0:04

Hello, and thank you

0:06

for joining us on another

0:08

episode of Why Theory.

0:10

As always, I am

0:12

your host, Ryan Angley, joined.

0:15

As always by co-host, I'm

0:17

McGowan. Todd, how you doing,

0:19

buddy? Ryan, I'm doing great

0:21

today, and in honor of

0:24

speaking about Seminar 16, I'm

0:26

gonna conduct our annual... book

0:28

giveaway because I write way

0:31

too many books. So this

0:33

year's book giveaway will be

0:35

of, I'm going to give

0:38

away three copies of my

0:40

book, pure excess. So if

0:42

you want to, if you want

0:44

to email, which I have to say,

0:46

and the reason I said it's

0:49

appropriate, I was going to do

0:51

it last week, but we had

0:53

a special David Lynch episode. I

0:56

wrote pure excess. in response to

0:58

reading seminar 16. So there's a

1:00

there's a clear linkage. So I

1:03

will give away three copies to

1:05

the first three callers. to my

1:07

to my cell phone. No, to

1:09

the first three e-mailers. And so

1:12

if you please people that haven't

1:14

won before, so don't if you've

1:16

already won. There we go, obviously,

1:18

non-winner or something. It's like a

1:21

track. It's like a track caller.

1:23

That's a track. Phileys who haven't

1:25

won three races at the last

1:28

twice. Yes. That's good. That would

1:30

be. So that's your ethical racetrack.

1:32

Right. Is that like you make

1:34

sure that the people who. keep

1:37

winning that is a certain point.

1:39

They can't win anymore. Yeah, so I

1:41

like that. The first one. My ethics

1:43

is all developed at the horse races

1:45

with my grandfather. Yeah, anyway. Yeah, so

1:48

we're going to talk about seminar 16

1:50

today. So that's we are. We are

1:52

talking about seminar 16 today. So what

1:54

we want to get into. Well, so

1:56

you started where one of the places

1:59

that I do. to begin,

2:01

which is that like this was

2:03

a shaping seminar for you when

2:05

you read in 06 in French.

2:07

This has because we mentioned this

2:09

with the previous with seminar 10,

2:12

this is part of the recent

2:14

releases of the polity have been

2:16

putting out and this came out

2:18

just last year. So this is

2:20

the first time there was an

2:23

official translation in English for a

2:25

long time. There's a very good

2:27

translator. He's the, yes, and so

2:29

Cormac Gallagher had a translation that

2:31

available on the, like, Emmy is

2:34

still there, the Lakon and Ireland

2:36

website, that's how I read this

2:38

for the first time. Right. Yeah,

2:40

and so. Very literal translation, not

2:42

terrible, I think. Yeah, I think,

2:45

yes. There's some, there's some things

2:47

I, some things I even like,

2:49

just slightly like just slightly better,

2:51

like just slightly better in like,

2:53

like, just slightly related to the

2:56

word homology. Gallagher has homology, whereas

2:58

Fink does homologous. And I just

3:00

think homology, just slightly better conceptually,

3:02

but that's a real, real, real

3:04

tiny nitpick. So this is, one

3:07

of the ways that I wanted

3:09

to start with this one is

3:11

that like, so you wrote this

3:13

book Pure Access, and you can

3:15

talk about it a little bit

3:18

if you'd like, but I want

3:20

to start it with what precisely

3:22

was shaping about it for you,

3:24

and I'm going to tell you

3:26

what. I have been sort of

3:29

what's shaping for me and I

3:31

want to know if there was

3:33

something some kind of overlap and

3:35

also I do know that there

3:37

is so I'll drop I'll drop

3:39

the I'll drop the I'll drop

3:42

the pretend on that but so

3:44

this I've so I've read this

3:46

now twice like I just said

3:48

this is all the way through

3:50

this the Gallagher thing and then

3:53

this now for the thing thing

3:55

and I really like this I

3:57

think There's a lot of aspects

3:59

of this where I'm not entirely

4:01

sure. that he was ever better

4:04

in certain aspects. Like it's the

4:06

one of the things that we

4:08

say about Lacan when we do

4:10

these episodes is it's a shame

4:12

that he never wrote a book

4:14

because when you write a book

4:17

you you have to you have

4:19

a decision to make. to, you

4:21

write books a lot, and I've,

4:23

I've written one, and we'll, you

4:25

know, that's chugging along the, the

4:28

publication process, so we'll see what

4:30

happens with that, but like you

4:32

have a decision to make, which

4:34

is like, are you going to

4:36

say what you mean? Like, are

4:39

you going to, are you going

4:41

to be clear about this thing?

4:43

Like, you have to, like, you

4:45

have a responsibility to the page

4:47

in a way that's a little

4:49

bit different. here and you know

4:52

we prepare for this like in

4:54

the weeks leading up we got

4:56

notes but then when we do

4:58

this podcast it's a little bit

5:00

like Luke Skywalker taking down the

5:03

desk star like you got to

5:05

turn off the guidance computer and

5:07

you just got to like go

5:09

it's a little it's it's you

5:11

know you got to let the

5:14

force flow okay that's and that's

5:16

right that's the mad that's the

5:18

magic that's not going to happen

5:20

the but with a when you

5:22

write something like you have a

5:25

duty to like how you're how

5:27

it's going to unfurl and you

5:29

have like you know moments for

5:31

reflection you can make things tighter

5:33

you know like it's it's it's

5:35

different from like oh man I

5:38

said something five minutes ago I

5:40

just thought of a better way

5:42

to say it now but then

5:44

I can't say that because it

5:46

would just interrupt this flow that

5:49

I'm going on so I just

5:51

gotta leave it the way that

5:53

happens when you write something that's

5:55

fine just go back five pages

5:57

and then change it like you

6:00

know there's this this this this

6:02

this kind of retroactivity in the

6:04

composition that is like is allowable

6:06

and is different. This is the

6:08

closest I think he gets to

6:10

something that is as like like

6:13

rigorous and is in engaged as

6:15

something that you would see in

6:17

a book like the sections where

6:19

he's talking about marks I just

6:21

think are like are pretty incredible

6:24

and like you do for you

6:26

forget reading it you do forget

6:28

that it was a lecture like

6:30

like I and I'm like particularly

6:32

sensitive to like when some like

6:35

reading something I'm taking a lot

6:37

from it. So for you, what

6:39

was shaping about it? Because it's

6:41

more conversational or whatever, but just

6:43

man, there's some sections in this

6:45

that really, really saying the way

6:48

that they would if it was

6:50

like a written manifesto. So that's

6:52

something that I really cherish about

6:54

this text and something I'm taking

6:56

a lot from it. So for

6:59

you, what was shaping about it?

7:01

And why was it such an

7:03

influence? And how did it come

7:05

back around to pure excess? came

7:07

out in French and I think

7:10

I had access to the, I

7:12

know I had access to the

7:14

to the unofficial synographers thing of

7:16

the seminar, but I hadn't read

7:18

that. And so it was Malaire's

7:21

version that I first read in

7:23

2006 and and I thought just

7:25

what you're saying, I think the

7:27

the connection between, I just thought,

7:29

had anyone ever said that And

7:31

I just couldn't believe he came

7:34

to this insight that surplus value,

7:36

like surplus value, Mehrbert as what

7:38

Marx called, and it's usually called

7:40

plus value in French, but so

7:42

surplus value, so surplus value, so

7:45

basically surplus value, that that, that,

7:47

okay, that's a great insight on

7:49

Marx's part, but LaCon adds to

7:51

that and says, but. Actually, that's

7:53

not what's driving the capitalist and

7:56

that's not what's driving capitalist society.

7:58

It's really this this surplus enjoyment,

8:00

right? And I think that I

8:02

just I remember reading that. I

8:04

was like, oh my God. And

8:06

I think this is what you're

8:09

saying. Like you're just like, why?

8:11

That's an incredible, that's worth a

8:13

whole book in itself. And I

8:15

think that's one of the reasons

8:17

why you feel like this is

8:20

a book, because that insight is,

8:22

you're like, wow, that's just, and

8:24

it comes out of Lacan's own

8:26

reworking, constant reworking of his own

8:28

concept of the abjaya, right? Like

8:31

the abjaya for the first time

8:33

in this. So I feel like

8:35

this seminar is a real end

8:37

of culmination. for LaConna real end

8:39

point and you and I both

8:41

talked about how we feel like

8:44

seminar 17 is a real deviation

8:46

that it goes with the four

8:48

discourses it goes in a whole

8:50

different and I think lamentable direction

8:52

so this is to me I

8:55

when I first read it I

8:57

thought this is the high point

8:59

of his his intellectual career and

9:01

I still I'm still close to

9:03

having that position but that but

9:06

I think it's because of this

9:08

marks. and idea of surplus enjoyment.

9:10

I just want to say one

9:12

thing about the translation of so.

9:14

So in French, LaConns, the term

9:17

is plus de jouir. So he's

9:19

using plus, which means more, but

9:21

it can also mean none. So,

9:23

so I could say like, I'll,

9:25

you know, plude de voiter d'on-lauru.

9:27

There are no more cars in

9:30

the road. But if I say.

9:32

I'm saying there are more cars

9:34

in the street. I'm saying there

9:36

are more cars in the street.

9:38

So the way that I pronounce

9:41

the clue or the plus changes,

9:43

whether it's more or none, but

9:45

there's no visual indicator of that.

9:47

So we know that LaCon said

9:49

plus in the seminar, but the

9:52

way that it's written, it could.

9:54

go either way. So that's one

9:56

thing. And I don't think there's

9:58

any way to. communicate that in

10:00

English. The other thing is, Juier

10:02

is the infinite form that gives

10:05

us the noun jouisants, right? So,

10:07

and you, Juier would mean to

10:09

have an, to enjoy in French,

10:11

but it would primarily mean to

10:13

have an orgasm, right? So, but,

10:16

but what's weird is that we

10:18

translate a French word jouier. which

10:20

is again the infinitive, with another

10:22

French word that we've somehow moved

10:24

into English, Juicence, which is a

10:27

noun, and so we call it

10:29

surplus Juicence, and I just, I

10:31

can't get behind translating, translating, and

10:33

I understand that no one like

10:35

people are so don't like translating

10:37

Juicence by enjoying it. I get

10:40

it. Yeah, whatever. But I, I,

10:42

so I'm not one of those

10:44

people. And the main proponent of

10:46

this. Nestor Brownstein is no longer

10:48

with us to be offended by

10:51

what I'm going to say now.

