getfiscal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

do lacanian psychoanalysis instead. bourgeois therapy is no good

i met with a psychoanalyst a few years ago and he said he would charge me $100 hour for a minimum four sessions per week for probably about eight years. this was his half-off discount rate for low-income people. he said that was pretty standard. i would probably not be able to get it publicly funded. (if i did it would take years of waitlists and then i'd be assigned to a random psychoanalyst who would probably not be lacanian at all. all my current therapy is free.)

i have not given up on this, though, but i think it's more likely i'll have to find a loophole as a learner or something. for example, i attended a seminar on lacan a few months ago, and talked to some people about taking a course series there. but i'm confident that there's a lot of basic work that can be done before this, just getting me to a basic level of functioning so that i can take courses or something. in the meantime i can continue to read about stuff that interests me. i have been making significant progress actually, although it doesn't really show online.

my analysis was 5 days a week for 5 years (my analyst moved before we terminated so I'm not Cured…) at $180/session so yeah that's a standard amount, but I'm pretty sure there are clinics where you can see analysts in training for free, find one near you today! http://www.apsa.org/find-an-analyst

getfiscal posted:

my current therapist is smart. she's not letting me tell anecdotes anymore.

arguments from ones own experience are bad and reactionary arguments

swirlsofhistory posted:

elektrenai posted:

getfiscal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

do lacanian psychoanalysis instead. bourgeois therapy is no good

i met with a psychoanalyst a few years ago and he said he would charge me $100 hour for a minimum four sessions per week for probably about eight years. this was his half-off discount rate for low-income people. he said that was pretty standard. i would probably not be able to get it publicly funded. (if i did it would take years of waitlists and then i'd be assigned to a random psychoanalyst who would probably not be lacanian at all. all my current therapy is free.)

i have not given up on this, though, but i think it's more likely i'll have to find a loophole as a learner or something. for example, i attended a seminar on lacan a few months ago, and talked to some people about taking a course series there. but i'm confident that there's a lot of basic work that can be done before this, just getting me to a basic level of functioning so that i can take courses or something. in the meantime i can continue to read about stuff that interests me. i have been making significant progress actually, although it doesn't really show online.

my analysis was 5 days a week for 5 years (my analyst moved before we terminated so I'm not Cured…) at $180/session so yeah that's a standard amount, but I'm pretty sure there are clinics where you can see analysts in training for free, find one near you today! http://www.apsa.org/find-an-analyst

Oh my god you gave the rapist a quarter of a million dollars for no benefit. Now I'm feeling depressed for you.

i can give you the number of somebody who can help and cares for you

elektrenai posted:

my analysis was 5 days a week for 5 years (my analyst moved before we terminated so I'm not Cured…) at $180/session

Themselves posted:

for a baby that has only gotten his lacan from zizek is there somewhere i can go to figure out what he is Real ly about?

Ecrits. Cover 2 Cover. No Excuses.

getfiscal posted:

Themselves posted:

for a baby that has only gotten his lacan from zizek is there somewhere i can go to figure out what he is Real ly about?

well i'm still a beginner in a lot of ways but i think there are different ways to get into it. part of the issue is whether you are interested for lacan as a system or as a critique, or both. like roudinesco's core argument is that lacan realized at a deep level that he was trying to systematize an order which is ultimately unable to be symbolized (the real). and in this light you can see how lacan's thought has so many twists and dead ends and hints at more and such. if you emphasize this then it doesn't really matter where you start because it does not build a unified whole which you need to master.

but badiou makes the point that you can go a long way with systematizing and formalizing the shape of what you don't know. he finds the interesting thing about lacan not the lapses and failures but the fact that you can draw out so many conclusions, that lacan's antiphilosophy still has a structure which you can rigorously study. in that case you can still approach lacan as a body thought which is part of a particular historical period and all the things that go into that (freud, althusser, etc.) and sort of build up the relationships between them.

i guess it just depends on what you want it for. it's similar to marx. marx can be studied as a systematizer who came up with a certain ontology of capitalism and a new historiography and such. he provided a sense of order to the anarchy of the market. but in many ways he was critiquing the premises of political economy. his model is scientific but it makes the same point about lapses and blind spots. marx also provides an explicit antiphilosophy when he talks about how his research is aimed at practice and not system-building, in repudiation of hegelianism. but obviously he is useful as a system anyways. and you can read marxism by diving deep into history or in the inner structure of capital and such, carefully reading his works and relating them to others, or you can just read whatever and tolerate eclecticism.

personally i have a long-term project of trying to understand the systemic side, because that's what interests me, but i think ultimately you can't tie it up in a bow and call your work done.

i havent really got any background in philosophy probably because i was taught basically what glomper is saying by noam chomsky. but seriously, its hard for me to think about anti philosophy because i thought most philosophers have disagreements with each other and could possibly be interpreted as anti to each other. i have looked up anti philosophy just now and it has something to do with being critical of a priori assumptions and one size fits all ethics.

when you say it doesnt matter where you start, i assume you mean reading actual lacan? reading other's interpretations of his thought adapted to things like film analysis seems like a far cry (epic video game reference) from learning the basics of what he is trying to talk about. are there any sorts of summaries of his ideas that i could look at, and it might help guide my readings thereafter?

after looking around, i found this http://www.lacanonline.com/index/2012/07/reading-lacan-where-to-start/

i play action halflife when im off work, but at work i like to perform my industrial slowdown by reading shit