Thoughts on Psychoanalysis

***battlefields*** · Posted On: 6/14/2012 8:08am

You should all be glad that there are incredibly gifted people out there like myself and Devil. It is only through recognizing my awesomeness will you find salvation, I do not ask for much, a nod, a deep reverential bow or curtsy and, depending on gender, a headjob.

Also, shrines, monuments and statues in my honour.

**Anti-Oedipus** · Posted On: 11/26/2012 12:36pm

So, uh, on the less clinical side of things, any thoughts on Lacan vs Deleuze or even Zizek? I saw "psychoanalysis" in a thread title and now I just don't understand how you made it to page 13 without even bringing up Lacan. I get that continental philosophers aren't highly regarded by the western analytical/clinical tradition, but really no Lacan? I mean, he's what makes psychoanalysis more than "pfft, Freud and cigars and collective Jungconscious." I mean, not really, but kinda.

For the record, my money's on Deleuze. I imagine that in the halls of Valhalla his schizoanalytic technique will orbit his shining head like a glorious halo.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 11/26/2012 12:48pm

Originally Posted by Anti-Oedipus

So, uh, on the less clinical side of things, any thoughts on Lacan vs Deleuze or even Zizek? I saw "psychoanalysis" in a thread title and now I just don't understand how you made it to page 13 without even bringing up Lacan. I get that continental philosophers aren't highly regarded by the western analytical/clinical tradition, but really no Lacan? I mean, he's what makes psychoanalysis more than "pfft, Freud and cigars and collective Jungconscious." I mean, not really, but kinda.

For the record, my money's on Deleuze. I imagine that in the halls of Valhalla his schizoanalytic technique will orbit his shining head like a glorious halo.

Who the hell is Lacan? (That's rhetorical don't answer). Seriously, I don't really know much about him and that would probably be because of where I was educated and the emphasis. Your education is probably different than mine, but I went to college from '89-94'. I just can't see why you would think he's so pivotal.

Also I find it ironic that you mention Valhalla in your little rhetorical proclamation.

**Devil** · Posted On: 11/26/2012 5:05pm

Originally Posted by Anti-Oedipus

So, uh, on the less clinical side of things, any thoughts on Lacan vs Deleuze or even Zizek? I saw "psychoanalysis" in a thread title and now I just don't understand how you made it to page 13 without even bringing up Lacan. I get that continental philosophers aren't highly regarded by the western analytical/clinical tradition, but really no Lacan? I mean, he's what makes psychoanalysis more than "pfft, Freud and cigars and collective Jungconscious." I mean, not really, but kinda.

For the record, my money's on Deleuze. I imagine that in the halls of Valhalla his schizoanalytic technique will orbit his shining head like a glorious halo.

Interesting. Do you have any thoughts you didn't learn from some philosophy professor who hasn't ever held a real job? Maybe some ideas you came up with all by yourself? Because that would be awesome.

**Anti-Oedipus** · Posted On: 11/26/2012 11:51pm

Originally Posted by Omega Supreme

Who the hell is Lacan? (That's rhetorical don't answer). Seriously, I don't really know much about him and that would probably be because of where I was educated and the emphasis. Your education is probably different than mine, but I went to college from '89-94'. I just can't see why you would think he's so pivotal.

Also I find it ironic that you mention Valhalla in your little rhetorical proclamation.

Ok, so I won't go into Lacanian ****. I got to college in '06, so no doubt my professors had a different idea of what constitutes the canon than yours. On the other hand, maybe I just studied with a different focus--my classes were oriented as much towards post-(modern, structuralist, etc) stuff as they were towards psychoanalysis, and I ended up with a mildly useless degree in Modern Culture and Media, for what that's worth. I will mention that I feel postmodern and in particular post-structuralist thinkers like Derrida (and, in a sense, Lacan) produce a certain sensation when read, there's a unique flow to the conceptualization of their writing--syntax, definition, deconstructions--that made me interested enough to major in that stuff, whereas basic Freud feels, if only because the language is more archaic, less relevant to my own thoughts. Also, what part of that's ironic? I guess it is in a few ways; for one thing, Deleuze killed himself, and you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla, as I recall. Or is it mentioning gods? From a Deleuzian standpoint gods are about as valid as anything else, depending on how you're talking about what.