10:53

So I'm going to say. I

10:55

see his legacy. Yes. So I

10:57

feel like the jargon of Jewish

10:59

science is not worth the accuracy

11:02

of the term. But I also,

11:04

I just find it comical. that

11:06

we translate a French word with

11:08

a different French word in English.

11:10

I mean, that just, that seems

11:12

so dumb to me that I

11:15

can't get behind it. Anyway, so

11:17

I am going to, as we're

11:19

talking about this seminar, say surplus

11:21

enjoyment because I do not accept

11:23

Bruce Fink's translation of Pousta Juier.

11:26

as surplus Juicence because I think

11:28

it's silly. Okay, that's ended. I

11:30

have so much respect for Bruce.

11:32

He knows much more about French

11:34

than I ever will. He's forgotten.

11:37

What's the saying? He's forgotten. He's

11:39

forgotten. He's forgotten. He's forgotten more

11:41

than you ever know. Yes, that

11:43

is that is literally true about

11:45

Bruce and me. But he's baked

11:48

more than you'll ever microwave. But

11:50

that is, you got it. But

11:52

I'm not gonna follow him down

11:54

this path. That said, I think

11:56

this is where we agree that

11:58

this updating, let's call it, of

12:01

Marx, because it's not necessarily a

12:03

refutation of Marx, it's a bringing

12:05

Marx, bringing the psyche into what

12:07

Marx is saying. I think it's

12:09

just a, it's a, it's like

12:12

a monumental breakthrough into the understanding

12:14

of. of what drives the capitalist

12:16

subject, I think. Just, just, just

12:18

incredible. And I think we shouldn't,

12:20

I think we should, we could

12:23

have the whole, our whole discussion

12:25

could just be on that, I

12:27

think. But I mean, it's not

12:29

gonna be, but I think it

12:31

could be. Anyway, no, I'm sure

12:33

it'll, it'll dominate a lot of

12:36

the conversation, just like picking up

12:38

a couple pieces, like, so the,

12:40

yeah, so in, In the next

12:42

seminars, 17, this is very famous

12:44

for the four discourses, which we

12:47

covered a long time ago. And

12:49

as Todd said, he's not as

12:51

much into the terrain that Lacan

12:53

develops after this point. I think

12:55

regardless of the evaluation, it is

12:58

just very clear that he does

13:00

change. I mean, like even somebody

13:02

like Rick Boothby, who, you know,

13:04

I think. is more sanguine on

13:06

the later Lacan than than than

13:08

you are like I like when

13:11

he was on we talked to

13:13

him a long time ago he

13:15

said like it's this 17 is

13:17

this move to the Lacan of

13:19

the quadratic so you have this

13:22

period of like Lacan of the

13:24

of the triadic of the you

13:26

know the the symbolic the imaginary

13:28

and the real and then this

13:30

like quadratic change so like this

13:33

is the very much the end

13:35

of an era whether you want

13:37

to put an evaluation on it

13:39

or not it's it's very much

13:41

the end of a trajectory. And

13:44

it does feel that way, I

13:46

think, because of the way that

13:48

he writes in his thinking. Like

13:50

it is very much at the

13:52

end of. of a passage of

13:54

thought is the phrase that's coming

13:57

to mind. It's like for anybody,

13:59

well, especially for international listeners, for

14:01

people who watch what the rest

14:03

of the world calls football, you

14:05

talk about a passage of play,

14:08

you know, like in American sports,

14:10

American sports are very staccato, so

14:12

there are plays, like in their

14:14

scripted, and you try to run

14:16

them to the way that it's

14:19

done beforehand. Obviously. in footy, like

14:21

you're practicing, like you're practicing, like

14:23

you're practicing, like you know, to

14:25

go, when this happens, like it's,

14:27

you know, like they're like triggers,

14:29

does the defender do this, then

14:32

you do this, but like, you're

14:34

talking about a passage of play,

14:36

leading to, you know, I don't

14:38

know, a cross at the back

14:40

post for a header, or like,

14:43

whatever, like, from seminar eight to

14:45

here, is this like passage of

14:47

play? Or would you include seven

14:49

in that because he does that?

14:51

Well, that's an interesting question. I

14:54

mean, I think it's from, I

14:56

think I call the middle period

14:58

from seminar eight to seminar 16.

15:00

Yeah. But this, the relationship between

15:02

this seminar and seminar seven, the

15:04

ethics of psychoanalysis is really fascinating,

15:07

right? Because he, a couple things,

15:09

I think he's trying to, he

15:11

does reference back the ethics of

15:13

psychoanalysis in a way he never

15:15

does. any other time, right? So

15:18

he does that in the seminar.

15:20

The other thing he does is

15:22

he, for the, he does make

15:24

reference to dusting a couple times

15:26

later after a seminar seven, but

15:29

this is the only time that

15:31

he theorizes the relationship between dusting

15:33

and abjia, where he says, objia

15:35

is what tickles dusting from the

15:37

inside, and it's a clear, and

15:40

then he says, this is, this

15:42

is how we see the function

15:44

of what we call art. Right,

15:46

so you're like, oh, okay, like

15:48

that's the kind I mean, yeah,

15:50

you could have a whole seminar

15:53

just on that about art on

15:55

that idea alone, right? And I

15:57

think, I mean, Mari Rudy, you

15:59

could say her entire oovra is

16:01

about that question, right? Like, what

16:04

is the relationship to dosting Abjia

16:06

and the work of art, right?

16:08

Like that's, so that's a, I

16:10

mean, so I think it's his

16:12

attempt, so I think seven is

16:15

separate. Okay. But I, I do

16:17

think that. This is if there's

16:19

an attempt to integrate it in

16:21

a little bit it's in here,

16:23

right? Yeah, that's and so I

16:25

do think you're right about this

16:28

passage and in my in the

16:30

in the I this is a

16:32

design that I write too many

16:34

books in my upcoming The Cambridge

16:36

introduction to Lacon it I do

16:39

say like this is the middle

16:41

period at seminar yeah, I mean

16:43

basically seminar nine, but seminar eight

16:45

has this idea of the agalma

16:47

talking about Socrates right and that

16:50

and this is a We're dropping

16:52

so many ends, but this is

16:54

an argument by our friend, Gila

16:56

Gofay, that Agalma actually is the

16:58

first form that the Abjaya takes,

17:00

and other people have said that

17:03

too, but I think Gai was

17:05

the first one. And then, so

17:07

it's basically seminar eight to seminar

17:09

16, and then I think you

17:11

could make the argument that seminar

17:14

16 from another to the other,

17:16

just to name what the seminar

17:18

is, from the big other to

17:20

the little other, very important. is

17:22

the maturity of all that thought

17:25

of that middle period, right? Like

17:27

it's, it's where, it's, I said

17:29

this word before, it's a culmination,

17:31

but maybe this is where he

17:33

comes to the greatest insights that

17:35

are accumulated in that period. Accumulation,

17:38

a good word here, because of

17:40

the. of the capital. So this

17:42

would be, yeah, so from from

17:44

eight to here, there's a long

17:46

passage of play that does culminate

17:49

in this, again, this, I'm going

17:51

to, Just to keep it simple,

17:53

I'll say surplus enjoyment, not to,

17:55

the text says surplus suresence, but

17:57

Todd already went over. It does.

18:00

The issues attendant to that particular

18:02

phrasing. So we have the, again,

18:04

some very, some, when you think

18:06

of LaCon, like what's like, what

18:08

is LaCon's contribution? You know, it.

18:11

The Norton anthology version of what

18:13

Lacan's contribution to psychoanalysis always is

18:15

he instituted this return to Freud

18:17

and he insisted on understanding the

18:19

death drive as a as a

18:21

singular thing that it's it's there's

18:24

the one drive there's not all

18:26

these like like a drive for

18:28

this and a drive for that

18:30

that's a Norton anthology version of

18:32

the contribution that Lacan brought to

18:35

psychoanalysis psycho analytic theory. I think

18:37

the version, well I mean you

18:39

tell me about the encyclopedia, more

18:41

encyclopedic type version of Lecan that

18:43

you wrote about for Cambridge, but

18:46

this, if you're looking at like

18:48

his concepts, you are talking about

18:50

jouisants, you're talking about enjoyment, and

18:52

you're talking about obshah, and this

18:54

seminar is, are like bringing them

18:56

together in a way. It's thoughtful

18:59

and bringing them to get together,

19:01

exactly, exactly, exactly. Yeah, exactly. So,

19:03

right, Ryan, I think that's a

19:05

really key thing that this is

19:07

the first. Seminar so he's he's

19:10

defined abjaya in different ways from

19:12

like it's this in seminar 11

19:14

it's it's what he says it's

19:16

what is in you more than

19:18

you right right that's what that's

19:21

how he defines it which is

19:23

nice I think as a good

19:25

one way to define it and

19:27

then and then he and then

19:29

in seminar 13 He aligns it

19:31

with the, and he sort of

19:34

does his little bit in seminar

19:36

11, but in seminar 13, which

19:38

is a psychoanalytic object, he aligns

19:40

it with the four different, four

19:42

different drives. So there's, there's, there's

19:45

basically four versions of the object,

19:47

of, of the, Objaya, voice, gaze,

19:49

gaze, gaze, Right, I was trying

19:51

to choose the nicest word for

19:53

that. That's a good one. Yeah,

19:56

feces is fine. And then, and

19:58

then here, I think it's, and

20:00

I think this is a, so

20:02

what he does is he says,

20:04

actually, ObJI's surplus enjoyment, and then

20:07

he makes this really, and he's

20:09

repeating an analysis that he does

20:11

in seminar 13 of. Bles Pascals,

20:13

the Perry to Pascals, Pascals Wager,

20:15

right? And he's like, everyone can't

20:17

wait for my analysis of Pascals.

20:20

It's very funny and lacon, in

20:22

his way of being, thinking a

20:24

lot of himself. But okay, that's

20:26

fine. You're analyzing Pascals Wager and

20:28

it's exciting. But basically, what is

20:31

he saying? That the object, so

20:33

the question always in Pascal's way,

20:35

and this is Pascal's point, is

20:37

you're wagering, like you have a

20:39

chance to, if God exists and

20:42

you wager on, you have faith

20:44

and wager on God's existence, then

20:46

you'll be rewarded infinitely. But what

20:48

you've lost, if you're wrong, is

20:50

nothing, right? Like you've given up

20:52

this life, which is a nothing,

20:55

right? And Lakon's like, you have

20:57

it, that life is still. It's

20:59

still your way during it. So

21:01

what is that? And then he

21:03

says, that's the abjaya. So it's

21:06

interesting, like through Pascal, he comes

21:08

to this idea that the abjaya

21:10

is an object of nothing. And

21:12

I think that's pretty, and it's

21:14

also aligned, obviously, like we've said,

21:17

with surplus enjoyment throughout the seminar.

