"There is no sexual relationship" - What did he mean

>>8651775
Man's love is entirely narcissistic, i.e. he constitutes his idealized self-image in the gaze of an admiring woman. What he 'loves' in a woman is desirousness itself, not the actual concrete empirical female.

A woman loves a man insofar as he is a simulacrum of a full phallic presence that gives access to Orher-joiussance. She doesn't love the man for what he is either, i.e. weak, self-doubting etc.

>>8651797
That's conflating lust with love though, which to be fair the majority of people do.

>>8651802
It's masturbation with a partner

>>8651797
thanks!


How do you recommend I approach him? Read SEP entry a few times, two intros by zizek, multiple essays by zizek. (want to buy the Bruce Fink book but have banned myself from buying books and public library does not have it)

have four fundamentals of psychoanalysis and it's disjointed more than difficult and unreadable.

>>8651842
addition: what's up with his neologisms? *my gott*

>>8651842
Are you fairly well-acquainted with Freud?

Zizek's 'How to read Lacan' essay is probably a decent overview.

You need Fink's 'Between language and jouissance'

>>>/his

Read Fashionable Nonsense. Good book.

>>8651802
love is a social arrangement. it is 'aim-inhibited' as freud said. the more important distinction is what sort of love-things are we actually just substituting for lust-things? we 'love' our kids and 'love' baby animals and 'love' prince but these are just different forms of libidinal investment

>>8651775
>i am gay and here is how i detach myself

File: 1446654259350.gif (1MB, 390x293px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 390x293px

"That's weird because I'm having sex with your mom right now"

>>8651775
he was describing OP's life

>>8651802
>>8651995
Iirc, for Lacan love is a consequence of there being no sexual rapport. It's not just that both sides have different desires or that the empirical does not match the phantasm, but also that the partial (empirical) object is not the object cause of desire but rather a mere object of desire and therefore cannot end desire, only keep it at bay for a while. So love is basically sticking around after lust fails. Words are vague though, love as a common sense notion covers many instances that are qualitatively different.

>>8651995
from the perspective of ultimate jewish nihilism ya, everything is subordinated under cummies. but that's not how life really works, is it?

what right do you have to put the low things above the higher ones?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-24 at 1.53.26 AM.png (65KB, 424x283px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 424x283px

a bit unrelated but I need advice

>amazed to find out my American city that isn't NYC has a lacan study group that meets about twice a month
>researching more about it discover that the curator for the majority of seminars is some dyed haired middle aged woman bordering on social justice and new age shit.

Do you think it's it still worth going to? Here's a description of one of the seminars

>>8652104
>Iirc, for Lacan love is a consequence of there being no sexual rapport.

how french, how sickening

>>8652156
why do you go on following these little tributaries when you could be searching for the source of all rivers?

>>8652104
truth.

the operative word here being 'cause' which basically indexes all of Freud and drive theory. super important to have an understanding of Freud before jumping into Lacan who is legit complex despite the fact that Zizek makes him seem fun and easy

>>8652156
you live in philadelphia

it is great, go to it. led by a charismatic Argentine analyst

>>8652171
Ok thanks. Feel a bit bad being so judgemental now.

>>8652164
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pass_(psychoanalysis)

>>8652186
www.jeremy.com

Bunp

>>8651775
>>8653421
your question has been pretty well covered by other posts. why bump?

>>8652154
Not that anon, but it's not that things are "subordinated under cummies". The sex that is talked about in psychanalysis is not the coitus, not the actualy bodily encounter, though it is part of it as well. The sexual aspect of our life is exactly that organization of our libidinal energy, what we desire, how we desire, what do we want from the other and so on.

>>8651995
Prince sucks

Guys , what is desire for Deleuze. what is the territory that he speaks of when he talks about the deisre?

>>8651797
Vasko Popa inverts this in his quartz stone cycle.

>>8652156
>dyed haired
She'll just get that done when she goes for a haircut m8. Don't pay rwhinek any heed about it being high maintenance or some shit.

>>8653564
Lots of things. The unconscious for D&G is a factory that creates assemblages of things that do not necessarily go together. Once you include the body without organs, plurality of selves, recollection, affirmation, virtual and everything else Deleuze took from other philosophers, you get a really complex theory that can be summed up as follows: experiment rather than interpret until desire flows in a way that works for you and learn to enjoy plateaus of intensity (of various kinds) rather than bust a premature nut in her pubic hair you dolt!

>>8652104
>Words are vague
haha, no, french intellectuals are vague

>>8656118
nominalism is a mistake

>>8656133
don't exactly know what these words are meant to convey.

Lacan is the worst French intellectual in history, and that's saying something.

He was also a plagiarist and a cunt.

>>8656147
Nice argument there, buddy.

>>8656147
nah, rene girard is definitely worse

>>8656162

There's nothing to argue. He was a plagiarist and by any account an absolute twat. We can debate about the title of 'worst French intellectual' because he definitely has some stiff competition, but his works are drivel and his ideas (the ones he actually had himself, not the ones he stole) are little more than nebulous word-games.

>>8656174
>are little more than nebulous word-games
why do you have to say it like a tosser?

"Thus the erectile organ comes to symbolize the place of jouissance [ecstasy], not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image: that is why it is equivalent to the of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1). "

What did he mean by this?

>>8656180

Pompous logomachy. Do you like that better?

