We didn't leave the missing object function unspeakable. It is the rhetoric of Freud, who expressed the specific meaning of the repetition in the talking being. Because repetition is not such a recollection effect in biological terms. The repetition has a certain relationship with what we call joy (jouissance), which is the limit of this knowledge.
Knowledge is someone else's pleasure.
That's why the formula above makes sense – of course, when we say Someone Else, since there is no such thing as someone else, we are talking about the area that arises with the intervention of the speller .
Of course, you will tell me that we are spinning in the same place – the one who is marking, the other, the knowledge, the incinger, the other, the information, etc. But here the term arbitrariness allows us to show the input/output location of the device. In this way, we undoubtedly leave behind the real existence of knowledge, the entity recognized as knowledge, and resort to its limits, we resort to the area of these boundaries [we hit the head, we hit it], this is the area where Freud dared to face his words.
What kind of a point does all those words bring us to [bliss]? It doesn't bring information, it confuses you. Then let's learn some lessons from this mess, because it's about boundaries and abandoning the system. How will the system be abandoned? It will be abandoned by a hunger for meaning, as if the system was in need of understanding. The system doesn't need to understand. But we mortal beings need meaning, as we will discover in person at every turning point in this year's course. Then take meaning to you!
That meaning may not be true. Even so, it is certain that these "This meaning may not be true" will be seen to be abundant – the insistence of this abundance indicates that we have hit the size of the truth.
Pay attention to the ambiguity of the word "Trieb" in psychoanalytic stupidity, people did not try to understand how to solve this category. This category is not degenerate, so a previous use of this word does not exist, it even goes back a long way, goes all the way to Kant, but if we pay attention to the benefit that analytical discontition can provide, we do not hastily translate it as "instinct". Of course, such slips are not without reason. I've been stressing for a long time that this translation is wrong, but we have a right to take advantage of it. Not to bless the notion of instinct in this respect, but to remind you of what makes the notion of instinct conducive to shelter in Freud's discourse and to try to accommodate the concept of instinct in this discourse in a different way.
The idea of popular imagination instinct is really an idea of knowledge – instinct is such a knowledge that we can't express its meaning, but we expect it to ensure our survival, and the reasons for which we attach that expectation are not bad. But if we are going to make any sense of what Freud said about the essentiality of the principle of pleasure in the functioning of life, wouldn't we be expressing the idea that imposes itself on him in his later discourses( the principle of pleasure: keeping tension to a minimum), that is, the urge to die?
It was the development of an experience, an analytical experience that permented this concept on him, that the experience was in the discourse structure. Remember that the urge to die is not invented by evaluating people's behavior.
That's where the urge to die is. Here it is, in the case of something between you and what I've said.Notes:
Turkish: Light Peace Fidaner
 c.n. By thinking and talking, we'll make someone else. Someone else is the head-to-head. See "Finishing is starting: Life exercises for sport or unscrewing the ponzi scheme"
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again? Archilochus
Sunday, May 8, 2022
Jacques Lacan, "Instinctive knowledge and the urge to die"