Life has been pretty busy. I’m working mostly 6 days a week (50-60 hours). Then on Sundays I just take 10 hour naps. Honestly, I’m dying to get more days off. But it looks like I will be pretty tied up for the next few weeks. Every once a while, I can squeeze in half day off where I get to read and write. Those are the best days.

This post has bits and pieces that talks about me. I also share my thoughts on Israel and Palestine, Jean Baudrillard, my favorite post on Lacan (easy guess), and the viability of psychoanalysis in North America, along with your mom. Wow good one.

Ok byee.

* * *

Most memorable email

I think it was a few years ago when a kid sent me an email asking for my name so they can cite my psychoanalytic post for their high school essay (the first one on split subjectivity). He told me that I was really inspiring which I thought was such a great compliment. It made me very happy. 😄

* * *

My writings on this site

I bet I caught some people by surprise from my last post. Truth is, some of my knowledge, wisdom, and thoughts that I share on here are the result of my own wounds. It is only when you look closer where you might notice how they are part of what made me who I am today.

They are my scars. 🙂

* * *

Israel, Palestine, and Colonialism

I think the fundamental cause of their conflict is the result of colonialism. Personally, I feel for the people of both Israel and Palestine, along with everyone who are suffering from the war. But not much for those who are responsible and causing for all the violence on both ends. Hamas is messed up. And Israel isn’t doing any better by retaliating. All Israel is really doing is feeding on violence and revenge for future generations to come. Honestly, I think they need to ceasefire.

There are lots of political forces at work that are quite complex. But colonialism is nothing new and had always been the cause for a lot of different forms of violence throughout history and today’s world. You see this in United States. You also see it in Canada and many other countries. While I think colonialism is unavoidable at a fundamental level (I wrote about this here when I spoke about Derrida), it is a question of minimizing it. I also think it is a question of ethics and how we should treat the other. Violence is never the answer. Neither is retaliation and revenge.

You see something similar with Ukraine and Russia where their conflict goes back to the Soviet Union and NATO. And if you look at it more, both of these instances resembles something like the Western world trying to establish their political/economic/ideological dominance and influence on other countries. Like US is for Israel and backing up Ukraine joining NATO. It is another form of colonialism if you think of it this way.

Colonialism is like someone who sits on your front lawn and claims it as their own. Only that you can’t call the police because they are the “police”. And in a week, they also claim your driveway, and now your front door. Pretty soon, they claim your house and maybe even your family. They might still feel bad for you and tells you that they are peaceful. So they share your own food and water with you. Then eventually, you are forced to live in your backyard.

I have no desire to debate anyone on this matter. All I really have to say is that nobody wins in a war. 🙏

* * *

…Hanging out by yourself

Is it lonely? Not always. It’s much better than inviting a person into your life who makes it worse. Some people suck. But it’s definitely nice to have someone to talk to who gets you.

* * *

Old Buddies

I had a small reunion with an old friend and his wife along with a few others. I was really tired from work that day, but we went to a bar for some wings and still had a great time. He was a good friend of mine from back in junior high and high school where we did so much stupid shit together. I was such a bad kid when I was young.

Back then, we egged some dude’s house from our school and got caught where they made us wash it off. Then next year, we were like “Eh, fuck it lets egg him again” but didn’t get caught this time LOL. They probably knew it was us. But I do feel bad about it now. In junior high, we also went around drawing penises in everyone’s year books. 😂 Then there was this dude named Travis Mah, and for the dumbest reason, I always called him 69 Travis Mah where it became his nickname. So every time someone says 69, someone in our group of friends will always say “Travis Mah”. LOL it’s so stupid.

We also spoke about running into people from high school where my friend told me how he ran into my first love. Her name was Melody. She was really sweet and beautiful, with a good heart. Her family was also good to me where they treated me as their own. I don’t talk to her anymore, but I heard she moved to Scotland. I hope she is doing well.

It seems like as you get older, your priorities change where you don’t have as much time to hang out with others. Many people from my school are starting families, getting married, and trying to buy homes. But there are also those who broke up with their partners, changing careers, and those who got addicted to drugs. One actually died from overdose. Some guy got depression, lost a lot of weight, and disappeared. Then some other dude became a multimillionaire who already retired.

It’s also crazy how my friend and his wife has been together since high school (15+ years). They got married in a low key wedding with their family members of around 15 people. It sounded like a peaceful wedding for sure. Very happy for them!

Also, everyone agreed that my facial hair looks good on me. Many also said I look more attractive with age….or maybe they were just trying to be nice. 😂 Either way, it was a fun reunion. We ended up giving a 50% tip ($80). The waitress must’ve been really happy. Life is tough these days.