21:19

So I like the way that

21:21

the nothing and the surplus enjoyment

21:23

come together here in this seminar.

21:25

And really that's, that's, that's. That

21:27

seems like me like a really

21:30

radical, not a redefinition, because it's

21:32

still what's in you more than

21:34

you. it's still these other objects,

21:36

but I think it's a refinement.

21:38

He's always refining what he means

21:41

by object, although I think after

21:43

this seminar, it becomes more an

21:45

algebraic point within his thinking, unless

21:47

this center of his thinking, like

21:49

it is here, I mean, this

21:52

is, don't, when you say this

21:54

is a seminar where object, people

21:56

who aren't duped air right yeah

21:58

he says the object is what

22:00

I've invented and I think that's

22:02

true and I think this seminar

22:05

is where that invention comes to

22:07

its fullest fruition so if if

22:09

there's a reason to read it

22:11

I think that is a that's

22:13

a pretty good pretty good reason

22:16

definitely yeah I mean yes that

22:18

that line is what I had

22:20

that in the back of my

22:22

head like he does He does

22:24

say that as his, like that's

22:27

his, what he believes is his

22:29

contribution. Yeah, too. I think people

22:31

are usually wrong about themselves, but

22:33

I think in this case, he's

22:35

right. He was probably right. He's

22:38

right. Yes. That's funny. Yeah. So

22:40

something also, I think, really, really

22:42

excellent in this, and I'm happy

22:44

this is in English for, as

22:46

an official translation, because I am,

22:48

I think this isn't something that

22:51

I have. publish already. It is

22:53

going to be a part of

22:55

my my book, but I think

22:57

that's the thing that I wrote

22:59

for continental thought and theory about

23:02

seriality where I have for a

23:04

long time considered Lacon to be

23:06

a structuralist of the real and

23:08

there have been times where when

23:10

I've written there's someone's come across

23:13

that that they've had pushback on

23:15

that I was delighted in rereading

23:17

this that Lacon calls himself that

23:19

basically like I think that's the

23:21

opening line almost of this whole

23:23

seminar. Yes, that's right where he

23:26

starts. So that's personally edifying, that

23:28

doesn't need to mean anything to

23:30

anybody except for me, but I'm

23:32

just like laying that out there

23:34

because I think it's, it's, um...

23:37

I think it's really important. I

23:39

found it an interesting, I found

23:41

it an interesting, an important way

23:43

to understand him because it's, it's,

23:45

it's, it's, it's very easy to

23:48

get lost. I mean, this is

23:50

kind of why I don't love

23:52

the algebraic Lacan so much. I

23:54

know a lot of people do,

23:56

so it's not, that doesn't mean

23:58

I don't like you if you

24:01

happen to like, that happens to

24:03

make a lot of sense to

24:05

you, you know, it doesn't mean

24:07

that, but I think that there's

24:09

an important way, I think there's

24:12

an over structuralization there that like

24:14

where the concept becomes very they

24:16

become very abstract and it's it's

24:18

kind of it's you can you

24:20

can move things around and we're

24:23

actually somehow less definitive even though

24:25

it's in the form of an

24:27

equation which seems like it would

24:29

be more so that's how I

24:31

tend to to experience those things.

24:34

That's kind of my thing. I

24:36

think it's important like while he's

24:38

talking about again something like object

24:40

that is not it's it's not

24:42

an unnameable object it's and it's

24:44

not a graspable thing but it's

24:47

important to to think about his

24:49

concepts which can seem very like

24:51

ephemeral and like an ungraspable and

24:53

and just like like in They're

24:55

allusive and elusive, you know, like

24:58

and and in elusive like the

25:00

whole the whole thing and It's

25:02

I just have found it enormously

25:04

valuable to like have in my

25:06

head even something like the real

25:09

which is this impossibility this impossible

25:11

hole in the symbolic like there

25:13

is still a structure to his

25:15

structure to that idea that's worth

25:17

You know bring into your own

25:19

thinking and being this like this

25:22

guidepost to reading him. And I

25:24

don't think it, I don't think

25:26

it nails him down too much

25:28

in a way that's unfair. In

25:30

fact, I think it, I think

25:33

it is his impulse to try

25:35

to be elusive with an E

25:37

and not like understandable, which is

25:39

why it doesn't surprise me all

25:41

that much that after something like

25:44

this, he would kind of change

25:46

the way you should read him

25:48

completely with the four. Right. I

25:50

wonder actually if he would even

25:52

say I'm a structural of the

25:54

real after this seminar. Yeah, it's

25:57

a great point. I don't know.

25:59

I'm not sure that he would.

26:01

And I think that he, I

26:03

think he, I think he, I

26:05

think it's, I think one could

26:08

make the argument that starting with

26:10

seminar 17, which is the underside

26:12

of psychoanalysis, L'Averdelepsy-Kenneles, he, he's no,

26:14

like this, that's the end of

26:16

the, this is the end of

26:19

the structuralist Lacan, right? Yeah, yeah,

26:21

yeah, yeah. Yeah, good. No, no,

26:23

I would co-sign that. And I

26:25

think, again, if, yeah, that it

26:27

is probably, now that I'm thinking

26:30

about it, I just, I didn't

26:32

understand it in this way in

26:34

these eras that like, whenever, no

26:36

one's ever been like really, like,

26:38

rude to me about this, but

26:40

just like asking questions about like,

26:43

how I take that because they.

26:45

see Lacon is this and this

26:47

whatever. I do think it is

26:49

people for whom the like the

26:51

four discourses and after mean like

26:54

they have a greater pride of

26:56

place and the way that they

26:58

understand Lacon. So like it makes

27:00

sense. I do think that like

27:02

this this this passage of play

27:05

like it like ending with the

27:07

like the you know being a

27:09

structuralist of the real is Again,

27:11

it's something that he had two

27:13

choices with, like, or two, if

27:15

the spectrum, and like, they're two

27:18

different choices, and the spectrum is

27:20

between drilling down more deeply into

27:22

that idea or moving to some

27:24

other terrain. Just totally moving somewhere

27:26

else. I think that's really true.

27:29

And I think to me, one

27:31

of the saddest things is that

27:33

he didn't drill down into this

27:35

idea. And I even think within

27:37

this seminar, he comes to this

27:40

incredible insight about surplus enjoyment and

27:42

capital. And then it never. This

27:44

is by the way why I

27:46

wrote pure excess, which I should

27:48

say I can only give to

27:50

Americans. I'm really sorry. I know

27:53

it sounds like I'm Steve Bannon,

27:55

but I just cost too much.

27:57

Yeah, he's getting worse all the

27:59

time. To send across the pond

28:01

or even to Canada. It costs

28:04

more than the book is worth,

28:06

which is not that much. But

28:08

I feel like he really could

28:10

have developed that. line of thinking

28:12

and I wouldn't have then had

28:15

to write that book right like

28:17

I think it could save some

28:19

years in your life there yeah

28:21

of my life I agree and

28:23

I think that it's not It's

28:25

not because I don't think it's

28:28

developed right like I don't I

28:30

mean who I think he could

28:32

say back like look it's a

28:34

it's one of the like most

28:36

incredible insights anyone's ever had into

28:39

capitalism give me a break like

28:41

I didn't I didn't I didn't

28:43

have it all worked out at

28:45

the time and okay I think

28:47

that's fair enough but it is

28:50

I think you're reading the book

28:52

and even we're just some of

28:54

this turn to Pascal that comes

28:56

right after this this marks surplus,

28:58

instead of surplus value, surplus enjoyment.

29:01

And you're like, really, do we

29:03

have to go on this little

29:05

Pascalian digression? I'm not as excited

29:07

as you're- Which he covered in

29:09

some of- Right, right, right, right.

29:11

Good point, which you've already done

29:14

in Seminar 13. He's already talked

29:16

about the Pascal's wager. So, yeah,

29:18

do we have to do that

29:20

again three years later? So I

29:22

feel like- Yeah, I get the

29:25

insight from that and into the

29:27

object I get that but I

29:29

feel like It and then he

29:31

has a whole algebraic thing aligned

29:33

up with that right in Fibonacci

29:36

sequence and it's a little I

29:38

don't know You and I think

29:40

share like a impatience with that

29:42

aspect of Lacan. Yeah, yeah, no.

29:44

And I think that's why I

29:46

think this is closest to a

29:49

book because it is the, you

29:51

know, there's sometimes I'm reading his

29:53

seminars and I know this is

29:55

something that like a lot of

29:57

people do like about him, but

30:00

like, I'll be like, wow, I'm

30:02

really into this thread. I wonder

30:04

how he's gonna pick this up

30:06

in the next lecture, and he's

30:08

gonna pick this. I think clear

30:11

movements, I'm going to keep going

30:13

with that, the passages of play

30:15

within this. Don't you think it

30:17

would have been cool if instead

30:19

of talking about Pascal's Wager, he

30:21

talked about the getaway or something?

30:24

Yeah, like, yeah, he could have.

30:26

I just thinking the getaway, because

30:28

it's a Hise film that I

30:30

really love, but I think like

30:32

any Hise film, I mean, for

30:35

him, it would have been probably

30:37

refiffy or bobblef Lamber, would be

30:39

really interesting, right, right? Do you

30:41

know this film by Melville by

30:43

Melville? I haven't seen it recently

30:46

or in the past. Okay, so

30:48

it's a fascinating heist film where

30:50

the heist never takes place, right?

30:52

Like it's all, and so it

30:54

would be like the perfect illustration.

30:57

I was thinking of getaway. I

30:59

mean, Bob La Flamber would be

31:01

the perfect illustration of what Lacan's

31:03

saying about the, about this excess

31:05

that drives capital, but you never

31:07

get to it. right? But I

31:10

think isn't any heist film like

31:12

really about like they make the

31:14

heist and then the the aftermath

31:16

is about this this like you

31:18

get this surplus enjoyment once you

31:21

have it the nothingness of it

31:23

is what you're constantly confronting right

31:25

yeah that's the no and I

31:27

think that's what that's what that's

31:29

the that's the that's the greatness.

