Zizek on Lacan's Triad & Interpretation of Freud

[Orenholt]

I make the division because you think that our "desire" for food is the same as the egotistical desire for a certain states of consciousness. This has caused a great mess in your understanding, which no one has been able to make a budge towards correction at this point, it seems.

Ok so you're saying that you don't pursue enlightenment for self satisfaction? I don't see how that's possible.
It seems to me that you are just trying to vilify the ego and say that it's only responsible for bad actions.

it does, but again..when the ego acts as the basis of our thoughts, ignorance and delusion run amuck.

Even if you view your ego as merely a part of the whole?

Now you're mixing subjective with the Ultimate. Nature doesn't discriminate who or what experiences pleasure or pain. It dishes them both out to perfection. More truthfully, in Nature there is no "pleasure/pain". Such a dual concept only exists within the conception of a subjective consciousness.

Well isn't perfection/imperfection a concept that only exists within the concept of a subjective consciousness?

[Russell Parr]

Ok so you're saying that you don't pursue enlightenment for self satisfaction?

I don't pursue enlightenment for the sake of self satisfaction. That would be egotistical of me. I pursue it for the sake of perfecting my reason.

It seems to me that you are just trying to vilify the ego and say that it's only responsible for bad actions.

It seems to me that you're just trying to protect the ego, because you enjoy it.

..when the ego acts as the basis of our thoughts, ignorance and delusion run amuck.

Even if you view your ego as merely a part of the whole?

Yup.

Well isn't perfection/imperfection a concept that only exists within the concept of a subjective consciousness?

Yup again. Yet the fact that it is ultimately meaningless doesn't stop it from being useful in subjective conversation.

[Leyla Shen]

All she's doing is setting up an absolute dialectical opposition to the ascetic.

There's nothing profound or challenging about it, really, in terms of eliminating delusion -- unless you happen to be an ascetic.

[Leyla Shen]

By "serving God" I meant becoming one with one's knowledge of Truth, assuming one has accurate knowledge of course.

Thanks. I'll give this more consideration later.

[Orenholt]

I don't pursue enlightenment for the sake of self satisfaction. That would be egotistical of me. I pursue it for the sake of perfecting my reason.

And you find no joy in doing that or accomplishing that?
Why would you want to perfect your reason unless you felt it was deficient and felt the need to satisfy?

It seems to me that you're just trying to protect the ego, because you enjoy it.

It's not just me, everyone enjoys their egos and they can lead to great accomplishments and good deeds.

Yup.

Explain how realizing your higher self is different than realizing you're just a part of the whole and that you should care about the whole as yourself.

Yup again. Yet the fact that it is ultimately meaningless doesn't stop it from being useful in subjective conversation.

Then that means that the universe isn't ultimately perfect.

[Russell Parr]

And you find no joy in doing that or accomplishing that?

Joy may accompany accomplishment, but it certainly isn't the goal.

Why would you want to perfect your reason unless you felt it was deficient and felt the need to satisfy?

I don't "feel" that it is deficient, I discovered it's deficiency with reason. There you go again, mixing feelings with thought. (Insert woman joke)

It's not just me, everyone enjoys their egos and they can lead to great accomplishments and good deeds.

Yea and it also causes wars and famine.

Explain how realizing your higher self is different than realizing you're just a part of the whole and that you should care about the whole as yourself.

This stuff is meaningless if the person is delusional about what the "higher self" and "realizing that you're part of the whole" really means.

Then that means that the universe isn't ultimately perfect.

Right, the universe isn't ultimately anything. But stating that "nature causes things to perfection" is useful in describing causation.

[Dennis Mahar]

Her point is you're full of desire Russell.
Admit it.

[Cahoot]

Her point is you're full of desire Russell.
Admit it.

Everyone has tendencies. Not everyone is clings to their tendencies.

[Russell Parr]

Her point is you're full of desire Russell.
Admit it.

I'm not arguing against emotions per se, but against the idea that they must be the driving force of consciousness.

[Dennis Mahar]

desire doesn't mean emotion.
it means 'thirst'.

[Orenholt]

Joy may accompany accomplishment, but it certainly isn't the goal.