* * *

What did Jean Baudrillard mean when he said, “You no longer watch TV, it is the TV that watches you?“

It’s nice someone asked because rarely anyone inquires about Baudrillard. To understand him, you have to read “against” his writings a little bit. Baudrillard saw the inherent function of the “object” where say, it is the sex object or television that controls the subject via seduction, and not the subject who believes they have power. By this, Baudrillard isn’t simply implying a woman who shows off her sexuality which seduces and controls the man (though it’s not wrong). Rather, he is trying to point out how the object also reduces the subject into an object due to the mirroring effects of seduction.

Let me show you a more sophisticated example with psychoanalysis which highlights this Baudrillardian view (because Bobby is the coolest nerd and you know it 😎). In the age of social media, you are no longer the split subject in power who looks through the internet. Rather, it is the internet that looks right through you. And if you look deeper, you will realize you are not even human. For you are reduced to nothing but data for companies to collect where they try to sell your own information right back to you. We can think of YouTube video recommendations, TikTok, Instagram; dating preferences on apps; where all of them feeds you what they think you will like based on your own data. Soon without realizing, this highly categorized information begins to shape and sculpt your subjectivity based on sameness. In some sense, it produces who you are. You become a machine who repeats what are shown to you. It produces your “identity” as the One where you become a simulation of yourself. It may even turn you into a mindless zombie who is incapable of self reflection. You become pure production and consumption.

Thus, if one wants to scroll through social media, they only need to look at themselves in the mirror. Only that now, social media (the TV; pure object) becomes you by imitating your desires. Social media may say something similar to what a seducer might say, “I’ll be your desires” (because you have been telling the system/object what you desire by clicking on posts, liking it, etc.), where it exploits you to your last drop of mental energy. Obviously in our day and age, these things are hard to avoid. For even the news media functions in similar ways which leads to political divide and reinforcement of sameness. Nevertheless, from this perspective, social media becomes something like the mirror stage, the mass cultivation and production of narcissism and simulation. A gigantic virtual Platonic cave, if you will.

Voila.

* * *

Speaking of PhD…

I remember I once met a colleague in grad school who said they never understood the purpose of philosophy because most of it is “just a theory” and “thought experiments”. What’s funny was how they did one of their degrees in philosophy. I just found it ironic and wanted to ask why they were doing their PhD…because PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. 😂

* * *

Glasses

In case you are wondering. I am blind without my glasses. Everything and everyone appears as a blob unless you are right in front of my face trying to kiss me or something.

* * *

My favorite writings on Lacan

I like all of them. They were all good in their own ways with varying approaches. Some have a much stronger philosophical dimension to it than others, such as Death Drive, Reality, and Beyond. Though there are things that I could’ve said better. My favorite section of that post was the last one on libidinal economy, where I felt like I really nailed the fundamental positions of psychoanalytic thought in regards to human nature and its relationship with society. I also like the part where I spoke about dreams and repetition compulsion.

I think the most original Lacanian post is probably The Subversion of the Split Subject and Clinical Context, Theory and Practice. I also thought I threw in some pretty cool examples for clinical psychoanalysis. I tried to make my point clear on the idea that psychoanalysis seeks to free up the split subject from the Other’s desires and give them more space to produce their own. The only thing I wish I spoke more about is obsessive neurosis. Whereas the Mirror Stage and the Wound of Split Subjectivity is foundational where I often use it as reference in subsequent writings. There is not much to comment on because I think it is the easiest and most straight forward piece to understand.

Most people who had only been exposed to Lacan through my blog have no clue how hard he is to read. His writings are nearly impenetrable until you have experience with Freud and read a large enough volume of Lacan’s works where you start to see the system and patterns of his ideas. They are also ambiguous and counter-intuitive, with multiple meanings which makes people think he is an intellectual snob. Perhaps one of the reasons why Lacan does this is because neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity. The entirety of Lacanianism revolves around human consciousness that constantly circulates around a mysterious pebble that the subject safe guards in a fortified castle without having any control over. This precious object can only be potentially discovered by unraveling our conscious thoughts. It is what drives human desire. It produces the effects of love, along with all the frustration, anger, hate, grief, melancholy, and the madness of humanity throughout history. And if it were to be given a name, it can only be assigned by the lower case letter, a.

If I really had to pick a favorite, it would be Metaphors of Love and the Limits of Human Knowledge. I still remember writing it back in 2021 during the fall and winter, where it left a lasting impact on my own intellectual life. While it is not perfect, it is one of those writings where I realized it wasn’t just the content that means a lot to me, but the person who inspired me to write it. Anyone who understands me well enough would know that, when I spoke about this post in #11 and rephrased the love encounter (hyperlinked here; at the end), it wasn’t just any love encounter that I was describing. It was my own. 😊 If anything, it was the most personal example of love transference that I can give you guys. She really did, leave a wound in me that I do not want to replace. 💘

* * *

Good Contemporary Source on Lacanian Psychoanalysis

Check out “The Lacanian Review”. They publish a lot of great works on Lacan in English. I believe it is managed by The New Lacanian School (NLS) that was founded by Jacques-Alain Miller, the son-in-law of Jacques Lacan (he is often known as “JAM” by the psychoanalytic community). Many NLS around the world regularly gives seminars and presentations on psychoanalysis. Very cool!