31:32

I'm going to bring up something

31:34

that we've just talked about by

31:36

the way we talked about not

31:38

that long ago. I'm gonna I'm

31:40

gonna to bring up something that

31:42

you haven't seen recently or in

31:45

the past. There's this legendary anime

31:47

called Cowboy Bebop. The aspect about

31:49

it that you would really like,

31:51

it's about, just broadly speaking, it's

31:53

about these bounty hunters. And they

31:56

are always hungry and out of

31:58

money. It takes place. It's like

32:00

kind of like a retro futurist.

32:02

world with intergalactic like space travel

32:04

that kind of thing just to

32:07

get the the lay land a

32:09

little bit for you and for

32:11

listeners that aren't familiar with it

32:13

but just I'm not gonna talk

32:15

about it too much other than

32:17

to say that they're they've always

32:20

get the like the they almost

32:22

always get their quarry right and

32:24

they never get anything from it

32:26

like the in fact not only

32:28

when they do apprehend or bring

32:31

in the the whoever it is

32:33

that they're seeking they get like

32:35

they actually acquire a minus one

32:37

it's kind of there's like because

32:39

it starts off with just these

32:42

two with these two guys and

32:44

then there's there's other characters who

32:46

are part of the ship and

32:48

there are parts of of bounties

32:50

that they went out to get

32:53

and like Again, every character they

32:55

end up acquiring, like not only

32:57

does they take away from the

32:59

like the nothing that they had

33:01

before, but then they all become

33:03

like equally lacking like together. So

33:06

what they acquire whenever they do

33:08

acquire a bounty is a lack.

33:10

It's like I find it's just

33:12

tremendous. I'm watching it for the

33:14

first time with a friend of

33:17

mine and I haven't finished yet.

33:19

So no spoilers, please. I know

33:21

like came out in the 90s.

33:23

So. What am I complaining about

33:25

if somebody does? But it's just,

33:28

it's to your point, and I

33:30

think it's till the cons point,

33:32

and we should get formally into

33:34

the, what he, what he does

33:36

with, with Marx here, because it

33:38

is, so my, when our pre-show

33:41

conversation, I mean, you asked me

33:43

how, what my take was on

33:45

this, like, how I came at

33:47

it, like, I was just, it's

33:49

just so great to see. him

33:52

bring psychoanalytic theory to bear on

33:54

Marxism in this way. And I

33:56

think, and he has a very

33:58

shitty thing to say about Jean

34:00

Paul Sart in this seminar. Let's

34:03

talk about that right now. You

34:05

want to talk about that right

34:07

now? I went out of that

34:09

right now. It comes right as

34:11

he's talking about, at one point

34:13

where he's talking about the relationship

34:16

between capitalism and power. Yeah. Which

34:18

is really interesting because he says,

34:20

and I think he's right about

34:22

this, that capitalism completely shifts the

34:24

sight of power in society. And

34:27

I think in a way that,

34:29

like, no one understands, like, especially,

34:31

like, Michelle Foucault and George O'Conment,

34:33

right? Like, that, that all of

34:35

a sudden power isn't in the

34:38

titular heads of the state. But

34:40

it's in, it's in, it's what

34:42

he, it's in capital. So it's

34:44

what he calls a liberal, it's

34:46

liberal power, is what he says.

34:48

And then he says this fascinating

34:51

thing about, about Russia, when he

34:53

says the only benefit of the

34:55

communist revolution, I'm referring here to

34:57

the Russian revolution, is that it

34:59

restored powers functions. However, we see

35:02

that it's not all that easy

35:04

to hold on to, especially in

35:06

times in which capitalism reigns supreme.

35:08

So it's a fascinating reading of

35:10

the Russian. revolution not as the

35:13

proletariat take over the means of

35:15

production, but that it's actually a

35:17

restoration of the traditional function of

35:19

power, right? So that's a really...

35:21

He doesn't talk about often. That

35:24

doesn't come in, that word... Never,

35:26

never, never, never elsewhere, right. And

35:28

then, but just after that, he

35:30

says, he's talking about an interview

35:32

that Sart had with someone and

35:34

then he says, I cannot but

35:37

confer on the interview he's. I'm

35:39

at Sart. The epithet I have

35:41

always felt he deserved. He's an

35:43

entertainer. Objectively speaking, his thinking goes

35:45

no further than that. And I...

35:48

It's just, it's so, it's so

35:50

unfair. He doesn't even think that,

35:52

that's what I mean. Right he

35:54

doesn't even think it he doesn't

35:56

and and and like he just

35:59

has no right to say that

36:01

And I feel like it's there's

36:03

look let's just be clear what's

36:05

driving that statement. It's just it's

36:07

just dripping with envy about SART

36:09

and his position and and and

36:12

let's just let's just say something

36:14

about I mean I think we've

36:16

said this about SART before like

36:18

I think This was clear on

36:20

episodes we did about the critique

36:23

of dialectical reason. We both think

36:25

that his turn toward Marxism had

36:27

a real deleterious effect on his

36:29

thinking. I mean, it's, let's not

36:31

say that it always happens. It's

36:34

maybe improved some people's thinking, but

36:36

that did not happen with him.

36:38

be honest without being in nothingness,

36:40

I don't know that Lacan's entire

36:42

project is even thinkable, right? Like

36:44

I don't think Lacan's conception, his

36:47

way of introducing the philosophical problem

36:49

of subjectivity into Freudian psychoanalytic theory,

36:51

because I think that's what he

36:53

does, right? Yeah. I don't think

36:55

without... conceptualizing subjectivity as this for

36:58

itself, this subject like out of

37:00

joint with itself, which is exactly

37:02

how LaCon conceptualizes the subject as

37:04

well, except he has an unconscious.

37:06

He could have done that, right?

37:09

So I think the debt is

37:11

so immense, so immense. And of

37:13

course... Okay, of course, Sart has

37:15

no conception of the unconscious and

37:17

that's a real lakuna in his

37:20

thought, of course, but just like

37:22

the way that he's a condition

37:24

of possibility for LaConza murder. and

37:26

then gets treated as an entertainer.

37:28

I just, and the other thing

37:30

is, let's just, also, that he

37:33

just, he, he, he wasn't afraid.

37:35

Sart wasn't, you know, that line

37:37

from REM, like Lady Bruce is

37:39

not afraid. Like, Jean Paul Sart

37:41

was not afraid. Like he took

37:44

a stand, popular or not, whatever,

37:46

on everything, always took a stand.

37:48

And I think, like, how many

37:50

public intellectuals do that? Right, like

37:52

there's not that many and he

37:55

did it time and time and

37:57

time again in ways that were

37:59

very controversial in ways that almost

38:01

got him arrested Right, but didn't

38:03

which makes which led you to

38:05

think this is why Lacan said

38:08

this go ahead. Yeah, so yeah,

38:10

so a couple things too like

38:12

even in just like things that

38:14

we've covered on the show like

38:16

the if you when we did

38:19

the the mirror stage episode long

38:21

time ago, like it was a

38:23

surprise to us. Because like people

38:25

don't talk like Lakeney is don't

38:27

really talk about this and it's

38:30

just really Forgettable for whatever reason

38:32

from that essay, but like he

38:34

brings up start like three times

38:36

and really glowing Yeah, terms like

38:38

he like it because he owes

38:40

a debt to start so it's

38:43

like it's qualified disagreement is like

38:45

that's right. That's right. But it's

38:47

gentle. And it's like it's qualified

38:49

disagreement is like that's fine Right?

38:51

The, but it's not, but that's

38:54

not what he's, when he calls

38:56

him an entertainer, he's not doing

38:58

that anymore. So in, in 1960,

39:00

there, Charles de Gaul has the

39:02

great line about, there are all

39:05

these calls to like arrest. Sart

39:07

for his political because he was

39:09

a public intellectual weighing in on

39:11

all these things on the Algerian

39:13

war So I was just going

39:16

to say that. Yeah, he was

39:18

an outspoken critic of the Algerian

39:20

war in 1960 and in response

39:22

to these calls to arrest him

39:24

the gall has the like this

39:26

incredible line, which is to say

39:29

one does not imprison Voltaire, which

39:31

is a wonderful phrase. I think

39:33

we've maybe once said it on

39:35

the show before and said one

39:37

does not arrest Voltaire. The goal

39:40

actually says it is in prison

39:42

and it's a better line because

39:44

it has the double meaning. Like

39:46

one doesn't, like it includes one

39:48

doesn't arrest a philosopher of great

39:51

repute such as Voltaire, whatnot, but

39:53

just even if you did. does

39:55

that imprison the thing that that

39:57

person does? Right, right. It's almost

39:59

like saying you cannot do it,

40:01

right? Yeah, exactly. I could, yeah,

40:04

I could arrest the man, but

40:06

what does that, what does that

40:08

do? Because why you want me

40:10

to arrest him has nothing to

40:12

do with like who he is,

40:15

you know, it's what he does

40:17

and what he does, that cannot

40:19

be imprisoned. It's a great line.

40:21

Is that line like the justification

40:23

for? de Gaul's entire existence? Nah,

40:26

I mean, obviously it's the, it's

40:28

the resistance more than that, I

40:30

guess. More than that. But that's

40:32

pretty great, isn't it? It's pretty

40:34

great. And I think, so that's

40:36

in 1960, that's like, you know,

40:39

this, he does this seminar, which

40:41

is after May 68, Lacan being

40:43

he. And I just think, like,

40:45

not only, you know, was, start

40:47

the, like the center of, like,

40:50

you know, the French intellectual. life

40:52

for so long and it's clear

40:54

that it was grading on the

40:56

calm, but like, would Charles de

40:58

Gaulle ever say anything about Jacques

41:01

Lacan? I did probably. No, because

41:03

he didn't know idea who he

41:05

was. He had no idea who

41:07

he was. So anyway, so rank

41:09

jealousy, but I will say it's

41:11

unfortunate because it's unfortunate because if

41:14

he wasn't jealous, he could have

41:16

made a very nice point about,

41:18

he could have just said that.

41:20

You know, Jean Paul Sart in

41:22

critique of dialectical reason is not

41:25

able to marry the existentialist project

41:27

with the Marxist one because he

41:29

has no conception of the psyche

41:31

of the unconscious and is not

41:33

able to think of an idea

41:36

such as abjaya and or surplus

41:38

enjoyment. Which I'm doing right now.

