- Last 7 days
-
Local file Local fileUntitled7
-
self-sufficient, pre-given referent. Both the Freudian andthe Lacanian unconscious, as it were, put external reality outof play.
Even though Lacan objects and states that the unconscious is made of a chain of signifiers (language), he actually in some sense agrees with Freud in the sense that language is not connected to reality. It constructs reality.
-
language and the thing about which itspeaks
Language shapes the world experience or reality because of our signifiers that create distinctions (the other/ the symbolic) and in turn we are shaped by our world experience (truth), and therefore shaped by language and the symbolic in itself.
-
Lacan’s terms, these distinctions come to us from the order ofsignifiers, and they must therefore be understood as an activelystructuring principle.
Distinctions between subjects is purely a matter of language, when discernible things are usually gradual and not ordered. This connects to Hume's bundle theory where the human mind chooses where the boundary lies between continuity and discontinuity even when all should be gradually discontinuous -- the continuity is simply an illusion, a phantasy.
-
we will never find anything morethan gradual differences. Yet we are not a bit “man” and a bit“woman” (or vice versa), but either “man” or “woman”—we areone or the other. This absolute difference does not exist in (lived)reality, which knows only gradual distinctions.
This is an example of how language or symbolic signifiers alter the lived experience more than the lived experience does simply to the real. Does this mean that as one grows up and is exposed to more of the symbolic world and language, one is indulged more in the phantasy and is further from accessing the "real"?
-
hat clearly cannot bedirectly derived from the facts of experience.
Language shapes the experience of reality in a way that simply experiencing cannot. Like performativity. Is there a signifier that articulates this way of experience? this is created in the symbolic order, rather than any other.
-
it is a question of whether there is a signifier inthe symbolic system that articulates this connection.
The concept of fatherhood relies directly on the notion and connection between procreation and fatherhood which is passed through language, which articulates it.
-
For Freud, this means that language does notyet function as language in the proper sense here: the uncon-scious does not know language, and nor therefore does it knowthe test of reality.
Language = reality even for freud
-
- Aug 2024
-
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
-
Anglophonic monoculture which renders certain dimensions of life invisible and therefore impossible to address
- for
- English language - makes invisible salient aspects off reality vital for rapid whole system change
-
- Feb 2017
-
www.csicop.org www.csicop.org
-
The first step in testing claims of conspiracy is to establish precisely what is being claimed
"Accordingly, in all tongues, perhaps without exception, the ordinary terms, which are considered as literally expressive of the latter [material subjects], are also used promiscuously to denote the former [spiritual subjects]." - Campbell
-
- Nov 2013
-
caseyboyle.net caseyboyle.net
-
And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? I
I wanted to highlight "Is language the adequate expression of all realities?"
Without language, what exists?
If deception is only deception because of a negative result, is deception without a negative result still deception?
-