The Phenomenology of the Poorly Grasped(New Experimental Film) HD And Open

Dedicated to Negativeland

It was fairly obvious to me…after a while”espesially since listening tthe phrases repeated over and over that I really know nothing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan Jacques Lacan .  Not only that but what was put in all the previous versions of this film really doesn’t tell you much.  But then again it is only when over idealizing the motives behind the film that I can even think of a lack of either intrinsic or added meaning as being a itself relevant.. His name is brought up secondarily by a lot of “known” philosophers (Continental philosophers that is) Jacques Lacan was a psychoanalyst whose name is spoken aloud In many Slavoj Zizek

“lectures where he speaks english.(the availability of lacanian related audio in languages other than English is something I currently have no Idea about.).   There are a lot of interesting claims about Lacan the most provocative one I’ve come across lately ithe claim that Lacan identified  himself as essentially psychotic

The word psychosis was first used by Ernst von Feuchtersleben in 1845[118] as an alternative to insanity and mania and stems from the Greek ψύχωσις (psychosis), “a giving soul or life to, animating, quickening” and that from ψυχή (psyche), “soul” and the suffix -ωσις (-osis), in this case “abnormal condition”.[119][120] The word was used to distinguish disorders which were thought to be disorders of the mind, as opposed to “neurosis“, which was thought to stem from a disorder of the nervous system.
The division of the major psychoses into manic depressive illness (now called bipolar disorder) and dementia praecox (now called schizophrenia) was made by Emil Kraepelin, who attempted to create a synthesis of the various mental disorders identified by 19th century psychiatrists, by grouping diseases together based on classification of common symptoms. Kraepelin used the term ‘manic depressive insanity’ to describe the whole spectrum of mood disorders, in a far wider sense than it is usually used today. In Kraepelin’s classification this would include ‘unipolar’ clinical depression, as well as bipolar disorder and other mood disorders such as cyclothymia. These are characterised by problems with mood control and the psychotic episodes appear associated with disturbances in mood, and patients will often have periods of normal functioning between psychotic episodes even without medication. Schizophrenia is characterized by psychotic episodes which appear to be unrelated to disturbances in mood, and most non-medicated patients will show signs of disturbance between psychotic episodes.
During the 1960s and 1970s, psychosis was of particular interest to counterculture critics of mainstream psychiatric practice, who argued that it may simply be another way of constructing reality and is not necessarily a sign of illness. For example, R. D. Laing argued that psychosis is a symbolic way of expressing concerns in situations where such views may be unwelcome or uncomfortable to the recipients. He went on to say that psychosis could be also seen as a transcendental experience with healing and spiritual aspects. Arthur J. Deikman suggested use of the term “mystical psychosis” to characterize first-person accounts of psychotic experiences that are similar to reports of mystical experiences.Thomas Szaszlabeling people as psychotic, a label he argues unjustly medicalises different views of reality so such unorthodox people can be controlled by society. Psychoanalysis has a detailed account of psychosis which differs markedly from that of psychiatry. Freud and Lacan outlined their perspective on the structure of psychosis in a number of works.

. Here again I am struck by the fact that I really don’t understand the term psychotic  in a technical sens  yet I can easily be enchanted by the extra desperation and starkness the term calls to mind (from the Jeremy Berstien Lecture series-(JM Bernstein – Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit at Berkley 1994)

One more informative paste here

Slavoj Zizek is a Slovenian-born political philosopher and cultural critic. He was described by Terry Eagleton as the “most formidably brilliant” recent theorist to have emerged from Continental Europe. Zizek’s work is infamously idiosyncratic. It features striking dialectical reversals of received common sense; a ubiquitous sense of humour; a patented disrespect towards the modern distinction between high and low culture; and the examination of examples taken from the most diverse cultural and political fields. Yet Zizek’s work, as he warns us, has a very serious philosophical content and intention. Zizek challenges many of the founding assumptions of today’s left-liberal academy, including the elevation of difference or otherness to ends in themselves, the reading of the Western Enlightenment as implicitly totalitarian, and the pervasive skepticism towards any context-transcendent notions of truth or the good. One feature of Zizek’s work is its singular philosophical and political reconsideration of German idealist philosophy (Kant, Schelling and Hegel). Zizek has also reinvigorated Jacques Lacan’s challenging psychoanalytic theory, controversially reading him as a thinker who carries forward founding modernist commitments to the Cartesian subject and the liberating potential of self-reflective agency, if not self-transparency. Zizek’s works since 1997 have become more and more explicitly political, contesting the widespread consensus that we live in a post-ideological or post-political world, and defending the possibility of lasting changes to the new world order of globalization, the end of history, or the war on terror. This article explains Zizek’s philosophy as a systematic, if unusually presented, whole; and it clarifies the technical language Zizek uses, which he takes from Lacanian psychoanalysis, Marxism, and German idealism. In line with how Zizek presents his own work, this article starts by examining Zizek’s descriptive political philosophy. It then examines the Lacanian-Hegelian ontology that underlies Zizek’s political philosophy. The final part addresses Zizek’s practical philosophy, and the ethical philosophy he draws from this ontology.

Advertisements
The Phenomenology of the Poorly Grasped(New Experimental Film) HD And Open

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s