41:40

which I'm, which I'm doing right

41:42

now in the seminar, and it'd

41:44

be a dick swinging thing to

41:47

do, but it would be like,

41:49

it would at least be like

41:51

engaged and like somewhat, somewhat fair.

41:53

But he doesn't, he doesn't tie

41:55

those things, it's just a cheap

41:57

shot on the start, but it

42:00

is, it is an important thing

42:02

that he does, and I think

42:04

that like, it's unfortunate that, you

42:06

know, we waited so long to

42:08

have the, this translation in English

42:11

in English, because I just think

42:13

there are a lot of, been

42:15

a lot of, been, been a

42:17

lot of really great, a lot

42:19

of really great, the least of

42:22

which of things that you've written

42:24

a lot of good work bringing

42:26

marks to bear on psycho analysis

42:28

and this is you know people

42:30

have I mean people of course

42:32

you talk about this like like

42:35

but it is always the discussion

42:37

of surplus Jewish science and not

42:39

the like the like to take

42:41

a step back from that and

42:43

I know the the jargon thing

42:46

that you were talking about but

42:48

to say that like what is

42:50

what what happens when we bring

42:52

the psyche into capital and the

42:54

psyche understood in the way the

42:57

psychoanalysis does as this again this

42:59

that's at once this excess and

43:01

absence of enjoyment like we're bringing

43:03

we like we bring that to

43:05

bear on societal interactions and relations

43:07

that's how we that's what we

43:10

bring to bear on ourselves we

43:12

bring that to bear in capital

43:14

like that's not like so so

43:16

psycho analysis doesn't just stop as

43:18

a you know he and Lacan

43:21

is consistent on this forever. It's

43:23

not just a theory of inner

43:25

subjectivity and or social relation like

43:27

we can bring it to bear

43:29

to talk about other things including

43:32

the like the relation and the

43:34

life of capital and why does

43:36

it have the value that it

43:38

does? It's not for its literal

43:40

financial value or its weight in

43:43

monetary interactions. It's this other thing

43:45

and I'm using those two words

43:47

advisedly. Right. And if you don't

43:49

I think that's really. True, and

43:51

if you don't get the psychic

43:53

weight of capital, then I think

43:56

Lacan's point is that you don't

43:58

really... you're never going to mount

44:00

a real challenge to the dominance

44:02

of capital or even properly understand

44:04

why it works, right, and why

44:07

people are invested in it. And

44:09

I think that's what makes this

44:11

seminar so incredibly valuable is that

44:13

he really is trying to do

44:15

that, trying to see like what

44:18

is it about capital that really

44:20

gets the... That the really gets

44:22

us and then I you know

44:24

he has this great line where

44:26

he says Capitalism itself serves a

44:28

purpose And we shouldn't forget that

44:31

but then he says it is

44:33

the things it produces that serve

44:35

no purpose and I think Yeah,

44:37

that was like I just that

44:39

line became like the entire raison

44:42

d'itha of my book right like

44:44

that because I think The capitalist

44:46

ideology is, and I think the,

44:48

I don't think the first one's

44:50

Adam Smith, I think the first

44:53

one's David Ricardo, because David Ricardo,

44:55

his idea is that how do

44:57

we know capitalist, capital, he doesn't

44:59

use the word, but how do

45:01

we know capital of political economy

45:03

produces what we need because we

45:06

buy it, right? And so once

45:08

you think that. or what's useful

45:10

to us, right? He uses the

45:12

term utility, right? Once you think

45:14

that, then the game's over, right?

45:17

Because I think the whole point

45:19

of capitalism is that it produces

45:21

what is not, what as LaCon

45:23

says, what serves no purpose, what's

45:25

not useful, and gets us to

45:28

invest ourselves in that, and not

45:30

in what just has utility. And

45:32

then once you make that. Turned

45:34

then the the entire game has

45:36

changed right like that and I

45:39

think to understand that and I

45:41

think that even Marx, I think

45:43

it's, you know, the question is

45:45

like, I've gotten in debates with

45:47

Marxists about this, they're like, don't,

45:49

you're misunderstanding use value when he

45:52

uses the term. He's just, it's

45:54

just a, it's a technical term

45:56

for him. He doesn't mean it's

45:58

really useful for people, right? And

46:00

I get that, but I still

46:03

think he does believe to some

46:05

extent that capitalism is producing useful

46:07

things for people, because they use

46:09

them. And I think that's the

46:11

Ricardo myth that Lacon is shattering,

46:14

right? He's shattering that because he's

46:16

saying, no, the whole point is

46:18

it has to produce things that

46:20

serve no purpose. And that's what

46:22

is driving it. And the fact

46:24

that we're in, that's what we,

46:27

and that's why we're invested in

46:29

those things, right? Like that's why

46:31

we have to have the newest.

46:33

pair of Nike's not because we

46:35

need the shoes to walk around

46:38

in, but because precisely because we

46:40

do have a pair of shoes

46:42

to walk around in and we

46:44

want this extra one that is

46:46

not necessary for us to just

46:49

walk around in. I really really

46:51

think that's a what a breakthrough

46:53

insight that is into how capitalism

46:55

functions, right? Yeah, oh no, I

46:57

agree completely. I mean it's like

46:59

a The idea would be this

47:02

is, and I, again, if Flacon

47:04

was interested in more than taking

47:06

cheap shots, he might have even,

47:08

you know, dipped into a, well,

47:10

you know, he might have gone

47:13

back to this critique of freedom.

47:15

I mean, like, I think you

47:17

can, I think something in being

47:19

in nothing in this is that

47:21

like the, the free act. The

47:24

free act that you make every

47:26

day and like I say this

47:28

with all seriousness is the free

47:30

act you make every day is

47:32

that you don't kill yourself. That's

47:34

freedom. And it's not. It's not.

47:37

like buying a new car so

47:39

you can go to more places

47:41

and do more things like so

47:43

we have exchanged that like we've

47:45

exchanged this this existential freedom exactly

47:48

for the like for the material

47:50

one and I and I think

47:52

I think like Khan here again

47:54

I understand your frustration that he

47:56

doesn't go deeper in it but

47:59

there is enough for us to

48:01

be able to be able to

48:03

cares maybe right like maybe yeah

48:05

yeah I think maybe it's like

48:07

Just to get to the inside

48:10

itself is that just that that

48:12

was all he could do and

48:14

yeah, and yeah, it's better than

48:16

taking honestly, it's better than taking

48:18

it to like, it's better than

48:20

taking it to a bad detour.

48:23

I agree, I agree, totally agree.

48:25

If those are the two choices,

48:27

the only two choices. Yeah, yeah.

48:29

And so I think he's he

48:31

is able to like, like alert

48:34

us to that kind of thing

48:36

with this, which is that like

48:38

it is in. There's a there's

48:40

another there's a like a double

48:42

exchange. So it's not it's it's

48:45

not just the like the thing

48:47

you're acquiring But like in like

48:49

an accumulating like uselessness you also

48:51

don't have to be overcome by

48:53

existential freedom because that is a

48:55

lot that's harder like in that's

48:58

a much much harder to think

49:00

about every day such a great

49:02

point. And again this missed encounter

49:04

look on and sorry it right

49:06

like it's just yeah it's very

49:09

sad because I think you're right

49:11

like this would have been the

49:13

exact point where he's talking about

49:15

this exact point where he says

49:17

right like that it the things

49:20

it produces serve no purpose and

49:22

that's why we're drawn to them

49:24

right Yes. Like that would be

49:26

the right there to comment back

49:28

and say this is an abandonment

49:30

of precisely our existential freedom, right?

49:33

That SART points out in being.

49:35

and nothing. It would be a

49:37

nice little homage to his old

49:39

acquaintance. But they were never friends,

49:41

but they didn't know each other.

49:44

There is a picture you can

49:46

see online of them to get.

49:48

It's a fascinating picture. He's with

49:50

Picasso, Beauvoir, Kammu, and Lakon and

49:52

a couple other people are together.

49:55

Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty interesting, kind

49:57

of cool. It's like they certainly

49:59

murder is row right 1927 Yankees.

50:01

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right It's

50:03

like okay. You can pitch around

50:06

Lacan, but then you got a

50:08

face heart and head and clean

50:10

up You know Lacan was fry

50:12

on the base pads, you know,

50:14

you can still try you don't

50:16

want to get them on Yeah,

50:19

it's really really funny. Yeah, yeah

50:21

I think you want to you

50:23

want to try to put you

50:25

around to get to Kevin. That's

50:27

yeah, but I got to watch

50:30

what I say because I one

50:32

time I called Bodeo, I said

50:34

philosophical piffsqueak in that occasion to

50:36

quite a revolt from some friends

50:38

of mine. So I want to

50:41

I want to be I don't

50:43

want to offend any kamoo lovers

50:45

out there. But he's a great

50:47

novelist. I'll just let me just

50:49

put it that way. And well,

50:51

you know, you know, Todd. I've

50:54

said this before, but Camu can

50:56

do, but Sartra is Smartra. That's

50:58

really good. Thanks. It's from The

51:00

Simpsons. Oh, really? You got that

51:02

from The Simpsons? I did. Yes,

51:05

that is from, that was actually

51:07

delivered by John Lovett's in a

51:09

scene stealing guest starring role as

51:11

Jay Sherman, the critic in a

51:13

TV crossover episode. You know, the

51:16

television series, the critic from NBC.

51:18

Yeah. So great. It's the episode

51:20

where the thing everyone's saying now,

51:22

where the quiet part loud, it's

51:24

from that, it's from that. Oh,

51:26

it's from that. Wow, everybody. Because

51:29

there's a, there's a movie, sorry,

51:31

this is the Simpsons Mega Minute,

51:33

everybody, but there's a movie competition

51:35

in town and Mr. Burns makes

51:37

a terrible, terrible movie, and he

51:40

pays off judges. on this selection

51:42

committee to say that his was

51:44

best picture. And when they're going

51:46

around the circle, Krusty the clown

51:48

says that his, you know, he

51:51

thinks that Burns' picture was the

51:53

best one. And Jay Sherman, you

51:55

know, John Lovett, says the critic,

51:57

says, how could you say that

51:59

was the best one? And Krusty

52:01

says, let's just say it moved

52:04

me to a bigger house. And

52:06

then he says, oh no, I

52:08

said the loud part quiet and

52:10

the quiet part loud. So that's,

52:12

anyway, that's where, and now everyone's

52:15

saying that about politics, which it

52:17

only took like 25 years, but

52:19

it made it. That's a real

52:21

influence though. Big influence, yeah. Actually,

52:23

probably more than that, 28 years.