You only think that because any old kind of satisfaction will not do.
If you want to dance to good music you do not instead satisfy yourself by doing something else. You want to DANCE!

I don't "feel" that it is deficient, I discovered it's deficiency with reason. There you go again, mixing feelings with thought.

Feelings are a kind of thought. If you had no feelings about the deficiency you would ignore it.

Yea and it also causes wars and famine.

I will not and cannot deny that but that doesn't make it over all bad.
The universe contains wars and famine but that doesn't make IT over all bad, does it?

This stuff is meaningless if the person is delusional about what the "higher self" and "realizing that you're part of the whole" really means.

Maybe I'm not delusional, but in any case I'd like you to do your best to explain.

[Leyla Shen]

Notwithstanding your hypothesis, a budding sage no more becomes a professional rap dancer than a budding rap dancer becomes enlightened.

[Russell Parr]

Feelings are a kind of thought. If you had no feelings about the deficiency you would ignore it.

I won't argue that being unreasonable isn't discomforting. And while at times I may desire to alleviate the discomfort, it takes a leap of reasoning to realize that the very nature of my desiring of alleviation is the cause of my discomfort. It turns out that the discomfort is really the result of an emotion that necessarily accompanies a mental projection in which a certain form of self is held to be true, à la egoism.

I will not and cannot deny that but that doesn't make it over all bad.
The universe contains wars and famine but that doesn't make IT over all bad, does it?

Agreed, nature causes all things, so all things are neither good or bad. Yet it is only when we aren't under the influence of the ego are we able to recognize this reality in all things.

Maybe I'm not delusional, but in any case I'd like you to do your best to explain.

To be quite honest, neither phrase does much of anything for me. "Higher self" places too much emphasis on 'self' and is a pop term for new agey types. "Realizing that you're part of a whole" mostly falls into the same category but could be more profound within the right context, such as in describing how causation blends all boundaries.

[Orenholt]

Feelings are a kind of thought. If you had no feelings about the deficiency you would ignore it.

I won't argue that being unreasonable isn't discomforting. And while at times I may desire to alleviate the discomfort, it takes a leap of reasoning to realize that the very nature of my desiring of alleviation is the cause of my discomfort. It turns out that the discomfort is really the result of an emotion that necessarily accompanies a mental projection in which a certain form of self is held to be true, à la egoism.

Not all emotions are unreasonable. Do you talk yourself out of being happy too because it's "unreasonable"?

Agreed, nature causes all things, so all things are neither good or bad. Yet it is only when we aren't under the influence of the ego are we able to recognize this reality in all things.

Neutrality is subjective too though. There's really no point in NOT thinking things can either be good or bad.

To be quite honest, neither phrase does much of anything for me. "Higher self" places too much emphasis on 'self' and is a pop term for new agey types. "Realizing that you're part of a whole" mostly falls into the same category but could be more profound within the right context, such as in describing how causation blends all boundaries.

I didn't mean in the new ager sense. In fact I really really dislike new age stuff.

[Russell Parr]

Not all emotions are unreasonable. Do you talk yourself out of being happy too because it's "unreasonable"?

I try to continually talk myself out of being unreasonable, regardless if I'm happy or not.

Neutrality is subjective too though.

"Neutrality" exists only as a contrast to dual concepts, e.g. good/bad, so it also cannot describe Reality. In fact, no words can (except these words of course :P).

There's really no point in NOT thinking things can either be good or bad.

Subjectively speaking, yes, but, hopefully and ideally, reason is the foundation upon which such judgements are made.

I didn't mean in the new ager sense. In fact I really really dislike new age stuff.

Well, given that I rarely use those exact terms, I might replace "higher self" with something like "higher state of consciousness," ie., a phrase that I can work better with. As an example, a higher state of consciousness would be one that isn't hampered by delusions. As for the self as part of the whole bit, as I said, it could be useful in describing the boundlessness of nature.

[Orenholt]

I try to continually talk myself out of being unreasonable, regardless if I'm happy or not.

So if you bowl a 300 you aren't happy about it because you know that you cannot take personal responsibility for it?
It really seems like you're hurting yourself by trying to be "reasonable" all the time if that is the case.

