Sarah and Rand's spirited dialogue on the nature of romantic attraction and attachment, all the while getting to the root of whether love is chemical or chemistry. > kindest regards, > > freyja > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Hi Freyja! >>I recently saw a film called " Dopamine " in which the man did not believe in any mystery called 'love'. He attributed both the feelings of love and lust to the chemical activity of neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine and pheromones. (We are shown how part of this is due to conditioning...a father who loses all hope in something called love due to having a wife in the advanced stages of Alzheimers) The woman believed in something else...love. Essentially a mystery, this thing called love.>> Nisargadatta said one time, that, it would be actually enough to apprehend, once and for all, that everything, manifested or not, is in its essence love. I agree. Perhaps, and I include myself in the first position, such frugalness of perception seemed not to have sufficient gravity to make the complexity of the phenomenal world plausible. Once, someone recognizes that there is actually nothing to understand, besides, that there is nothing to understand, love returns like an unhoped-for guest into daily life. Love, I would say, is, mathematics on its highest level, without numbers or symbols and with them, too. Essentially it is a mystery, sure, but, isn't the obvious, perceived as obvious, not an equitable mystery. Redundancy accrues by labelling the obvious and love is perhaps the most used etiquette since human history. Why this urge? Perhaps there is no difference between consciousness and love. Love is consciousness. And, consciousness, as well as music, isn't capped. It's impossible to draw up a budget on love. We all are experts and masters on love but some of us, like to hide it more than others or just try, by using more and more sophisticated ways of expression, to provoke a surprise-effect waking up those living in grey lethargy of common sense and rationality, like me. kindest regards Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > Hi Freyja! > > > >>I recently saw a film called " Dopamine " > in which the man did not believe in any > mystery called 'love'. He attributed both > the feelings of love and lust to > the chemical activity of neurotransmitters > dopamine and norepinephrine and pheromones. > (We are shown how part of this is due to > conditioning...a father who loses all hope > in something called love due to having a wife > in the advanced stages of Alzheimers) > > The woman believed in something else...love. > > Essentially a mystery, this thing called love.>> > > > Nisargadatta said one time, that, it would be actually enough to > apprehend, once and for all, that everything, manifested or not, is > in its essence love. I agree. Perhaps, and I include myself in the > first position, such frugalness of perception seemed not to have > sufficient gravity to make the complexity of the phenomenal world > plausible. Once, someone recognizes that there is actually nothing to > understand, besides, that there is nothing to understand, love > returns like an unhoped-for guest into daily life. Love, I would say, > is, mathematics on its highest level, without numbers or symbols and > with them, too. Essentially it is a mystery, sure, but, isn't the > obvious, perceived as obvious, not an equitable mystery. Redundancy > accrues by labelling the obvious and love is perhaps the most used > etiquette since human history. Why this urge? Perhaps there is no > difference between consciousness and love. Love is consciousness. > And, consciousness, as well as music, isn't capped. It's impossible > to draw up a budget on love. We all are experts and masters on love > but some of us, like to hide it more than others or just try, by > using more and more sophisticated ways of expression, to provoke a > surprise-effect waking up those living in grey lethargy of common > sense and rationality, like me.> > > kindest regards > Kip Almazy Well said. There is a universal force at work in the Cosmos. It tries to unify, it's an attraction felt by each particle of matter, for others. This force is felt in the mind as love. There seems to be, also, a universal force for separation. On a cosmic scale it produces an expansion which it's accelerating. I'ts called dark energy by physicists. In the mind is felt as aversion and hate. Pete Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > wrote: > > Hi Freyja! > > > > > > >>I recently saw a film called " Dopamine " > > in which the man did not believe in any > > mystery called 'love'. He attributed both > > the feelings of love and lust to > > the chemical activity of neurotransmitters > > dopamine and norepinephrine and pheromones. > > (We are shown how part of this is due to > > conditioning...a father who loses all hope > > in something called love due to having a wife > > in the advanced stages of Alzheimers) > > > > The woman believed in something else...love. > > > > Essentially a mystery, this thing called love.