52:26

Anyway, but so back on track

52:28

to this, the, it's, I do

52:30

think like for. It's such an

52:32

interruption. It is really, it is

52:34

interesting to, to think about this

52:37

to the next seminar, because there

52:39

are hints in this, because he

52:41

talks a lot about, he says

52:43

like capitalist discourse a lot, and

52:45

then that is not something. Yeah,

52:47

and then the four discourses, so

52:50

he certainly hadn't invented the fifth

52:52

capitalist discourse, which is a controversial

52:54

one, it's not just, we won't

52:56

get into this, but we won't

52:58

get it before. Yeah, yeah, we

53:01

won't get into that thing. It's

53:03

yeah and it's and he doesn't

53:05

talk about that in the next

53:07

seminar so it's like it's not

53:09

really included like you can add

53:12

it but like he also says

53:14

the teacher's discourse as well so

53:16

like he's starting to like he's

53:18

starting to to think in in

53:20

terms that would if you're cutting

53:22

his career into thirds with seminar

53:25

seven being the the outlier. text

53:27

that seems to disrupt the first

53:29

third, the middle third, and then

53:31

come back in the third third.

53:33

Yeah, I think that's right. You

53:36

know, so that this, this, this,

53:38

this, this thing about discourses will

53:40

eventually come to kind of like

53:42

dominate his thought afterwards, but it's,

53:44

um, I think. I think that

53:47

what's, I don't know, I mean

53:49

this isn't, this is implicit, this

53:51

is like a bit of a

53:53

read from me, but I do

53:55

think that he, this is just

53:57

so from him that I can't

54:00

say that exactly that it's my

54:02

point, but like the point from

54:04

this is that the exchange of

54:06

capital works in the way that

54:08

it does, capitalism functions the way

54:11

that it does, because we don't

54:13

think about the psyche. and the

54:15

psychies role in exchanges. And that

54:17

I think is really important. And

54:19

something that is an invention from

54:22

him here. And you know what,

54:24

I have your book, but I

54:26

haven't read all of it, but

54:28

I feel like that is your

54:30

draw. It's absolutely the point. And

54:33

that's why I think why I

54:35

said, when I reread this for

54:37

the third time, I was a

54:39

little disappointed that he didn't develop

54:41

this idea. And this is right

54:43

before I. wrote the book and

54:46

I think I felt that way

54:48

because I didn't want to have

54:50

to write it and I like

54:52

it's not I don't I mean

54:54

who cares feel don't care about

54:57

this but I don't enjoy writing

54:59

books about capitalism I just feel

55:01

like I should write them and

55:03

so it's not this wasn't an

55:05

enjoyable I mean certain things about

55:08

it were enjoyable to write but

55:10

basically it's not and so I

55:12

kind of wish he had done

55:14

it himself but whatever I mean

55:16

again I think Todd saying it

55:18

wasn't enjoyable by the way is

55:21

a pretty perfect gloss on the

55:23

kind of enjoyment that it's like

55:25

when else is often talking about.

55:27

That's true. That's true. That's true.

55:29

That's true. That's true. That's true.

55:32

And I think that, so then

55:34

let's just talk a little bit

55:36

about what goes on further in

55:38

the seminar because he does just

55:40

because we've just said he drops

55:43

the discussion of capitalism and he

55:45

does. And then he makes some

55:47

things really, I think is very

55:49

funny, that he has a great

55:51

session where he has a 30,

55:53

I don't know what it, I

55:56

don't know how to translate Celsius

55:58

into Fahrenheit, but he has a

56:00

39 degree, because I think the

56:02

in front, in. It just says

56:04

high fever, right? It doesn't say,

56:07

yes, it's true. In French, it

56:09

says 39 degree fever. I assume

56:11

it's a bad, right? I don't

56:13

know how high that is. Yeah,

56:15

it seems bad. It seems bad.

56:18

Our uncoof ability. I mean, 30

56:20

is already, I just know about

56:22

temperatures. One moment I have this

56:24

discussion, it's so boring. So, so.

56:26

Yeah, Americans telling temperature. It's a

56:29

really good. session he gives and

56:31

I think it actually sort of

56:33

it manages to kind of follow

56:35

through with what he's doing. But

56:37

let me just say a couple

56:39

of things I really liked about

56:42

what happens even after the capitalism

56:44

discussion drops out. He has a

56:46

nice, again, one of the maybe

56:48

the best definitions of the signifier

56:50

of the lack in the other,

56:53

the S-A-Bard, right, like this signifier

56:55

that is Okay, so it's a

56:57

signifier that for LaCon, he doesn't

56:59

say this, but this is true,

57:01

it's a signifier that's primarily repressed.

57:04

So we don't, it's like we

57:06

don't encounter this signifier of the

57:08

bard other or of the lack

57:10

in the other anywhere. But it's

57:12

the signifier that tells us that

57:14

the signifying field is always, he

57:17

says it reveals a fundamental incompleteness.

57:19

in the locus of the other,

57:21

right? And so that's, what that

57:23

means is that no authority is

57:25

ever definitive, that we can always,

57:28

which is important obviously, which we

57:30

can always challenge any authority that

57:32

every authority is lacking, or in

57:34

Hegel's terms, no authority, every authority

57:36

is subject, not just substance, right?

57:39

Like it's never, it's never full

57:41

or complete. And I think that's

57:43

really important. But then he says.

57:45

And this is also great. I

57:47

think it was the first time

57:49

he says this, that it's in

57:52

that position of this lack where

57:54

the signifier of the lack in

57:56

the other is where the abjaya.

57:58

that's the whole that he says

58:00

this is the whole that can

58:03

be termed the object. So he's

58:05

really thinking together a lot of

58:07

his concepts here and showing how

58:09

they relate to each other and

58:11

clarifying them in ways that he

58:14

doesn't anywhere else. So again, this

58:16

is why I think this is

58:18

really really value, like the real

58:20

value of this seminar, I think.

58:22

And we get this, we get,

58:24

we get, we get, we mention

58:27

this a little bit, we got

58:29

some dusting talk, and this is

58:31

where if the, I think sometimes,

58:33

like when I encounter the, like,

58:36

started reading, look on first,

58:38

there, there was this, I don't

58:40

know, so this had been in

58:42

the, like, the early, 2010, this is

58:45

the first time I was coming

58:47

at this, and the, what, the

58:49

way that. at that time it

58:51

was not so so far in

58:53

the past but also like like

58:56

the last like 11 days in

58:58

this country felt like a million

59:00

years so the so maybe it

59:03

was very very long ago

59:05

but this The question of

59:07

like, oh yeah, so Objayak

59:09

comes in and it takes

59:11

the place of dusting, which

59:13

he introduced. That was kind

59:15

of like, when you're coming

59:17

to grips with the con,

59:19

that's like an idea, that's

59:22

out there, like you'll see that

59:24

in a lot of different places.

59:26

And like, why did like

59:29

dusting like disappear? Like, would

59:31

just Objayak tickles dusting from?

59:33

from the inside. That's their

59:35

relation. But why he wants

59:38

to talk about Abjaya and

59:40

not Dosting, it seems pretty clear that

59:42

he is making, he thinks Dosting is

59:44

not his idea, even though he does

59:46

take it, it's Freud's idea. And he

59:48

does, you know, he's inspired to talk

59:51

about it in seven because of Freud,

59:53

and what he does with it in

59:55

seven is more than what Freud does.

59:57

And I think it's just pretty clear

59:59

that he wanted his own idea,

1:00:01

you know, and I don't think

1:00:04

in a selfish way. There's an

1:00:06

argument it's Heidegger's idea too, I

1:00:08

think. That's pretty funny. So yeah,

1:00:10

so he's doing his, but he

1:00:13

doesn't ever mention Heidegger here. So

1:00:15

yeah, this is also the only

1:00:17

other time where he talks about

1:00:19

ex intimacy, right? That's right. And

1:00:22

it's, again, one of my many.

1:00:24

Apologies. When we first talked about

1:00:26

7R7 or X2, I forget what

1:00:29

I said. This is, 7R7 is

1:00:31

the only time LaCon mentions Eximacy.

1:00:33

And then I was listening to

1:00:35

a lecture by Jacqueline Malair and

1:00:38

he's like, the two different occasions

1:00:40

LaCon mentions X. I'm like, he's

1:00:42

just wrong. Malair is wrong. Ah,

1:00:44

well, no. Probably Malair is right

1:00:47

about Lacan and I'm wrong once

1:00:49

again. So yes, yes, there are

1:00:51

more than one times that more

1:00:53

than one time that Lacan mentions

1:00:56

ecstasy and this is the other

1:00:58

time. So yeah, but it's still

1:01:00

not often. So that's what I'm

1:01:02

gonna. Well, it's interesting. It's proximity

1:01:05

to that thing just leads one

1:01:07

to conclude that he must have

1:01:09

also thought. He links that was

1:01:12

yeah that was Freud's yeah and

1:01:14

so if like if if dosting

1:01:16

is linked to ex intimacy then

1:01:18

that's not that's not his thing

1:01:21

he needs to be be doing

1:01:23

something else yeah I mean it

1:01:25

is a fascinating thing because I

1:01:27

don't know about you but it

1:01:30

seems to me like obvious a

1:01:32

much more estimate yes than dosting

1:01:34

I mean it's just it's kind

1:01:36

of crazy which is which is

1:01:39

which is interesting because there was

1:01:41

a there's a recent volume on

1:01:43

extyimacy and and and There's not

1:01:45

that much talk about dusting because

1:01:48

it does make more sense that

1:01:50

exhumacy refers to abjaya, right? Because

1:01:52

Yeah, because objaya is precisely what

1:01:55

is we encounter like like say

1:01:57

you encounter it in the gaze.

1:01:59

It's an object out in the

1:02:01

visual field, but it's this point

1:02:04

where your desire is wrapped up.

1:02:06

up, your intimate desire is wrapped

1:02:08

up in the exterior world. So

1:02:10

it is odd, I think, that

1:02:13

he doesn't, he could have even

1:02:15

made the switch in the seminar

1:02:17

from associating eximacy with dosting to

1:02:19

associating, but he doesn't do that.

