Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 > Clarity, being prior to experience and thought, > is not a product of what happens to or in > experience and thought. Hi Dan, I agree with your observations. Romanticisms around and about psychotic states only denote poorly understood circumstances and a lack of personal experience with individuals, who suffer such an alteration. In my experience many symptoms of psychotics resemble in some way the symptoms of persons, who have suffered neuronal lesions in the frontal lobes, temporal lobes or hippocampus. This, in addition to the biochemical, genetic and behavioural approaches. Psychosis continues to be a umbrella term. Concerning Lacan, I know that there are a lot of mis- and preconceptions, above all, in the US-american audience. Despite the fact that intersubjective treatment approaches have become an attractive alternative. So, I get not tired in offering this link to those interested in such items: http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/gurewich.htm I have read Lacan for 10 years ago and Freud only partially before Lacan and completely afterwards. To read directly Lacan's writings is perhaps not recommendable due to his impossible style. My link to Lacan was Derrida. I like, above all, Lacan's metapsychology and phylosophical approaches. I have rediscovered him, actually, reading spiritual literature and reinterpret him now in a completely different way. And that's what, I guess, he actually wanted, using a nearly impossible style in writing. To open spaces for interpretations, somehow like poetry, to enable the reader to come to his own conclusions and insights. best, Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > Clarity, being prior to experience and thought, > > is not a product of what happens to or in > > experience and thought. > > > Hi Dan, > > > I agree with your observations. Romanticisms around and about > psychotic states only denote poorly understood circumstances and a > lack of personal experience with individuals, who suffer such an > alteration. In my experience many symptoms of psychotics resemble in > some way the symptoms of persons, who have suffered neuronal lesions > in the frontal lobes, temporal lobes or hippocampus. This, in > addition to the biochemical, genetic and behavioural approaches. > Psychosis continues to be a umbrella term. > > > Concerning Lacan, I know that there are a lot of mis- and > preconceptions, above all, in the US-american audience. Despite the > fact that intersubjective treatment approaches have become an > attractive alternative. So, I get not tired in offering this link to > those interested in such items: > > > http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/gurewich.htm What is the 'Other' Lacan talks about? Isn't that only a thought/emotion construct in a person? And what is that other than a fragmented view of reality? Isn't that another illusion of separate authority? /AL > > > I have read Lacan for 10 years ago and Freud only partially before > Lacan and completely afterwards. To read directly Lacan's writings > is perhaps not recommendable due to his impossible style. My link to > Lacan was Derrida. I like, above all, Lacan's metapsychology and > phylosophical approaches. I have rediscovered him, actually, reading > spiritual literature and reinterpret him now in a completely > different way. And that's what, I guess, he actually wanted, using a > nearly impossible style in writing. To open spaces for > interpretations, somehow like poetry, to enable the reader to come > to his own conclusions and insights. > > > > best, > Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 What is the 'Other' Lacan talks about? Isn't that only a thought/emotion construct in a person? And what is that other than a fragmented view of reality? Isn't that another illusion of separate authority? Hi Anders, No, it is a transpersonal thingy within the " dream " composed by the Imaginary, Real and Symbolic. The discourse of the Other is unconscious. The flow of the unconscious; a transpersonal, a collective phenomenon. It is the mold built since immemorial times in which the subject, Anders, suddenly has found himself, entering language (very short). BTW, no need to be afraid about illusions and authorities, like Werner said.....don't avoid them, they are only ghosts. rgds Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > What is the 'Other' Lacan talks about? Isn't that only a > thought/emotion construct in a person? And what is that other than a > fragmented view of reality? Isn't that another illusion of separate > authority? > > > > Hi Anders, > > > No, it is a transpersonal thingy within the " dream " composed by the > Imaginary, Real and Symbolic. The discourse of the Other is > unconscious. The flow of the unconscious; a transpersonal, a > collective phenomenon. It is the mold built since immemorial times > in which the subject, Anders, suddenly has found himself, entering > language (very short). > > > BTW, no need to be afraid about illusions and authorities, like > Werner said.....don't avoid them, they are only ghosts. > > > rgds > Kip Almazy Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question asked by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question asked by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? Is there such a thing like consciousness? LOL, Anders, the unconscious is much more " real " than you can imagine. I have never read a book of J.K., don't know why, but, I've got know the impression, he asked the wrong question. Consciousness is the " ships-kobold " !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question asked > by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented > perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? > And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > Is there such a thing like consciousness? LOL, Anders, the > unconscious is much more " real " than you can imagine. I have never > read a book of J.K., don't know why, but, I've got know the > impression, he asked the wrong question. > > Consciousness is the " ships-kobold " !!! J. K. also said that no analysis will ever be complete. Think about it! When will any analysis ever be completed? Not even Lacan can complete any analysis. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question asked > > by J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented > > perception the need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? > > And isn't that fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing like consciousness? LOL, Anders, the > > unconscious is much more " real " than you can imagine. I have never > > read a book of J.K., don't know why, but, I've got know the > > impression, he asked the wrong question. > > > > Consciousness is the " ships-kobold " !!! > > J. K. also said that no analysis will ever be complete. Think about > it! When will any analysis ever be completed? Not even Lacan can > complete any analysis. > > /AL Any analysis bifurcates into infinity, and the world of phenomenality is an ever expanding web. No analysis can ever answer any fundamental question. That's the fallacy of the thinking mind. Nothing wrong with analysis, it has its place. But when it comes to spirituality, the intellect cannot grasp the wholeness pointed to by sages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 > J. K. also said that no analysis will ever be complete. Think about > it! When will any analysis ever be completed? Not even Lacan can > complete any analysis. Indeed! He coined the expression of the unfinishable analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 What's the fundamental question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > When reading years ago that question of K and his following > statement, I too was startled because I never before have questioned > it. Yet in the meantime I made friends with the idea that only a > fragmented mind which is not whole could have a structure of parts > which are not conscious and which is called the unconscious (by > analysts which too suffer from the same fragmentation). > > And his statement that the analyser is the analysed did attract lots > of psychogists to K's meetings and discussions. > > Werner Yes, dreams for example, may come from the unconscious. The funny thing is that K said that when your mind is whole there will be no need for dreams. Ramesh Balsekar didn't like what K said about not having dreams. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > What's the fundamental question? I would guess if we would ask J. K. then he would say: How can the mind see life as a whole movement not divided into separate parts? 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.