The shrink from hell

What? Common knowledge relates to infinite regress between two parties, but concepts like A correspond to far more than two immediate interlocutors. Your interpretation of your example tries to fold communication into a strictly consciously available process, which by any measure of psychology -- psychoanalytic or otherwise -- is rarely the case, as I doubt is the case even with those researchers. The argument just appears to conveniently exclude far too much as a matter of course, such as use of language which invokes or signals one's sense of self in relation to social dynamics not available to the other speaker or even the speaker himself (going both ways), overdetermination of gestures and speech, psychodynamic relations with the parent or close figures which may have affected those concepts of self in relation to the social sphere, etc. The messages we send don't end at some immediate meaning. If that were the case then a lot of magical things (by current standards) would be possible simply by nature of speaking with the same immediate set of words. And yet look at the crosstalk that is possible in many or most conversations between two strangers on the street, who rarely operate under the same schema (linguistic, psychological, or otherwise). The farther it goes, the less likely it is for you to find an easily reducible system of meaning or value in relation to the enunciated content of either of their messages, or even a conception of reality which motivates their enunciation, that is structured solely by a direct relationship between the strict, surface-level knowledge of the speakers proper. Even between two people, the more complex a relationship becomes (of which a factor is, in itself, the social sphere comprising family structure/peer groups/political identifications and so on), the less likely it is that "euphemism" or "plausible deniability" (to whom, exactly? would be the subject of the lacanians' analysis) are in themselves sufficient to provide insight into motivational properties of their language.

I'm all for psychoanalysis being open to evidence-based approach, and I'm glad it is been happening. But the premature and uninformed triumphalism being espoused here is probably the worst kind of disciplinary shelteredness and scientism around, with a dash of presentism, to throw all the isms out there. Frankly, I don't think you are really interested in an actual discussion that exchanges ideas. You may be more interested in a power struggle or academic tribalist aspect of the content, but I can only suggest that you actually study some of the material at a meaningful academic level or in some other rigorous way.

/r/zizek Thread Parent Link - timeshighereducation.com