1:02:22

He doesn't do that. It's still,

1:02:24

I think you're right, it's still

1:02:26

this association with dosting. And so,

1:02:28

eximacy disappears from his thought. in

1:02:31

the same way that Dusting does,

1:02:33

right? So I think that's, that

1:02:35

makes sense, I guess. Yeah, they

1:02:38

become the, I think, it's him

1:02:40

trying to, I think trying to

1:02:42

do his, like a reading, a

1:02:44

reading of Freud and trying to

1:02:47

be close to the text and

1:02:49

to draw out what's there. And

1:02:51

that's why that he's, he's explaining

1:02:53

it. What like our relationship to

1:02:56

object you know like it's sure

1:02:58

for sure it's better it's because

1:03:00

it in this is like and

1:03:02

this is a pedagogical comment It

1:03:05

is often so I'm gonna remember

1:03:07

this now for the next time

1:03:09

that I talk about it like

1:03:11

it is often difficult like to

1:03:14

Because students ask the best questions

1:03:16

when you introduce these idea because

1:03:18

they're questions that like you've long

1:03:21

Like blown past is like being

1:03:23

important. Yeah, but they're basic and

1:03:25

you need to be able to

1:03:27

have the answer so like the

1:03:30

idea like okay, so But what

1:03:32

is the so there's an like

1:03:34

this object off for for me

1:03:36

is it the same for everyone?

1:03:39

It's like well, no, but it's

1:03:41

the same form for everybody and

1:03:43

it's like so what's the relationship

1:03:45

between me and my? And then

1:03:48

like every time I've ever gotten

1:03:50

a question like that, it's like,

1:03:52

you know, it's like a long

1:03:54

explanation because it's like, well, you

1:03:57

know, like, you don't know what

1:03:59

it is. It's indefinable. It's like,

1:04:01

I often say, like, it's the

1:04:04

in you more than you, like,

1:04:06

you know, that kind of thing.

1:04:08

And I think people will get

1:04:10

it, but it's just a lot

1:04:13

better, I think, to say, like,

1:04:15

well, it's. It's an estimate relationship.

1:04:17

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and I agree.

1:04:19

I agree. I agree. Yeah, and

1:04:22

then you can explain that term

1:04:24

and then like how those work

1:04:26

together as a cosmology because it's

1:04:28

unfortunate. He's really good. We haven't

1:04:31

talked about it. I don't know

1:04:33

if we want to do this

1:04:35

a little bit. Like he's really

1:04:37

good in here about the signifier

1:04:40

and his phrase that he's known

1:04:42

for about the signifier represents a

1:04:44

signifier to another. represents a subject

1:04:46

to another. And then he's really

1:04:49

good on like the signifier can't

1:04:51

like signify itself like anything almost

1:04:53

says that exactly like it needs

1:04:56

another signifier to be. It's always

1:04:58

opaque, right? Yeah, yeah, so yeah,

1:05:00

there's just so many good things

1:05:02

here I think. We have, can

1:05:05

I bring up another bad one?

1:05:07

All right, okay, you want to

1:05:09

go into a good one? I

1:05:11

did, I know we were kind

1:05:14

of debating whether we're going to

1:05:16

bring this up, but so. There's

1:05:18

this whole discussion of the master.

1:05:20

So whenever he talks about Hegel,

1:05:23

he tends to talk about the

1:05:25

master slave dialectic. We've talked about

1:05:27

how these are not Hegel's terms.

1:05:29

It's hair and connect, which is

1:05:32

more properly translated as lord and

1:05:34

servant. Okay. Yeah. There's a German

1:05:36

word for slave. Hegel could have

1:05:39

used it if he could have

1:05:41

used it. He didn't use it,

1:05:43

but Kojev turns that into Methra

1:05:45

and Asclav, which. Master and Slave

1:05:48

in French and then that becomes

1:05:50

the Dachsah in Germany and France

1:05:52

everywhere around the world. So it's

1:05:54

a fascinating. And Cajev, I think

1:05:57

we've had a whole episode on

1:05:59

Cajev and he's a great thinker

1:06:01

in his own right. He's not

1:06:03

a Hegelian thinker. But for he

1:06:06

is Hegel for Lacan and so

1:06:08

he has a whole discussion of

1:06:10

master and slave in Jewish science

1:06:12

and I think it's it's it's

1:06:15

it's. He has this thing where

1:06:17

he says the master takes the

1:06:19

body of the slave but leaves

1:06:22

him his his Jewish sense and

1:06:24

okay like I guess we could

1:06:26

maybe think through that in some

1:06:28

way but then This is the

1:06:31

thing that I want to really

1:06:33

quarrel with. He says, people's fascination

1:06:35

with Hegel is almost impossible to

1:06:37

undo. Okay. It is only people

1:06:40

of bad faith, this is a

1:06:42

sartry and term, who say that

1:06:44

I have promoted Hegelianism within the

1:06:46

Freudian debate. It is only people

1:06:49

of bad faith who say that

1:06:51

I've promoted Hegelianism within the Freudian

1:06:53

debate. Really? Really. Really. No, I

1:06:55

mean, he's like the great Hegelian

1:06:58

thinker within psychoanalysis. So, sorry, I

1:07:00

guess. Well, isn't what he's saying

1:07:02

to be, well, no, no, to

1:07:05

be fair. Okay, you're going to

1:07:07

try to be fair. But like,

1:07:09

yeah, I know, because as is

1:07:11

my want, sorry. Yes. Isn't what

1:07:14

he's trying to say is like

1:07:16

he would rather people think he's

1:07:18

promoting. Kant within well that is

1:07:20

that is really really really interesting

1:07:23

because I think and this is

1:07:25

the argument sorry I keep not

1:07:27

doing my books really but it's

1:07:29

an argument you don't want I

1:07:32

know there's no negation it's like

1:07:34

analysis I'm not typically right yeah

1:07:36

yeah I claim that the early

1:07:38

and the late periods are Kantian

1:07:41

periods. So my sense is that

1:07:43

he's about to make a huge

1:07:45

Kantian turn. I accept that. This

1:07:48

is this is the end of

1:07:50

the Hegelian moment. So maybe even

1:07:52

while isn't that isn't that why

1:07:54

he exactly why he would say

1:07:57

that here? Yeah, right here. I

1:07:59

mean, it is really interesting because

1:08:01

he says that line about two

1:08:03

thirds of the way through the

1:08:06

seminar. So maybe it's at that

1:08:08

point where he really is made

1:08:10

that's right where he's making the

1:08:12

turn. away from Hegel to Kant,

1:08:15

right? Like I think it happens

1:08:17

sometime in this seminar, right? Like

1:08:19

sometime he starts to make this

1:08:21

move that then we'll get developed

1:08:24

more in seminar 17, away, and

1:08:26

here's what I think it's away

1:08:28

from. It's away from the dialectic

1:08:31

of the subject in the symbolic

1:08:33

order, right? Like that, and then

1:08:35

it becomes, I mean, he becomes,

1:08:37

I like the way you said

1:08:40

he was a triadic thinker who

1:08:42

becomes a quadratic one, I mean,

1:08:44

he's reciting Rick, and I think

1:08:46

that's true, but I also think

1:08:49

he becomes even worse, a thinker

1:08:51

of multi, he goes from being

1:08:53

a thinker of dialectics to a

1:08:55

thinker of multiplicity. I feel like

1:08:58

that's a, that's one of the

1:09:00

more deleterious moves that he makes.

1:09:02

So I think that, and I

1:09:04

would say that the lot of

1:09:07

the last part of this seminar

1:09:09

is a discussion of perversion. And

1:09:11

I think you could see, uh,

1:09:13

and I think this is kind

1:09:16

of, so Alenka Zupansic just wrote

1:09:18

a book, how many names am

1:09:20

I gonna drop today? I think

1:09:23

as you've wanted to just wrote

1:09:25

a book called Disavowel. And she's

1:09:27

not speaking about perversion specifically, but

1:09:29

disavowel is how perversion manifests itself.

1:09:32

And I think you could say

1:09:34

that perversion is the primary symptomatic

1:09:36

response to capital, right? Like that

1:09:38

it's not hysteria, it's not obsession,

1:09:41

it's perversion, it's perversion. And maybe

1:09:43

that explains that explains. Why he

1:09:45

makes this turn to perversion, but

1:09:47

but his idea and I think

1:09:50

it's really good that perversion is

1:09:52

this attempt He says it's an

1:09:54

attempt to hole up or no,

1:09:56

sorry to fill in this hole

1:09:59

in the other right like to

1:10:01

he says like it's he calls

1:10:03

it a restoring of the ah

1:10:06

Objaya to the field of the

1:10:08

a the big grand other right?

1:10:10

So I think that's a pretty

1:10:12

great definition of perversion because we

1:10:15

think of perversion as just like,

1:10:17

oh, you're trying to, you're trying

1:10:19

to trigger people, right? Like, that's

1:10:21

what the perversion's trying to do.

1:10:24

But he's saying, yeah, but what

1:10:26

you're really trying to do is

1:10:28

fill in this gap that the

1:10:30

other is evincing by making the

1:10:33

other fully show itself, right, like

1:10:35

show itself to be whole. No,

1:10:37

I mean, it's, it's, it's really

1:10:39

nice because it's the, I like

1:10:42

to, the contemporary phenomena or phrasing

1:10:44

that I think that I think.

1:10:46

A lot of people may have

1:10:49

encountered that I think is really

1:10:51

a nice gloss on perversion in

1:10:53

the psychoanalytic sense is what you

1:10:55

might call main character syndrome or

1:10:58

someone thinks they're the main character.

1:11:00

And it's... I haven't heard that.

1:11:02

I like that. Oh, thank you.

1:11:04

Well, that's me, baby. Yeah. So

1:11:07

the, well, the main character syndrome,

1:11:09

that's the, the internet has that,

1:11:11

but that connection. Yeah, I thought

1:11:13

to try to explain it that

1:11:16

way to students a couple years

1:11:18

ago. It's the, you know, like

1:11:20

somebody rolls in, they've got like,

1:11:22

they've got like a truck on

1:11:25

like mag wheels, right? Like they're

1:11:27

dumb parking, you know, this whole

1:11:29

thing, it's all, it's very phallic,

1:11:32

of, of, of, Yeah, it's pretty

1:11:34

interesting. Like they're trying to find,

1:11:36

they're trying to be the odd

1:11:38

to fill in the gap in

1:11:41

the other. Yeah, well, yeah, so

1:11:43

they're gonna, what they're gonna do.