"Neutrality" exists only as a contrast to dual concepts, e.g. good/bad, so it also cannot describe Reality. In fact, no words can (except these words of course :P).

Ok.

Subjectively speaking, yes, but, hopefully and ideally, reason is the foundation upon which such judgements are made.

I agree.

Well, given that I rarely use those exact terms, I might replace "higher self" with something like "higher state of consciousness," ie., a phrase that I can work better with. As an example, a higher state of consciousness would be one that isn't hampered by delusions. As for the self as part of the whole bit, as I said, it could be useful in describing the boundlessness of nature.

Ok then but you maintain that it is impossible to have desire when in a higher state of consciousness and when you realize causality?

[Russell Parr]

Not all emotions are unreasonable.

I wanted to address this. Reasonable/unreasonable isn't really applicable to emotional states, because emotions describe a state of unconsciousness. For example, when very happy, nothing exists but happiness; when very angry, nothing exists but wrath. An injection of reason by oneself or others tends to interrupt and/or cut down the intensity of such states.

When one is fully engaged in thought, such as when taking a test or pondering the nature of reality, emotional states are cut to a minimum and are often regarded as a distraction.
___

So if you bowl a 300 you aren't happy about it because you know that you cannot take personal responsibility for it?
It really seems like you're hurting yourself by trying to be "reasonable" all the time if that is the case.

The only reason someone would get happy over a good bowling game is in response to a false sense of superiority, which would in turn potentially give rise to a false sense of inferiority in those around you, or even yourself if you, for example, tried and failed to duplicate the score. As far as personal responsibility, taking responsibility is different than taking personal credit for nature's doing, which is obviously delusional.

In full realization that one's own doing is really nature's doing, the reasonable one transcends the egoistic phenomenon of happiness/sadness.

Ok then but you maintain that it is impossible to have desire when in a higher state of consciousness and when you realize causality?

If egotistical desire is delusional (which it is), then yes is it an impossibility in enlightenment.

[Dennis Mahar]

all this stuff.
consciousness, reason, thinking, emotion, thirst, feeling blah, blah, blah
arises from ignorance,
phenomena.

causality,
dependent origination.

Who am I?
not that, not that, not that.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Differentiation is ignorance, it is the heart of duality and attachment. It is the only required well-taught class for when we are babies. When we separate things in our mind we get sad,happy, real, not real, true, untrue, life, death, all the bad shit.

I agree on the blah blah.

[Orenholt]

I wanted to address this. Reasonable/unreasonable isn't really applicable to emotional states, because emotions describe a state of unconsciousness. For example, when very happy, nothing exists but happiness; when very angry, nothing exists but wrath. An injection of reason by oneself or others tends to interrupt and/or cut down the intensity of such states.

Nothing exists but emotion when you're in the emotional state? That's very very odd.

When one is fully engaged in thought, such as when taking a test or pondering the nature of reality, emotional states are cut to a minimum and are often regarded as a distraction.

Hmm maybe for you or even most people but for me emotions are a source of drive toward things including knowledge.

___

The only reason someone would get happy over a good bowling game is in response to a false sense of superiority, which would in turn potentially give rise to a false sense of inferiority in those around you, or even yourself if you, for example, tried and failed to duplicate the score. As far as personal responsibility, taking responsibility is different than taking personal credit for nature's doing, which is obviously delusional.

I don't think that getting a good score always has to be about making people feel inferior. Can't you just do it to feel good?
What's the difference between taking responsibility and taking credit?

In full realization that one's own doing is really nature's doing, the reasonable one transcends the egoistic phenomenon of happiness/sadness.

What about when you're watching a movie? Can't you cheer for the protagonist when they achieve something?

[Dennis Mahar]

Differentiation is ignorance, it is the heart of duality and attachment. It is the only required well-taught class for when we are babies. When we separate things in our mind we get sad,happy, real, not real, true, untrue, life, death, all the bad shit.

I agree on the blah blah.

Ignorance is 'to ignore'
exchanging 'true nature' for a temporary belief that phenomena exists from its own side.

joining the 'inherent existence club' with a lifetime membership.

whatever rocks your boat.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Wasn't aware someone could own an understanding.