File: 1475616655554.png (231KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 342x342px

>>8656186

>ANY philosophy post-1900

>>8656118
I was saying that the common sense, day to day use, of the word "love" isn't helpful and all you got out of that is that French intellectuals are vague?

I'm not saying Lacan is some misunderstood genius, but some people come into these threads just for the enjoyment ("jouissance") that they get in reinforcing their identity as "better than Frenchie". Lacan and Freud have plenty of interesting ideas even if overall they were despicable and wrong, there's no need to go for an all or nothing approach so common to the teenage and young adult mentality.

>>8656186
>>8656194

I know I'm a pleb but honestly, what the fuck did he mean by this? Is he even trying to make a clear and concise point?

>>8656610
The invisible bitch on my dick makes me hornier than any real bitch could.

File: 1476405059942.jpg (23KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x550px

>>8651797

>>8654468
is deleuze the last boss of philosophy?

>>8656778
>muh body without organs
>muh shitting, muh asses

no

Nobody cares what this hack thinks.

>>8651797

Pretty much, sexuality in any context is subhuman abjection.

>>8651775
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AInfL9PiGHI
this lecture is pretty good, I think

>>8651775
Humans dont have sex like animals. For animals there is a mating season and they just do their thing, they just sex.

Humans sexuality need some kind of fixation or fantasy.

Indeed, women spread their legs all year long

This is what all the retards PUA miss btw. They think that for women, the sex is ultimately about having babies.. whereas For women, sex is opposite of having babies.

>>8657247
I think that thats the PUA's fetish. They are obssesed with some kind of hierarchy and natural order where they can find a place.

>>8652180
>Feel a bit bad being so judgemental now.
You should. You fell uncritically into the bullshit ruling discourse that dominates this board and used it without thinking. Sure, some sjw's are bad, but the way people talk here is shitty, inhuman, cynical and unempathetic.

>>8657247
t. virgin

>>8651812
Stealing this line

>>8657184
>Humans sexuality need some kind of fixation or fantasy.

On what do you base that claim? It seems unlikely for human sexuality to not be based on instincts as well, considering how we've evolved.

>>8651797
Does this mean it is impossible for a man who lives up to his idealised self to fall in love?

>>8657267
this actually makes sense.

>>8656936
sexuality is everything

>>8656945
>*touches nose* *coughs* *caresses beard* *pulls shirt* *scratches arm* *sniffs*

what the fuck is his problem?

>>8657434
Sexuality is everything. Oh wait the denial of death is everything. Oh, sorry the will to pleasure is everything. Hold on, the will to meaning is everything. Oh actually power is everything.

People who try to distill life down to one drive are retarded cunts. You can sense all of these things in all you do because they are such fundamental parts of life. If you bite the retard bullet and pick one to explain everything down to you can do it. It's just an exercise in rhetoric

>>8651775
>implying this charlatan means anything.
I thought Chomsky already destroyed all these disgusting fraudulent intellectuals? Are people still interested in their senseless marxist "theories"?

>>8657405
of course there are insticts, drives in freudian terms. Freud loved that verse that goes like "Hunger and love is what moves the world."

I see the libido as some kind of gun that is pointing to a fixed point. The point could be tall women, "high test" women, other men , girls on heels, whatever. You born with the gun, but where you point at is constructed.

>>8657460
Are you sure Chomsky is not marxist aswell?

>>8657438
obsessive neurosis

>>8657460
>I thought Chomsky already destroyed all these disgusting fraudulent intellectuals?
he definitily didn't

>>8657412
Such a man does not exist.

Read Totem and Taboo, he would be something akin to the primal Father

>>8657294
I was following the opinions of a hungarian lacnaian friend who said that when I showed him her webpage if that makes things any different.

I have a habit of making these "can someone smarter than me create my opinions for me " posts

>>8657509
They do though. And there are plenty whose natural inclination is to shut down perceived misconceptions about themselves that they see others have of them even if they are flattering.

This is more lacanian horse shit which is sort of true but not really.

All his work can be boiled down to 'sort of true but not really' or 'Yeh, believe that if you want, can't prove it'

>>8657573
It would have to be a man without desire, self-contained.

>>8657593
Or maybe lacan is a hack.

>>8653454
it's misleading and edgy to call it sexual, then. the arcane mechanics of desire aren't as important as doing good

>>8651797
>Whoa, people have actual needs of their own and aren't actually one way streets, obviously this means they """"really""""" don't care about others at all.
We really need to kill this meme about love being about things that are external to oneself, because the only way one can ever really give a shit about others is to make them their own, Stirner had it completely right.

>>8657460
These theories aren't marxist
>>8657473
He's not a Marxist

>>8657490
This is true. He personally (I agree with him) believes he's an intellectual fraud whose ideas are nothing more than truisms wrapped in a lot of fancy talk.

only women know how to love:

love of men towards women = love of women towards children = unconditional love (utopian for men, effective for women)

love of men towards children (= an aid to retire and stop their suffering) = love of women towards men = utility towards more pleasures and less pains now and in the future

>>8659087
love of men towards women = love of women towards children = love of children towards father

ove of men towards children = love of women towards men = love of children towards mother

I would imagine that he is trying to say that there are relationships, and there is sexuality.
While, given the human nature, one doesn't exlude another, they don't really have anything in common; one is a bond between two individuals, the other is the expression of a need rooted in instinct.

As such, a "sexual relationship" is an oxymoron.

More on lacan please