Devil: Well, technically, this is considered psychoanalytic or critical theory (often abbreviated as cultural studies or just "theory"). I know a lot of my professors held "real" jobs, often while teaching--some were engineers, some musicians, some writers, some practicing analysts. I was lucky enough to get into a pretty good school on a minority scholarship sort of deal. I don't know why you assume my ideas came from my professors, I spent most of my classes arguing with them, and they likely wouldn't sanction anything I'm saying here without going "hmmmm" and lifting an eyebrow professorially, at best, but that's the fun thing about studying this ****. Sure, you end up without a job, but you're really good at certain kinds of bullshitting.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 11/27/2012 12:00am

Originally Posted by Anti-Oedipus

Ok, so I won't go into Lacanian ****. I got to college in '06, so no doubt my professors had a different idea of what constitutes the canon than yours. On the other hand, maybe I just studied with a different focus--my classes were oriented as much towards post-(modern, structuralist, etc) stuff as they were towards psychoanalysis, and I ended up with a mildly useless degree in Modern Culture and Media, for what that's worth. I will mention that I feel postmodern and in particular post-structuralist thinkers like Derrida (and, in a sense, Lacan) produce a certain sensation when read, there's a unique flow to the conceptualization of their writing--syntax, definition, deconstructions--that made me interested enough to major in that stuff, whereas basic Freud feels, if only because the language is more archaic, less relevant to my own thoughts. Also, what part of that's ironic? I guess it is in a few ways; for one thing, Deleuze killed himself, and you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla, as I recall. Or is it mentioning gods? From a Deleuzian standpoint gods are about as valid as anything else, depending on how you're talking about what.

Devil: Well, technically, this is considered psychoanalytic or critical theory (often abbreviated as cultural studies or just "theory"). I know a lot of my professors held "real" jobs, often while teaching--some were engineers, some musicians, some writers, some practicing analysts. I was lucky enough to get into a pretty good school on a minority scholarship sort of deal. I don't know why you assume my ideas came from my professors, I spent most of my classes arguing with them, and they likely wouldn't sanction anything I'm saying here without going "hmmmm" and lifting an eyebrow professorially, at best, but that's the fun thing about studying this ****. Sure, you end up without a job, but you're really good at certain kinds of bullshitting.

This is one of those is it ironic or coincidental remarks. The facility I founded, run and teach at is named Valhalla.

**goodlun** · Posted On: 11/27/2012 12:25am

17 surprised it wasn't a bit higher actually.

Authority: 6.00
Self-Sufficiency: 2.00
Superiority: 3.00
Exhibitionism: 0.00
Exploitativeness: 4.00
Vanity: 0.00
Entitlement: 2.00

**Devil** · Posted On: 11/27/2012 12:07pm

Originally Posted by Anti-Oedipus

Ok, so I won't go into Lacanian ****. I got to college in '06, so no doubt my professors had a different idea of what constitutes the canon than yours. On the other hand, maybe I just studied with a different focus--my classes were oriented as much towards post-(modern, structuralist, etc) stuff as they were towards psychoanalysis, and I ended up with a mildly useless degree in Modern Culture and Media, for what that's worth. I will mention that I feel postmodern and in particular post-structuralist thinkers like Derrida (and, in a sense, Lacan) produce a certain sensation when read, there's a unique flow to the conceptualization of their writing--syntax, definition, deconstructions--that made me interested enough to major in that stuff, whereas basic Freud feels, if only because the language is more archaic, less relevant to my own thoughts. Also, what part of that's ironic? I guess it is in a few ways; for one thing, Deleuze killed himself, and you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla, as I recall. Or is it mentioning gods? From a Deleuzian standpoint gods are about as valid as anything else, depending on how you're talking about what.

Devil: Well, technically, this is considered psychoanalytic or critical theory (often abbreviated as cultural studies or just "theory"). I know a lot of my professors held "real" jobs, often while teaching--some were engineers, some musicians, some writers, some practicing analysts. I was lucky enough to get into a pretty good school on a minority scholarship sort of deal. I don't know why you assume my ideas came from my professors, I spent most of my classes arguing with them, and they likely wouldn't sanction anything I'm saying here without going "hmmmm" and lifting an eyebrow professorially, at best, but that's the fun thing about studying this ****. Sure, you end up without a job, but you're really good at certain kinds of bullshitting.

Damn. What a windbag. You'll make a great philosophy professor one day.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 11/27/2012 1:24pm

Originally Posted by jk55299

Cognitive Behavior Therapy seems limited, kind of a quick fix. It is really good for people that can't function in society but less helpful for white girl problems...

*Facepalm