I equate Schopenhauers concept of Qualitas Occulta (the riddle of the world itself which cannot be fathomed) with the Lacanian Real; Specifically the second order Real (that which is impossible to signify). The supposed set of all signifiers, that which is a paradox. Gravity is an analogous example of this. it lies completely outside the chain of causation. The cause of a stone falling to the ground when it is dropped is not gravity, it is the nearness of the earth. Take away the earth, and the stone will not fall. Gravity itself is an original force, which lies outside of spatio-temporality. The Lacanian cause of desire (object A) can be thought about in the same way. It lies outside of linguistic structure, it is lack that cannot be articulated, lack that has not yet been signified and therefore cannot become desire. It is an impossibility, its essence is one of nonbeing, yet it still functions within the symbolic structure
>>7728412
Almost. The object petitie a (the object of our desire) falls in line with the Symbolic Realm. Desire is structured by language subconsciously, driven by ideological discourse. When people interpret ideologies to be true, then they fall into the Imaginary Realm.
The object petite a is seen as the “Other.” For Lacan, however, signifying “Others” is to be lost in symbolic representations. As he says himself: “The Woman does not exist.” This is not a misogynistic statement, but rather an acknowledgment that gender identity (which differs from what sex we are born as) is completely socially constructed, making it imaginary. Hence, also explaining his statement about the male penis being the square-root of minus one. (Note: the square-root of minus one is an “imaginary” number. Get the pun?)
The Real is that which cannot be discussed. It is the silence of the stars sitting in the depths of space. As Korzybski stated: "The map is not the territory." We can label reality, but the label is not the thing in and of itself. Lacan relates this to a mathematical limit. We can approach zero, getting closer and closer to it, but never actually reaching it outright. Similarly, we can get close to the Real, but never actually attain it through symbolic language. Our language is “incomplete” (in Godel’s sense), making Truth inexpressible and outside of our ability to attain.
I can't Lacan and haven't Schopenhauer. What exactly is his signifier? Is it the articulated or that which is potentially signified?
> Specifically the second order Real (that which is impossible to signify)
>The supposed set of all signifiers, that which is a paradox.
The Real is the set of all signifiers? Does that mean a signifier lies in the Real and is to be (or not if lvl.2) articulated?
Can you squeeze in archetypes in there?
>>7728485
>Is it the articulated or that which is potentially signified?
Sorry, meant potentially articulated*
>>7728485
The Real (lvl 2) is the supposed set of all signifiers, in the sense that the set of all signifiers is an impossibility. Anytime you construct a symbolic system, there is always something that is impossible to signify from within the axioms of that system. Logical paradox is an example of this. A classic example is the Cretan who proclaims all Cretans to be liars. Is he himself lying? The answer is unobtainable, it cannot be articulated. Another example is Russells classic paradox about magazines, or the barber paradox.
Level 1 Real is that which is yet to be signified, the way an infant perceives the world prior to having assimilated language. But as language develops in the infants mind The Real becomes progressively signified and 'reality' is constructed (the symbolic world).
I hope that answers your question, 1st order Real is that which is potentially signified/articulated but is not as of yet, and 2nd order Real is the impossible, that which lies completely outside of symbolic structure.
>>7728476
I have two problems with this,
>The object petitie a (the object of our desire) falls in line with the Symbolic Realm
the first is that there is a distinction between object cause of desire and object of desire. Object A is not the object of desire. Object A is the unobtainable cause of desire, it is the strange, inarticulate quality in something that causes us to desire it. Its the quality in a new playstation or iphone that causes people to become weirdly obsessed with it, watching hours and hours of reviews and unboxing videos on youtube. Whereas the object of desire is the object itself.
>Hence, also explaining his statement about the male penis being the square-root of minus one
The second is that I don't think this statement has anything to do with gender identity. It's the penis that is equal to the square root of minus one, but the phallus, which is a very specific symbolic function referring to the cause of the Other/mOthers's desire. The point is that, lack can be teleological, in the sense that it dictates our behavior and drives us, but not all lack can be articulated, and lack must be articulated or signified in order to become desire. We cannot cannot desire something if we don't know what it is that we desire. But even even if we can't articulate that lack to ourselves, even if it is impossible to signify, it will still affect us and function within the unconscious, in the way that the square root of minus one still functions in mathematics, even though it is an impossible number.
But i agree with everything else you said and i liked the stars metaphor a lot
>Object A is not the object of desire
Ah, sorry. You're talking about the big A, not the little a. My mistake.
> I don't think this statement has anything to do with gender identity
The phallus is most certainly a symbolic signifier, leading us to differentiate between things, birthing illusory identifies in the process (creating the idea of the "Other").
We desire that which we feel will complete us only because we have been foolishly led to believe that we are missing something in ourselves. In truth, this is completely illusory (again, it's symbolic, having no impact upon the Real). This desire is “unattainable” for Lacan for this very reason—it is solely symbolic, having no foundation in reality whatsoever. After all, how can one capture or attain something that doesn’t really exist?
I agree with you, however, when you state that this still affects people. But we have to understand that it only affects people because they still interpret symbols as signs of truth (they allow themselves to be manipulated by dominant social ideologies, forcing them to live in an Imaginary Realm). If people were to see outside of this unconscious sense of symbolism, then they could step outside of this mentally shackled Imaginary state, becoming something akin to a Buddhist, I suppose.