>> > > > > > > Nisargadatta said one time, that, it would be actually enough to > > apprehend, once and for all, that everything, manifested or not, is > > in its essence love. I agree. Perhaps, and I include myself in the > > first position, such frugalness of perception seemed not to have > > sufficient gravity to make the complexity of the phenomenal world > > plausible. Once, someone recognizes that there is actually nothing > to > > understand, besides, that there is nothing to understand, love > > returns like an unhoped-for guest into daily life. Love, I would > say, > > is, mathematics on its highest level, without numbers or symbols > and > > with them, too. Essentially it is a mystery, sure, but, isn't the > > obvious, perceived as obvious, not an equitable mystery. Redundancy > > accrues by labelling the obvious and love is perhaps the most used > > etiquette since human history. Why this urge? Perhaps there is no > > difference between consciousness and love. Love is consciousness. > > And, consciousness, as well as music, isn't capped. It's impossible > > to draw up a budget on love. We all are experts and masters on love > > but some of us, like to hide it more than others or just try, by > > using more and more sophisticated ways of expression, to provoke a > > surprise-effect waking up those living in grey lethargy of common > > sense and rationality, like me.> > > > > kindest regards > > Kip Almazy > ah....such beautiful layers in those words, thank you! consciousness =love, love = consciousness and everything is included, that's right, no cap... not 'this is the way to look at things', 'this is the way not to look at things' it is natural to ponder the nature of consciousness...natural to BE conscious, this is the nature of human beingness > Well said. There is a universal force at work in the Cosmos. > It tries to unify, it's an attraction felt by each particle > of matter, for others. This force is felt in the mind as love. > There seems to be, also, a universal force for separation. On > a cosmic scale it produces an expansion which it's accelerating. > I'ts called dark energy by physicists. In the mind is felt as > aversion and hate. > > Pete > Yes, and it is all very natural. hey, I think I already say that above LOL the feminine energy embraces consciousness, more so than the masculine. It's all in the balance. ~freyja > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Well said. There is a universal force at work in the Cosmos. > > It tries to unify, it's an attraction felt by each particle > > of matter, for others. This force is felt in the mind as love. > > There seems to be, also, a universal force for separation. On > > a cosmic scale it produces an expansion which it's accelerating. > > I'ts called dark energy by physicists. In the mind is felt as > > aversion and hate. > > > > Pete > > > > Yes, and it is all very natural. > > hey, I think I already say that above LOL > > the feminine energy embraces consciousness, > more so than the masculine. > It's all in the balance. > > ~freyja You, sexist pig! Was the above a non sequitur? Kisses, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > Well said. There is a universal force at work in the Cosmos. > > > It tries to unify, it's an attraction felt by each particle > > > of matter, for others. This force is felt in the mind as love. > > > There seems to be, also, a universal force for separation. On > > > a cosmic scale it produces an expansion which it's accelerating. > > > I'ts called dark energy by physicists. In the mind is felt as > > > aversion and hate. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > Yes, and it is all very natural. > > > > hey, I think I already say that above LOL > > > > the feminine energy embraces consciousness, > > more so than the masculine. > > It's all in the balance. > > > > ~freyja > > You, sexist pig! Pete! Come on, I thought you knew me better than that! one is not better than the other, they just dance together, their moves determined by the symphony of energies. > Was the above a non sequitur? > No...I think it has everything to do with it. In that movie I mentioned, the masculine energy, symbolized by the man, was more the one to find a refuge in the scientific, factual world in order to 'explain' his thoughts and feelings, while the feminine was wrapping in a cocoon of feelings and mystique and process, not needing so much explanation. Melding the two is such a lovely brew, don't you think? baci e abbracciare > Kisses, > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > Well said. There is a universal force at work in the Cosmos. > > > > It tries to unify, it's an attraction felt by each particle > > > > of matter, for others. This force is felt in the mind as love. > > > > There seems to be, also, a universal force for separation. On > > > > a cosmic scale it produces an expansion which it's accelerating. > > > > I'ts called dark energy by physicists. In the mind is felt as > > > > aversion and hate. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and it is all very natural. > > > > > > hey, I think I already say that above LOL > > > > > > the feminine energy embraces consciousness, > > > more so than the masculine. > > > It's all in the balance. > > > > > > ~freyja > > > > You, sexist pig! > > Pete! Come on, I thought you knew > me better than that! > > one is not better than the other, > they just dance together, their moves > determined by the symphony of energies. > > > > Was the above a non sequitur? > > > > No...I think it has everything to > do with it. In that movie I mentioned, the > masculine energy, symbolized by the man, > was more the one to find a refuge > in the scientific, factual world in order > to 'explain' his thoughts and feelings, while the feminine > was wrapping in a cocoon of feelings and mystique > and process, not needing so much explanation. > Melding the two is such a lovely > brew, don't you think? > > baci e abbracciare I understand. Thanks. And keep up with the hugs and kisses. > > > > Kisses, > > > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.