1:11:45

I understand why you said phallic,

1:11:47

but I think, yeah, but maybe

1:11:50

we should read it the other

1:11:52

way. We should read it. Well,

1:11:54

I think, well, this was going

1:11:56

to be my claim was that

1:11:59

it has to be together, which

1:12:01

is the, this is the, if

1:12:03

this is the dialectic, the dialectical

1:12:05

portion of, of LaCon's lectures, then

1:12:08

like, you have to think about

1:12:10

those, about those two things. This

1:12:12

like, this, someone is, is just

1:12:15

being, they're just taking up so

1:12:17

much space because they're taking up

1:12:19

so much space because they're taking

1:12:21

up so much space because then

1:12:24

that will substantialize. the other, right?

1:12:26

Isn't that, that's his point? Yeah,

1:12:28

yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the point.

1:12:30

I think that's a, that's really

1:12:33

well put by you, like, like

1:12:35

I think it's better put than

1:12:37

Lacan ever puts it, like you're,

1:12:39

the pervert is trying to substantialize

1:12:42

the other, right? Like, that's the

1:12:44

whole point. Like, it's so interesting,

1:12:46

right, because you think like, like,

1:12:48

the lacking other, like that's the

1:12:51

source of your freedom. So why

1:12:53

don't you have you with that?

1:12:55

But I think it's incredibly, and

1:12:57

I think this is Sarge's point

1:13:00

about freedom, existential freedom, that it's

1:13:02

incredibly anxiety producing. Freedom, it's a

1:13:04

recipe for anxiety, and so this

1:13:07

perverse reaction, which is a reaction

1:13:09

against freedom, because it's trying to

1:13:11

plug in this hole in the

1:13:13

other, which is the basis of

1:13:16

our freedom. is a way to

1:13:18

escape that I think, or try

1:13:20

to, I mean, it doesn't work,

1:13:22

but it tries to escape that.

1:13:25

Yeah, it's in that, it's in

1:13:27

that, it's, I mean, it's why,

1:13:29

like, you, you have to, this

1:13:31

is like a very, very, like,

1:13:34

like, just a very basic thing

1:13:36

that, like, it's just not a

1:13:38

problem that Lacon, like, never said

1:13:40

this, or like, or like, or

1:13:43

I mean, or even Freud, but

1:13:45

there is like. a little bit

1:13:47

of the largely like American push

1:13:50

like like like unthinking like pushback

1:13:52

to to psychoanalytic theory it is

1:13:54

like this unstated charge that like

1:13:56

it doesn't explain why like aberrant

1:13:59

behavior would exist. Or like or

1:14:01

like or like why would these

1:14:03

things exist? It's just like it's

1:14:05

just naming things. It's just like

1:14:08

it just has a it has

1:14:10

an extensive lexicon of its own

1:14:12

words and it's just it's just

1:14:14

naming things and I think that

1:14:17

that well that's which is of

1:14:19

course it's it's. silly, but like

1:14:21

you, like that has, I mean,

1:14:23

that's a, that has taken hold

1:14:26

as an idea. I mean, like,

1:14:28

you're seeing this now in Canada

1:14:30

with, like, psychoanalysis being, like, chucked

1:14:33

out as a way to treat

1:14:35

psychosis, you know, like, like, I

1:14:37

said this to a friend of

1:14:39

mine that like, like, you have

1:14:42

to, like ideologically speaking, like, It

1:14:44

doesn't matter and this isn't a

1:14:46

shot at cognitive behavioral therapy, but

1:14:48

like the the failure rate of

1:14:51

CBT doesn't matter and the success

1:14:53

rate of psychoanalysis also doesn't matter.

1:14:55

Right. Like that's like that's the

1:14:57

kind of like that's the problem

1:15:00

like ideologically. It's like you know,

1:15:02

there are only empirical questions within

1:15:04

an ideological realm, not competing ones,

1:15:06

right? Like that is that is

1:15:09

an absolute. Yeah, and I and

1:15:11

I and and just to like

1:15:13

to tie it back to like

1:15:16

like where I started like with

1:15:18

this trajectory with his idea about

1:15:20

Perversion, it's I think it's it's

1:15:22

more that I think it's uncomfortable

1:15:25

to think this way but like

1:15:27

you if you read you read

1:15:29

seminar 16 you read Lacon you

1:15:31

read Freud like you're thinking about

1:15:34

these things or like you know

1:15:36

other people more recent people like

1:15:38

whatever like whatever like It's not,

1:15:40

it's the wrong question from the

1:15:43

people who would charge it. Like,

1:15:45

you're not explaining why perversion would

1:15:47

happen. It's like, why wouldn't it?

1:15:49

Like, why wouldn't that be the

1:15:52

response to, to, to, in this

1:15:54

case, to, like, to existential freedom,

1:15:56

to the, to the, to the

1:15:59

deadlock of symbolization? Why wouldn't there

1:16:01

be these responses to that? You

1:16:03

know, like, like, like, like, you're,

1:16:05

You can't, if you have a,

1:16:08

if you have a reality without

1:16:10

a real, then that's the only

1:16:12

way that you can ask those

1:16:14

kinds of questions. Yeah, yeah, you

1:16:17

know, yeah, it's a great point.

1:16:19

It's a great thing. Then you.

1:16:21

you're on this other side, why

1:16:23

wouldn't this be the response? Yeah,

1:16:26

yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, I think

1:16:28

it's really good. I think it's

1:16:30

really good. I just came up

1:16:32

with what I think is the

1:16:35

perfect, perfect seminar 16 film. So

1:16:37

I wonder what you think about

1:16:39

it. I maybe, I wonder if

1:16:42

you've seen the original or, I

1:16:44

bet you've seen the remake. So

1:16:46

taking Appellum, one, two, three. Oh,

1:16:48

yeah. Okay, all right. So this

1:16:51

is one of the cases. It's

1:16:53

a very seldom, very rare in

1:16:55

the heist film where the original

1:16:57

is actually pretty much superior to

1:17:00

the remake. Yes. And almost unheard

1:17:02

of because I think in almost

1:17:04

every other case the remake is

1:17:06

better. I think as I've said

1:17:09

before. Yes, you have made the

1:17:11

claim. But in this one, yes,

1:17:13

the original. So what happens? Oh,

1:17:15

yes. There's a robbery on the

1:17:18

subway. And they get away with

1:17:20

the thief gets away with the

1:17:22

money, theoretically, seemingly. And Walter Mathau

1:17:24

is, he's a detective or something.

1:17:27

He goes to the guys, he's

1:17:29

just checking out different possible leads.

1:17:31

And he goes to the actual

1:17:34

thief's apartment at the end of

1:17:36

the film. And the guy gives

1:17:38

himself away. Now that we introduced

1:17:40

interviews in and he leaves and

1:17:43

as he's just as he's I

1:17:45

think this is right to correct

1:17:47

me if I wrong he's walked

1:17:49

out the door and he hears

1:17:52

the guy who had robbed he

1:17:54

had been in conversation with the

1:17:56

thief that was sick he knew

1:17:58

he had a cold and so

1:18:01

he had heard the cough and

1:18:03

so the cough Just what and

1:18:05

then I think it stands with

1:18:07

a shot of math like this

1:18:10

realization on his face like okay

1:18:12

I know I got him right

1:18:14

yeah, and so what I love

1:18:17

about that is it's It's the,

1:18:19

like, the, the, the, the, the,

1:18:21

the, the, the, he loses the

1:18:23

money, so we get the nothingness

1:18:26

of the, of the excess, right?

1:18:28

Yes. But it's the, it's his

1:18:30

own, hajayah, it's his cough that

1:18:32

you can't get rid of that

1:18:35

stuck to him that is this

1:18:37

excess of him that gives him

1:18:39

away. And so I think it's

1:18:41

like the perfect, uh, Lesson, right?

1:18:44

Like, excess and absence, baby. Yeah,

1:18:46

excess and absence. So watch the

1:18:48

original, the remake is not terrible,

1:18:50

but watch the original. It's a

1:18:53

lot of John Travolta hamming. Yeah,

1:18:55

that's the problem. Because Denzel is

1:18:57

really good, but Travolta, he's really,

1:19:00

he's in the, I'm so great

1:19:02

because I was in pulp fiction

1:19:04

phase, I think. And I had

1:19:06

the bravery to make battlefield earth

1:19:09

when you. I guess, right, right,

1:19:11

right. In homage to my great

1:19:13

leader, Elron Hubbard. That place downtown,

1:19:15

and sorry, this is like now,

1:19:18

this is so inside, yes, in

1:19:20

Hollywood, there's a, there's a Scientology

1:19:22

building and just, it is worth.

1:19:24

It is so worth looking inside

1:19:27

that it's just this garish golden

1:19:29

statue of all around Hubbard and

1:19:31

you bet your ass there is,

1:19:33

and it's just, it's so funny.

1:19:36

It's like, whatever, if you had

1:19:38

a conversation with people who knew

1:19:40

something about Scientology and you're like,

1:19:43

what do you think we're gonna

1:19:45

see? We just peek inside if

1:19:47

there was like one thing for

1:19:49

sure if there was like one

1:19:52

thing for sure as decor, what

1:19:54

do you think is gonna be

1:19:56

there? If you're walking with like,

1:19:58

I don't know, it doesn't matter

1:20:01

how many people you're walking with?

1:20:03

So yeah, that's really cool. That's

1:20:05

really cool Okay, so that's our

1:20:07

lesson. Watch the original taking of.

1:20:10

Battlefielders. Oh, wait, no. Take, take

1:20:12

a phone. Sorry, taking a phone.

1:20:14

Sorry, I got. That would be

1:20:16

a real, what do they call

1:20:19

that, a minority report? That would

1:20:21

be, yeah. Yeah, I actually think,

1:20:23

it's obvious, it's bad. But it's

1:20:26

not, like, zero bad. It's like,

1:20:28

it's like, it's, yeah. Yeah. It's

1:20:30

like the, what is it, the,

1:20:32

what's that, 19, was it, 1940,

1:20:35

what's the name of the film?

1:20:37

The. 1941. The Spielberg. Yeah, it's

1:20:39

bad, but it's not, you know,

1:20:41

it's got Belushi. Yes. It's watchable,

1:20:44

it's okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I

1:20:46

tried to show it to, I

1:20:48

tried to show it to my

1:20:50

kids and they made me turn

1:20:53

it off. So it didn't, they

1:20:55

didn't see the merits that I

1:20:57

saw. I'm like, it's pollution. It's,

1:20:59

you know, but I don't know.

1:21:02

All right, over and out. Over

1:21:04

and out. Over and out, Todd.

1:21:17

Yeah. You