>>7728601
>If people were to see outside of this unconscious sense of symbolism, then they could step outside of this mentally shackled Imaginary state, becoming something akin to a Buddhist,
indeed, in buddhism, we escape all this hedonistic scam of languages and envy.
>>7728412
I loved him in lethal weapon
>>7728670
I think The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman & The Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann would be better places to start. After that, research Lev Vygotsky. In My Teaching, Lacan states that everything he basically teaches comes from Vygotsky.
>>7728753
Oh cool, thanks, this is exactly what I'm looking for.
>>7728670
You should also have a basic understanding of existentialist thought. Furthermore, you need to understand what ideology is and how it operates within social systems.
>>7728670
nietzsche > freud > fink >lacan
(hegel will help with lacan but is not necessary as long as you understand the dialectic since lacan uses that idea a lot)
in our lifes, we have what we feel as reality, as dreams, as recollection of memories, and with meditations as as re-living memories (of this life) and ''past lives'' [=living events like they were reals, but they are not events of this life]. all these are equal in their disappointment : taking them so seriously to th epoint of thinking they are perment and personal is the most stupid thing to do.
consciousness does not have any 'pattern' nor is consciousness related to karmic fruit.
This is why Dependent Origination explains that ignorance & associate tendencies (1st link) via fabricating (2nd link) condition consciousness (3rd link).
It is ignorance that has a 'pattern' (rather than consciousness).
The Buddha explained mentality is manyfold, such as vinnana (consciousness), mind-heart (citta) and intellect (mano) or such as the aggregates of feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
Karma & result are related to the citta or mental formations (sankhara khandha) and memory.
Although very occassionally the scriptures use the term 'consciousness' where 'citta' should be used, the majority of teachings explain what is purified by enlightenment is the citta.
What becomes undefiled is the citta.
When the Buddha declared his 1st words, he said: "My citta (mind) has entered into that state in which nothing can stir it up again".
Consciousness is mere sense awareness. Whereas the part of the mind that stores karmic impressions, defilements, habitual tendencies, etc, is the citta or sankhara aggregate.
I have not read any evidence in the scriptures that a stream-enterer is reborn 7 more times. The scriptures refer to many stream-enterers (such as Kondanna and Sariputta) that soon after became arahants.
There is the Nakhasikha Sutta however my investigation of the Pali cannot find the term '7 more lives'. The sutta is about 'the breakthrough' that results in stream-entry and the sutta probably states there are 7 more 'breakthroughs' at most for the stream-enterer to make, i.e., the stream-enterer has 7 more fetters to break for arahantship.
Also, I have not read any evidence in the scriptures that refer to experiencing 'past lives'. The Pali term is 'pubbanivesa', which literally means 'past homes' or 'past dwellings' or 'past adherences'. The Khajjaniya Sutta and Haliddakani Sutta provide explanations of this that are not related to reincarnation but, instead, about thinking in the past "I was" this, "I was" that.
>>7728910
As for Dipa Ma, I heard she had psychic powers but many non-Buddhists have psyhic powers. Children can have psychic powers but not enlightenment. For example, what sees, hears, meditates, etc, is consciousness (rather than wisdom). If Dipa Ma did actually say it is wisdom that sees, hears, meditates, etc, she was definitely wrong since an ignorant mind also sees, hears, etc.
'Past life experience' is merely a mental formation. For example, each night the minds/brains of people create dreams & these dreams are not necessarily past life experiences. They are probably mere mental constructions and imaginations. Again, the Khajjaniya Sutta states if the mind regards any mental formation as "I", "me", "mine", etc, then it has wrong view.
Also, psychic powers can result in the transfer of information of one to another. Thus the information in our mind does not necessarily mean it comes from a past life. Even if our psychic powers are latent (rather than manifest), a part of our mind could be receiving information from elsewhere. Otherwise, people with actual psychic powers could be placing information in our mind about people who lived and events that occured in the past. Why do people who claim past life experience always seem to claim events that are known historically (rather than events with no historical record)?
When you were a toddler, who knows? Maybe your mind registered information it heard spoken but did not remember then event (due to the mind's immaturity)?
Anyway, I was just pointing I have read little evidence in the original scriptures (apart from one or two questionable suttas) that the core principles of Buddhism support reincarnation.
The word 'birth' can refer to 'self-idea' or 'self-identity', which has occurred millions of times in this present life (until enlightenment).
The word 'aeon' does not necessary mean as such. For example, in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Pali 'kappa' is used to simply mean 'a certain period of time' (when the Buddha says to Ananda he can prolong his life longer. He did not mean for an 'aeon').
Similarly, the word 'food' (ahara) means much more than mere physical food. There are 4 ahara: physical food, intention, contact & consciousness.
Most of the meaning of the above translation can be debunked. At least to me, it is pure materialism.
As I posted, in the Khajjaniya Sutta , the recollection of 'past dwellings' is discussed and it is made clear that to regard any past dwelling as "I", "me" or "mine" is wrong view.
The Khajjaniya Sutta simply states that when you were 4 years old and believed: "X & Y are my mother & father", this was wrong view. The sense objects called 'mother & father' were merely five selfless aggregates, as the Khajjaniya Sutta states.
>>7728912
The Buddha always said when a mind is not yet fully enlightened, it may, in the present, have no interest in sensuality or not have self-view. Yet it many wander back to past sensuality or get enthusiastic (reminisce) about ideas of 'self' from the past.
bhuddism is gay lol
>>7729096
underrated post
>>7729096
>>7729101
I too love pomo garbage
