Guest guest Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > ....just a few word on Lacan's take on the unconscious: > > > > > > Lacan's unconscious is structured like a language, which gives language a key role in construction our picture of the world, but also allows the unconscious to enter into that understanding and dissolve essential distinctions between fantasy and reality. There are no primordial archetypes (Jung) or entities beyond the reach of language (Freud) or logical-sensorimotor structures (Piaget)..... > > > > > > warm regards, > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > where was Lacan when he stood outside the unconscious.. > > > > in order to make such an " objective " observation? > > > > it may be that the disembodied Lacan's " own " unconsciousness.. > > > > had dissolved all fantasy and reality into bullshit. > > > > which required a " letting-out " .. > > > > lest his empty-head burst open under the pressure. > > > > sort of did anyway huh? > > > > .b b.b. > > Hi, > > Lacan's take on the unconscious is simple. > > > The ego, according to Lacan, can never take the place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for Lacan, the ego or " I " self is only an illusion, a product of the unconscious itself. In Lacanese, the unconscious is the ground of all being. > > > You don't need to stay always outside something to make an observation about it. Subjective observations are OK, too. Empirical models can also work. > > Yours, > Kip > The ego will always say that ego is an illusion. That's the way it stays in the business of staying alive. Finer and finer threads separating the last illusion, that of BEING ALIVE. Eh? Love. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > ....just a few word on Lacan's take on the unconscious: > > > > > > Lacan's unconscious is structured like a language, which gives language a key role in construction our picture of the world, but also allows the unconscious to enter into that understanding and dissolve essential distinctions between fantasy and reality. There are no primordial archetypes (Jung) or entities beyond the reach of language (Freud) or logical-sensorimotor structures (Piaget)..... > > > > > > warm regards, > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > where was Lacan when he stood outside the unconscious.. > > > > in order to make such an " objective " observation? > > > > it may be that the disembodied Lacan's " own " unconsciousness.. > > > > had dissolved all fantasy and reality into bullshit. > > > > which required a " letting-out " .. > > > > lest his empty-head burst open under the pressure. > > > > sort of did anyway huh? > > > > .b b.b. > > Hi, > > Lacan's take on the unconscious is simple. > > > The ego, according to Lacan, can never take the place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for Lacan, the ego or " I " self is only an illusion, STOP! " who's " illusion " ? >a product of the unconscious itself. a product of the unconscious that is conscious of both: that same unconscious as well as the consciousness.. that it is using to come up with this assinine thought? i don't thinks so. i won't even go there. >In Lacanese, the unconscious is the ground of all being. > > Being is without need of " ground " . Lacanese is trying to add legs to a snake. > You don't need to stay always outside something to make an observation about it. there are no " things " to stay outside nor inside.. who's supposed to do that anyway? there is no ghost. >Subjective observations are OK, too. no they are not! once a subject is " assumed " " identified as " .. an object comes to be. if only just that very " subject " . it too is objectified. that object is a presupposition.. within the nature of the subjective moment. which projects a " reality " quality on itself and it's reflections. and feels unchanging in an ever-changing data field. it's all getting older and there's lots of new stuff... for the assumed subject to deal with. it can't change like that. because it lies to itself. it is the change it witnesses. new and old. but thinks that it's witnessing is of the dead and it's " outside " . the inside info is 180 degrees away. " you " get there " quick " . forever. you're still the same sonofabitch. but... Empirical models can also work. > > Yours, > Kip whatever " works " for " you " .. " works " for " you. it can be no other " way " ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ....just a few word on Lacan's take on the unconscious: > > > > > > > > Lacan's unconscious is structured like a language, which gives language a key role in construction our picture of the world, but also allows the unconscious to enter into that understanding and dissolve essential distinctions between fantasy and reality. There are no primordial archetypes (Jung) or entities beyond the reach of language (Freud) or logical-sensorimotor structures (Piaget)..... > > > > > > > > warm regards, > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where was Lacan when he stood outside the unconscious.. > > > > > > in order to make such an " objective " observation? > > > > > > it may be that the disembodied Lacan's " own " unconsciousness.. > > > > > > had dissolved all fantasy and reality into bullshit. > > > > > > which required a " letting-out " .. > > > > > > lest his empty-head burst open under the pressure. > > > > > > sort of did anyway huh? > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Hi, > > > > Lacan's take on the unconscious is simple. > > > > > > The ego, according to Lacan, can never take the place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for Lacan, the ego or " I " self is only an illusion, > > > > > STOP! > > " who's " illusion " ? > > >a product of the unconscious itself. > > a product of the unconscious that is conscious of both: > > that same unconscious as well as the consciousness.. > > that it is using to come up with this assinine thought? > > i don't thinks so. > > i won't even go there. > > >In Lacanese, the unconscious is the ground of all being. > > > > Being is without need of " ground " . > > Lacanese is trying to add legs to a snake. > You don't