Psychoanalytical question here, but anyone is welcome to answer

>>8887218
It's all about accepting reality.

>>8887339
And yourself.

>>8887339
>>8887343
So essentially I just have to be myself?

>>8887339
>>8887343
UGH

>>8887218
>>8887339
>>8887343
>>8887349
samefag. decent joke tho i guess

>>8887356
> 5 replies
> 5 posters

Fair enough, you caught me. I used an ip changer, a proxy and posted from a phone, a tablet and my neighbor's house because I crave attention.

>>8887349
Actually, I think I get it now. In a world of becoming in which composites, including humans, do not coincide with themselves because they are constantly changing, to be yourself is to transcend becoming in a Platonic way or find something primordial that precedes becoming in a Deleuzian sense or something similar. So being yourself is essentially doing metaphysics.

I've been going to a lacanian analyst for some time now, I've read a bit on psychalysis as well.

What do you see as the trouble in reconciling them there?

The jouissance of negation is precisely what creates the repetition that first brings the analysand to the analyst. To put it simply, we enjoy the problems we have to some extent. Although we partially want to solve them (evident by the fact that you go to the analyst), we also don't want to give them up, because they have been sustaining our life. The analyst picks and points out from the analysand's speech elements that will make these relationships evident to the patient. Part of it has to do with realizing the futile or uselessness of certain jouissance. In other words, to put it very crudely, you talk until you realize how meaningless it is to enjoy your problem. This is a very long process, that can not be summed up by simply telling about how this attachment to the problem is unnecessary, for it would take the responsibility from the subject and backfire. It can be a very painful process, to discover that certain modes of thinking that we have learned so much to enjoy, are a response to something that is not there anymore and is also the cause of our suffering.

The obligation to enjoy truly is a common modern problem. It must be pointed out that psychoanalysis doesn't say "you should not enjoy", just like in the past it didn't say "you should enjoy". What it creates is a place in which you are allowed not to enjoy (and to enjoy). The patient often doesn't know what to do with it ("wait, aren't you going to tell me what to do?") and thus is able to give voice to his or hers own way of thinking, choosing, desiring.

>>8887422
I guess what I'm asking is if there truly is a place of freedom from enjoyment since Lacanian psychoanalysis often points out to the return of jouissance. In one example, Lacan treats sleep like a break from jouissance as if it is something that we are in one form or another constantly doing (probably meant as dreamless sleep since dreams can be linked to jouissance). In another example, Zizek points out that the crusaders against the Catharic heresy noticed how the Cathars, while condemning all sexuality as incestuous (because we are the sons and daughters of God, descending from Adam and Eve, etc.), nonetheless took a perverse pleasure in their asceticism and glorified it as a pleasure.

So to me this seems like it makes the space of freedom from jouissance a very fragile thing, prone to becoming a problem itself, not just in the anxiety of freedom, but in choosing the refusal of choosing, if that makes any sense.

File: william_free.jpg (554KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1600x900px

>>8887375
>Actually, I think I get it now. In a world of becoming in which composites, including humans, do not coincide with themselves because they are constantly changing, to be yourself is to transcend becoming in a Platonic way or find something primordial that precedes becoming in a Deleuzian sense or something similar. So being yourself is essentially doing metaphysics.

>>8887848
I can't say if there is such a space or how that would be, anon...

Jouissance, from the little that I know about it, is not just pleasure or enjoyment as we often talk of it, there is distinction to be made here. A common comparisson is with tickling, which can be nice, but it can also become torture. The torture is not because someone tickles you, but because you can not resist reacting and spasming from that tickling. Just so the repetition of neurosis is when you cannot resist returning to your problem, you ""enjoy"" it that much.

To enjoy something is always transgressive. In the sense that when you are enjoying something you are not only doing what you are supposed to be doing, but you are also enjoying it (there is something more that is yours which you add to it). That's why the Cathars were not coldly just doing what they must do, they were enjoying it. If you repress this enjoyment somewhere, it appears somewhere else, their sexual pleasure was turned to the ascetisim itself.

In the early days of psychanalysis, the repressive society was quite heavy on the patients and their enjoyment didn't have much room to be. That was their problem: their enjoyment appeared in the small gaps that were not accepted in society.

Today, as Zizek puts it, you are given that "do what you want, but you must enjoy it". This destroys the previous structure, you don't have prohibitions and therefore you have no way to be transgressive about it, thus, your enjoyment has nothing to grasp. Not only that, but the truly transgressive act here would be not to enjoy it. To travel, have sex, eat what you want and... Not enjoy it. That would be the way that you can deflect the command to enjoy and actually enjoy something (instead of just obeying the command, doing as you're told).

Of course, that can put you in a very uncomfortable position, hence why you go to analysis. Choosing can be quite hard, because you must enjoy your choice, you are given options that you must not deny (even though choosing is about letting something go), so, in an act of trangression you choose not to choose. You let go of everything. Like a person refusing to eat ice cream because all flavours are delicious.

While the analyst, through various ways, seek to connect the analysand with his desire, there is always a movement that needs to be made for the person to "give up his enjoyment in not enjoying it", that is, to place jouissance somewhere else.

I don't know if jouissance can be turned on and off, it's like desire or drive, it's just throughout the whole experience of life, but in different ways, through various objects and so on.

>>8888017
Thanks for clarifying. It seems to me that jouissance cannot be switched off because a subject who's unable to enjoy through libidinal investment, described (concerning symptoms) as depressive, can "enjoy" in the psychoanalytic sense his condition. Outside of psychoanalysis, depressives as far as I'm aware (although this might be just a cliche) are described as being unable to feel pleasure and some writers (not psychoanalysts obviously) even described this situation as being a glimpse into what it's like to be without desire, but it seems like this version is just an opposite side of the same phenomenon rather than an absence.

At times, as far as I know, Lacan describes desire as being intrinsic to life so we could probably assume the same for jouissance.

>>8888177
It's intrinsic, yes. These things can move to different "places", but they are there.

Not only does the depressive misses on some enjoyment and incidentally he "can" enjoy his condition (jouissance). It is only because he enjoys "not enjoying things" that he has a problem in the first place. This is very delicate, because psychanalysis is not normative, the point here is not that the depressive person is "faking it" or is somehow liking it, or that you can just tell them to "relax and enjoy things". The depressive does not validate his own not-enjoying of something. A neurotic person is not simply someone with a problem, it is someone who thinks it is a problem to have a given problem. That's why it's layered, there is guilt or shame, feelings of being inadequate, solutions that are denied, complicated relationships involved.

To see how relative this is, you can look for more ordinary situations. There is a talk in which Zizek mentions how we don't really want happiness at all and he gives the example that of a scientist, fully satisfied with his career, but that is working late in his lab doing paper work. He is not having pleasure at that moment in an ordinary sense, but he is not suffering or feeling bad about it, because his acts are sustained by his truth, he is where he wants to be. This is also the pleasure of scrolling through funny posts online while sporting a grim face (it can tickle or become torture).

The depressive person is not without desire. Quite often it is the contrary, there are huge desires, which are just hidden from the person. Desire to be happy, for one, which can also mean that moments of unhappiness (which is always there to everyone) will be taken as signs of failure. That doesn't mean that he needs to lower down the desire to be happy. What analysis does is to make that person meet this desire and ask the analysand "what of it?". Which is something completely new to the person who has always been given the answer to "what of it?" by others ("man up", "relax", "go to the gym", "find a hobby" etc), at the same time that the person is told he "lacks desire" (which makes the person feel the problem is that they don't desire happiness enough, making the problem even worse).