* * *

Why is psychoanalysis not as popular as other psychological disciplines in North America?

The decline of psychoanalysis as a mental health practice is due to many reasons. However, France remains a powerhouse in the discipline where many Freudians, Kleinians, and Lacanians continues to practice and publish works. There are a few other countries that also teaches psychoanalysis as mainstream psychology (Belgium?). In North America and other English speaking countries, you will see psychoanalysis most used in the intellectual/academic arena by well known public intellectuals like Slavoj Zizek, Alenka Zupancic, and Joan Copjec. In terms of why it lacks popularity in North America, I think one of the biggest reasons is how incompatible psychoanalysis is with North American ideologies.

One of the main reasons why psychoanalysis is not as popular in North America is because it is nearly impossible to prove empirically as a science (it also has to do with America’s shift towards analytic and scientific philosophy along its cultural shift towards mechanical mass production). This means that its costs are not covered by insurance and health care, since you can’t really prove its “effectiveness” (whatever this might mean). Not to mention that there are other cheaper methods such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, along with others that are more efficient where you see faster results. Often times, you will read or hear people say that psychoanalysis is “out of date” which I don’t think is true. It’s just that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to understand the nuance and complexity of psychoanalysis, no offense. As a result, you see the rise towards more “evidence based” theories such as attachment theory, which is also heavily influenced by psychoanalysis (I find it pretty interesting). With this said, there are some prominent psychoanalysts who are devoted to testing it through scientific methods.

If I remember correctly, Freud used the German word “Wissenschaft” to describe psychoanalysis which is often translated as “science” in English. But the term can also translate as “knowledge”, or “the pursuit of knowledge”. The term “science” meant differently back in Freud’s days than it does now. Heck, scientists used to be called “Natural philosophers” (science is a philosophy). It boils down to how you translate or interpret psychoanalysis.

Another big reason on why psychoanalysis is not popular is that North America values practicality, independence, results, self control, and biological determinism. North American contributions to psychology lies in the areas of behaviorism which negates many unconscious aspects of the human mind (it also somewhat ignores personal history). North America also values efficiency, quick fix culture, productivity, and adaptation to an environment (capitalism) that has become increasingly demanding over the years by trying to make people highly efficient, productive workers and consumerists. But what happens when humans can’t keep up with the increasing demands of society (Other)? Do we replace them with AI? Turn them into prosthetic machines? Or do we just give them anti-depressants to get them back on their feet?

Not to mention that going through analysis reveals many of your unconscious thoughts, where these revelations aren’t always things that you can change. Hence rendering it “ineffective”, “impractical” and “unproductive”, even if you can still find new ways to deal with it. In fact, psychoanalysis won’t necessarily make people more “productive”. Psychoanalysis also deviates from a lot of conventional psychological methods and does not submit to dominant political and ideological forces in the West. As such, it will strike the general population as provocative and controversial—especially those who are already deeply invested in North American ideologies and capitalist values, where self-reflection is discouraged. And if they were to turn towards themselves in a deeper way. Many of them might fall apart. Unfortunately, this is what psychoanalysis does: to help people break through their defensive mechanisms so they can face themselves and all the unconscious affects that made them who they are. Psychoanalysis takes on the position that the split subject is always opaque with themselves; which is to say that people do not know what they are saying, even when they think they do.

For these reasons, psychoanalysis is not a good fit for North America, which is exactly why it is a great fit. 😂 I always saw psychoanalysis as a discipline which challenged all the rules, laws, and sovereignty of social norms, politics, mainstream psychology, and governments because of how it seeks to describe the unconscious symptoms of societies and what drives humanity’s neuroticism. It is quite rebellious and radical if you think of it this way. After all, having beef with the Other’s law (prohibition) is one of the main symptoms of neurosis; just like the teenager who might defy their parents. As a result, psychoanalysis is the anathema to modern civilization, politics, psychology, and the concept of “society” and “law”—not just in North America, but the entire world. It is also thought that the fundamentals of consumerism, capitalism, and even some of North American dating norms, all the way to identity politics, are incompatible with psychoanalysis—particularly with the experience of love.

It has long been known that Freud himself had many doubts in regards to North American capitalist culture and its viability with psychoanalysis. Such incompatibility is best seen in the well known story when Freud arrived by ship to New York, as he prepares to give his first lectures to the American audience. On the ship, Freud said to his colleague, Carl Jung:

“They don’t realize that we are bringing them the plague”.