[Leyla Shen]

L: In Lacan, the subject matter at hand, they are a component part of the symbolical order in the unconscious; signifier being sounds/images and the signified being related concepts.

The signified as concepts represents consciousness (discernment/form/distinction) and signifiers the unconscious (associative/no form/merging).
So, it would follow that there can be conscious and unconscious expectation. The former an analytical assessment, the latter symptomatic of the unconscious (egoistic).

In the unconscious, “desire” is the lack (a lost object in the imaginary) and the domain of Ideal Ego as determined by the Ego Ideal. In the conscious (conceptually), it’s biological need—conscious and not egoistic.

It is only if you accept reasoning on this order that hunger, for example, is a lack of food, and is not an egoistic desire until it manifests as some strange behaviour or symptom; as the object of desire—i.e., the lack of an imaginary object.

O: Ok but that still doesn't explain how images are different than other forms of expectations. Just because you have a visual or audio representation in your mind doesn't mean that it's some how unconnected to other types of expectations. That would be like saying that Helen Keller had no expectations because she had no concept of sound or sight.

Yes it does. Read it carefully:

The signified as concepts represents consciousness (discernment/form/distinction) and signifiers the unconscious (associative/no form/merging).

A conscious conceptual framework is constructed using reason; an unconscious one using signifiers.

Can you set out in logical order the exact premises (numbered) which lead you to that conclusion: "That would be like saying that Helen Keller had no expectations because she had no concept of sound or sight."

I am referring to your polemic about feminists, essentially this, and what followed from (and in part preceded) it:

O: "Then there are specific issues like not only being slutty but dressing slutty".

O: Didn't you read the second post that I made? The point isn't to bash women, it's to get them to change their behavior so it will benefit women over all to the goals they wish to achieve, namely equality.

So you assume it has the potential to raise consciousness? That all slutty women are consciously (as I define it above) slutty and equality is a matter of women simply discarding their sluttiness?

The brain causes desire because it has elements in it such as the reward system.

The unconscious works the same way, i.e. it can be reduced to meet your “reward system” requirements, yet it says much more than you do. In fact, the entire autonomic nervous system is functions below the level of consciousness, releasing "reward and punishment" -- it is the physiological essence of sexual arousal.

Yes, there are parts of the brain that cause imagery etc but they have nothing to do with the ego

.

Does desire have anything to do with the autonomic nervous system?

Detail how you think expectation arises.

[Orenholt]

A conscious conceptual framework is constructed using reason; an unconscious one using signifiers.

Can you set out in logical order the exact premises (numbered) which lead you to that conclusion: "That would be like saying that Helen Keller had no expectations because she had no concept of sound or sight."

Because you're saying that symbolic sight and sound are required for expectations and self image are you not?

So you assume it has the potential to raise consciousness? That all slutty women are consciously (as I define it above) slutty and equality is a matter of women simply discarding their sluttiness?

No, if you had read my second post in the thread you would have seen that I said that they should STOP slut shaming MEN because it perpetuates the slut shaming on women as well and that in fact MORE women should dress "slutty" so that it becomes the norm and is no longer associated solely with slutty behavior.

The unconscious works the same way, i.e. it can be reduced to meet your “reward system” requirements, yet it says much more than you do. In fact, the entire autonomic nervous system is functions below the level of consciousness, releasing "reward and punishment" -- it is the physiological essence of sexual arousal.

OK fine I can accept that.

Yes, there are parts of the brain that cause imagery etc but they have nothing to do with the ego

.

Does desire have anything to do with the autonomic nervous system?

Detail how you think expectation arises.

Desire has to do with what you perceive as good or bad and wanting it for yourself or others.

Expectation arises when you sense something either as pleasurable or painful and your brain connects a pattern between the behavior and the sensation and so it "expects" to feel the same sensations when the same behavior is repeated.

[Dennis Mahar]

looks like carrot and stick.

Joe Byrne gestalted Freud's ego in this way.

Child, impressionable, imaginative
Adult, rational
Parent, coercive, nurturing or critical.

there is no second person
there's just a play of intersubjectivity

Religions know the trick well.
Give me a child and I will shape him.
Heaven as carrot, Hell as stick.
God the father, mother church.
coercion.