I went down that rabbit hole for about two to three years, and could salvage very little information of value. But, I do have a tendency to really dislike willful obscurantism, which Lacan recognized. Having said this, I can tell you what I could salvage:

He's not clear on any topic. Some Lacanian psychoanalysts even go as far as arguing that a person with a drinking problem may do well to continue drinking or that "anxiety" is the one emotion that does not lie. Why? It's not argued for.

The best sources I found on Lacan were Using Lacanian Clinical Technique by Phillip Hill and the various books on Lacan from Bruce Fink, especially A Clinical Introduction of Lacanian Psychoanalysis.

I hear that Lacan's published seminars are easier to understand than his Ecrits (his main work), but have not read them. Many were not published when I was into his thought back in 2011 or so.

Finally, the best Lacanian, by far - and even he has problems in his scholarship (bad sources, makes up information, etc. This is documented) - is Žižek. He is entertaining and sometimes says interesting things. His lectures (of which almost all) can be found on YouTube, and are superior to his books.

His documentaries on films are interesting. Take them with grains of salt.

I know that doesn't answer your question and I would recommend you listen to a few of Žižek's lectures and call it a day, as I've seen people go down the Lacanian rabbit-hole and never come back.

I hope your experience on this end up being more useful than mine.

Like idealism, psychoanalysis in any form is bullshit. :zip:

Like idealism, psychoanalysis in any form is bullshit. :zip: — 180 Proof

Mental health = IQ + EQ = Xin (heart-mind)???

I edited the OP with additional information.

When did we last hear about societies being toxic and needing to be cleansed of vicious corrupt elements and made pure and healthy again? Oh, I remember, it was in that speech by every tyrant who ever existed.

When did we last hear about societies being toxic and needing to be cleansed of vicious corrupt elements and made pure and healthy again? Oh, I remember, it was in that speech by every tyrant who ever existed. — Cuthbert

Yes, good observation. The dark side of moralism is fascism.

But what does this have to do with Lacan?

The dark side of moralism is fascism. — Jackson

Hmmm... :chin:

But what does this have to do with Lacan? — baker

Probably not a great deal, but it might have a lot more to do with psychology of any sort getting together with politics.

Mentally healthy folks think like me, and therefore the opposition is mad and needs to be locked up and given treatment until they think like me.

she says that our society is "toxic" and that her task as the president of the country will be to make it "healthy". — baker

So if you are so fortunate as to promote a therapist to president, it would be the madness of a toxic society to ever remove her; anyone suggesting such a thing will be in urgent need of treatment for their own good and that of society. Some toxins may need to be eliminated from the body politic, and asylums will have graveyards.

Politicians can rule the land and the body, but don't let them into your head at any price.

Then it won't matter much. It's a bit like Leninists, there can be left wing or right wing Leninists.

Zizek claims to be a left Lacanian and categorizes Miller (Lacan's official editor and translator) as a right wing Lacanian.

In short, I don't think you'll find much, despite the references.

In short, I don't think you'll find much, despite the references. — Manuel

But surely Lacanian theory is about _something_?


Found this:

The medical agenda for reducing or eliminating symptoms is at complete odds with Lacanian therapy. Emotional suffering, in this regard, demands understanding by and for the patient alone. Implicit in this suffering lies a passion and desire that eludes direct linguistic expression, yet may be knowable from recognizing the limits set by language. Herein lies the neurotic dilemma of speaking the unspeakable to another who is likewise a divided self.

/.../

It is important to reiterate that the focus of treatment is the patient in relationship to others. This position is in contradistinction to those forms of psychotherapy aimed at altering psychic structures such as the ego and its defenses or in working toward the targeting of specific symptoms. Lacan adopted an epistemological stance consistent with systems theories. From this position, a patient’s psychic conflict arises from an effort to preserve sanity in the context of living among others.

https://www.psychstudies.net/how-lacans-theory-can-be-helpful-in-psychotherapy/

Yeah, sure, you'll get directed to several sites with lots of information, sometimes conflicting, sometimes not. I'm not saying there's nothing to it, but it is of dubious quality to me.

Honestly, your best bet would be rod the Lacan for Beginners comic book book. The series is quite good and can be read rather quickly.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JGE4BNS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

If that doesn't provide clues to an answer, I can't think of anything else.

The point is that he is so obscure, that it is assumed that people who read him, must be smart. Add to that the "Dr." label, and you can get a lot of unquestioned dogma or nonsense.

Anyway, I'll stop here.

The normal person achieces nothing! Humanity rides on waves of madness! :snicker: