Is The Caretaker Lacanian?

I've read Bruce Fink's introduction, and I must say I'm intrigued. Truly my dialectic of desire is in motion.

Most of the things I'd have to question Fink acknowledged as insufficiently explained in his book, which I suppose I'll find out later on, but one thing still bothers me - the prospect of creating meaning rather than uncovering. How do you avoid drifting into make-belief when in psychoanalysis?

Also, mandatory:
mega.nz/#F!9kpS3KTJ!7FiS5rl5rX8Z64BP4dhGww

Dude you can read that in less than a week if you read >1 hr a day.

You're done with any given page in like 2 minutes. Do the math for the total amount of pages, remove a couple dozen of pages not related to the main writing and you'll hit that number.

Seriously, clock yourself on a single page. If you took much more than 2 minutes you have a really subpar reading speed.

Welcome to the left wing.

That poster is actually more than well-acquainted with the left wing and this board and maintains one of the most epic and autistic websites ever: anti-dialectics.co.uk. He was known for dismissing anything not analytical philosophy and linking to
>>>/fringe/
in all threads.

Wait, that site wasn't set up as a deeply ironic joke?
I thought— But– No-
I mean,
But…
Fuck!

Here I am, I have no idea what this thread means.
yay

Is this Lacanian: youtube.com/watch?v=PV5yOlsix20 ?

Can you reply to this post pls: ?

pls

pls freudfag

thanks for vouching for me, user(s), but looks like Freudposter isn't here.

Anyway, what do you guys think of "beyond-neurosis"? The concept is pretty much identical to Stirner's getting rid of, or at least acknowledging, spooks and acting within your own self-interest.

Never heard of it. Google search doesn't clear much up either. Got a quick rundown or a reference I could investigate on the subject?

there isn't really any way to give a quick rundown on Lacan, but the idea of "beyond neurosis" is when you let go of the Other's desire.

Shit, I've read that book before and honestly completely forgot the mention of this.

u tryin to trigger me m8

Is this potato Lacanian?

He's here.

Can you pls respond to at least ? The question is actually decent.

His most systematic book is The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance which still falls short on explaining in detail Lacan's theoretical shifts which you can read about in the different "Reading Seminar #" collections, The Later Lacan, and of course with Zizek. This order of exposition is also a recommended course to take.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=A332F4B747AAF4FCB14650E095F56C9B

>the prospect of creating meaning rather than uncovering.
You mean truth? From that very book:

lacan.com/zizek-desire.htm
I can't really answer it without falling into generalities. Be your own censor, your own interrogator, catch yourself when you lie in the guise of truth, catch yourself when you fantasize and ask what purpose that fantasy serves in your subjective economy. You can really speed up analysis if you too work on yourself.

Is she the very same poster? Does Rosa Lichtenstein post on leftypol? That would be truly an honor.

Acting in your own "self-interest" is still very much in the neurotic domain. We have no idea what our self-interests are.

Yes.

That potato is very Lacanian.

bump for lakong

I have to inform you that there are >1 people one here who post her website. Her site does not have the scope of Sokal, so you don't see her disecting texts of Derrida or other French academics there as far as I know. She surely has some sympathy for Sokal's take on these intellectuals though. The focus of that site is on Hegelese-disease and mystical writing in Lenin, Trotsky, and other people with a Marxist/Marxian left-radical self-identification (she also identifies with the far left herself and doesn't dismiss these guys entirely). I don't think you will find there anything about Lacan.

Aside from speculating about whether I wear hats and what type of hat, could you state what you get out of Lacan that you can relate to having a left-wing position on anything? Did Lacan write something with explicitly naming capitalism, socialism, communism? Or is the relation to being leftwing just some hackneyed wisdom about how it's society that is ill and not the people, and in a way the normal people are the really ill ones dooood, with the statement being just that, and some pompous gesticulation that doesn't put any meat to the bone? Because if it's just that, stop posting anytime.