For those that have not studied psychoanalysis and have taken the subject that was clarified by Lacan as the barred subject as something that somehow isolated the teachings of Freud. Did not comprehend Lacans position.
The discourse that barred the subject was not isolated from the workings of the world.
Now in regards to my position as someone who has studied Psychoanalysis the I of the speaking subject (Lacan) that is indeed barred by the same discourse that created it, is a fundamental structure that if recognised acknowledges the position the discontents of civilisation. Through the same studies acknowledgments of, Jung, Klein and others were not unknown or repressed. All use language but not in the same way or with the same orientation or purpose.
‘ Mi’ can be seen as slang, as can ‘luv’ & ‘yu’. However its use was to allow a dialogue to be opened between what I felt necessary, when the words ‘I love you’ did not or could not allow a space for my perspective. Within the discourse.
Did or does that mean I could not say or read ‘I Love you’ ? No, it might however say something else that is not clarified when the I of an other speaking subject who is assumed to be listening wants to use one of the prejudices, established to create hierarchy when faced with the actual personage of I represent, causes a case of the big Other of language that is repressed in the desire for full expression emerges as a means to avoid the encounter with the ’real’ of Lacanian Psychoanalysis.
It is not mental health. Psychology, counselling or therapy. The fact that those practices do not recognise the difference is the point, returning to Freud’s civilisation and its discontents, not to speak of the uncivililised.
Do I represent the full embodiment the structures, institutions or otherwise that have created the discontents, No
Do I full embody what is not? No
Does that mean I should not express?
When all fails due to one thing or another who is to blame? Is not the observer a participant in the acts of the drama in the fantasy even when it is no longer palatable? When the Utopian dream is eclipsed by the dystopian and one does it know when to curtail the horrors of its world view. The perversions may reside as fetishes to be enjoyed as the displaced objects. Arise the puritans who know nothing other than to eradicate the abhorrent with the teachings of the pure with their horrors unfettered.
The struggle for an end to the repressed is said to be championed by the artist who has somehow managed to sublimate the symptom and finds a way to externalise what is incompatible with the symbolic, to find a place situate itself within the intertwine between the imaginary and symbolic registers to avoid the encounter with ‘real’ where the signifier is lost to the symbolic and chain of signifiers/signifcation is lost. Does not the artist need to appeal to the art world to find financial stability
I cannot call my position as artist, even though I have an artist background.
The visual may represent but does not speak back, even though it leaves a trace of recognition. Written language also represents but can be read, out loud or in silence, understood or not and have a known, acceptable signifying chain.(structural)
To see a symptom on a screen in the 21st century is beyond the virtual, the space behind the ideal.
Fake news- a digital narrative of the fantasy made real or an Ideal wanting participant(s) to act for the show.
No mother to lust after or father to say no, just the walls in the mind that avoid the stage and only see the dramas of Big Br ‘others rules of the authoritarian domains…