need to stay always outside something to make an observation about it. there are no " things " to stay outside nor inside.. > > who's supposed to do that anyway? > > there is no ghost. > > > > > >Subjective observations are OK, too. > > > > no they are not! > > once a subject is " assumed " " identified as " .. an object comes to be. > > if only just that very " subject " . > > it too is objectified. > > that object is a presupposition.. > > within the nature of the subjective moment. > > which projects a " reality " quality on itself and it's reflections. > > and feels unchanging in an ever-changing data field. > > it's all getting older and there's lots of new stuff... > > for the assumed subject to deal with. > > it can't change like that. > > because it lies to itself. > > it is the change it witnesses. > > new and old. > > but thinks that it's witnessing is of the dead and it's " outside " . > > the inside info is 180 degrees away. > > " you " get there " quick " . > > forever. > > you're still the same sonofabitch. > > but... Empirical models can also work. > > > > Yours, > > Kip whatever " works " for " you " .. > > " works " for " you. > > it can be no other " way " > > .b b.b. nice opinions! Love, Kip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ....just a few word on Lacan's take on the unconscious: > > > > > > > > > > Lacan's unconscious is structured like a language, which gives language a key role in construction our picture of the world, but also allows the unconscious to enter into that understanding and dissolve essential distinctions between fantasy and reality. There are no primordial archetypes (Jung) or entities beyond the reach of language (Freud) or logical-sensorimotor structures (Piaget)..... > > > > > > > > > > warm regards, > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where was Lacan when he stood outside the unconscious.. > > > > > > > > in order to make such an " objective " observation? > > > > > > > > it may be that the disembodied Lacan's " own " unconsciousness.. > > > > > > > > had dissolved all fantasy and reality into bullshit. > > > > > > > > which required a " letting-out " .. > > > > > > > > lest his empty-head burst open under the pressure. > > > > > > > > sort of did anyway huh? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Lacan's take on the unconscious is simple. > > > > > > > > > The ego, according to Lacan, can never take the place of the unconscious, or empty it out, or control it, because, for Lacan, the ego or " I " self is only an illusion, > > > > > > > > > > STOP! > > > > " who's " illusion " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >a product of the unconscious itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a product of the unconscious that is conscious of both: > > > > that same unconscious as well as the consciousness.. > > > > that it is using to come up with this assinine thought? > > > > i don't thinks so. > > > > i won't even go there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In Lacanese, the unconscious is the ground of all being. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Being is without need of " ground " . > > > > Lacanese is trying to add legs to a snake. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't need to stay always outside something to make an observation about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are no " things " to stay outside nor inside.. > > > > who's supposed to do that anyway? > > > > there is no ghost. > > > > > > > > > > >Subjective observations are OK, too. > > > > > > > > no they are not! > > > > once a subject is " assumed " " identified as " .. an object comes to be. > > > > if only just that very " subject " . > > > > it too is objectified. > > > > that object is a presupposition.. > > > > within the nature of the subjective moment. > > > > which projects a " reality " quality on itself and it's reflections. > > > > and feels unchanging in an ever-changing data field. > > > > it's all getting older and there's lots of new stuff... > > > > for the assumed subject to deal with. > > > > it can't change like that. > > > > because it lies to itself. > > > > it is the change it witnesses. > > > > new and old. > > > > but thinks that it's witnessing is of the dead and it's " outside " . > > > > the inside info is 180 degrees away. > > > > " you " get there " quick " . > > > > forever. > > > > you're still the same sonofabitch. > > > > but... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Empirical models can also work. > > > > > > Yours, > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever " works " for " you " .. > > > > " works " for " you. > > > > it can be no other " way " > > > > .b b.b. > > > nice opinions! > Love, > Kip that itself is nice vox populi. e pluribus unum. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > > K:Please, tell me how the wrong direction would have looked like! > > > > P: It would have looked like unhappiness, > > frustration, a sense of a wasted life. > > > Hi Pete, > >K: Did " I Ching " lead you to a happy, successful and fulfilled life? The " I Ching " as an oracle, or translator of the unconscious was very useful. Of course, one can't ignore genes, and chance in playing a role in a happy meaningful life. I only used the I Ching for 11 years, or so. A period in my life, when I was middle aged, and had doubts about my life, marriage, and would I ever see the light. I think the I Ching as translator of the unconscious helped me navigate those rapids, and rocks. I used it again in planning my retirement, and it led me to San Diego and to writing as my main activity in life. I have no complains. > >K: Do you think the unconscious is prior to language? > P: " In Lacanese, the unconscious is the ground of all being. " I also agree that the unconscious is akin to information. Information doesn't need to be conscious to work, but to affect consciousness it needs to adopt a language form. It usually takes the guise of pictures, metaphors, music, dreams, and divinations to let its intimations be known. Thanks for your great input, 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.