Death. What it is? What does it refer to and what does it mean? For a child, perhaps death is leaving, the absence of the Other. Death is "going to war"; and “die” is the same as “go to war”, “don't bother me”, and just “go away”. Again I remember my daughter at the age of one and a half, when she used the word "bye!" as protection from her same-year-old cousin who was torturing her. She used it very rarely, in the most extreme case, when no other measures helped. Then she waved her pen to him and said "bye!" It seems that the first encounter of the subject with death is the experience of the absence of the Other. Nothing suggests that with age the subject gains more experience with death.
The knowledge of death is still the knowledge of the absence of the Other. Death still remains closed and inaccessible to the subject, he cannot break through to it in any way, although the imperative “memento mori” is inclined to obsessively repeat itself in culture as long as it exists. Why is that? Why should I be reminded of this? Maybe because everything is not clean here? What is wrong with death? It’s not so, and not so from the very beginning. Literally from the stage of the mirror. “It was soon discovered that the child had found a way for himself to disappear during this long loneliness. He opened his image in a standing mirror that went down almost to the floor, and then squatted down, so that the image in the mirror went away. " The child plays with his own absence. That is, I want to say somethingthat all the philosophical reasoning of a mature person about life and death is nothing more than a cry "Baby oh-oh-oh". First, the subject is faced with the impossibility of his own absence, in this sense, death is division by zero, and secondly, he cannot NOT divide by zero, this operation is obsessively repeated, division by zero becomes the fate of the subject. So what is it? What can be that which cannot disappear? Of course, only that which never existed.
In the second lecture of the cycle "Lacan-educational program" - "Language and the disappearance of the subject" A. Smulyansky shows that when the subject is represented, presented to the gaze of another, he turns into a function, and he does not exist as a subject. When the subject is not presented to the gaze, he is not again, he is not for another. So the subject is absent, but does not know about it. He is absent, he is dead, he is logically impossible, but as long as he does not know about it, everything seems to be in order. Although not all right. There is such a thing as anxiety, and it does not deceive: "preparedness in the form of fear with an increase in the energy potential of the perceiving system is the last line of defense against irritation." And now we combine castration anxiety with the impossibility of the subject, and we get the fact that the subject is not afraid of death, but that there is no death. In this regard, I just want to say: "Baby oh-oh-oh". Here is another way to understand the death drive. A return to a state that has never happened before. Playing with impossibility, with the very foundation of the subject. Isn't this an impossible question the analysand is asking himself? Is it not this question that he obsessively repeats in all sorts of variations, editions? Just as the dream of a traumatic neurotic instills fear, which is lacking in order to heal from fear (a breakthrough into the Real?), So games with a mirror are designed to show that the subject may not exist, and this convinces him that he is. Fear, by the way, always works like that. The subject receives the object of fear, albeit in the form of denial. He does not even recognize in this object the object of his desire.with the very basis of the subject. Isn't this an impossible question the analysand is asking himself? Is it not this question that he obsessively repeats in all sorts of variations and editions? Just as the dream of a traumatic neurotic instills fear, which is not enough there to heal from fear (breakthrough into the Real?), So games with a mirror are designed to show that the subject may not exist, and this convinces him that he is. Fear, by the way, always works like that. The subject receives the object of fear, albeit in the form of denial. He does not even recognize in this object the object of his desire.with the very basis of the subject. Isn't this an impossible question the analysand is asking himself? Is it not this question that he obsessively repeats in all sorts of variations and editions? Just as the dream of a traumatic neurotic instills fear, which is not enough there to heal from fear (breakthrough into the Real?), So games with a mirror are designed to show that the subject may not exist, and this convinces him that he is. Fear, by the way, always works like that. The subject receives the object of fear, albeit in the form of denial. He does not even recognize in this object the object of his desire.and games with a mirror are designed to show that the subject may not exist, and this convinces him that he is. Fear, by the way, always works like that. The subject receives the object of fear, albeit in the form of denial. He does not even recognize in this object the object of his desire.and games with a mirror are designed to show that the subject may not exist, and this convinces him that he is. Fear, by the way, always works like that. The subject receives the object of fear, albeit in the form of denial. He does not even recognize in this object the object of his desire.
If we do not forget that the subject and the organism are completely different things, it will become clear that in relation to the organism it is quite possible to speak of biological death. Freud reminds us of the biogenetic law, that is, that ontogeny is the repetition of phylogeny. At the same time, drives and compulsive repetition reveal their connection, which consists in the fact that the very nature of drives is very obsessive and conservative, which contradicts their other side - the desire for change and progress. “Attraction, from this point of view, could be defined as a desire in a living organism to restore some previous state, which, under the influence of external obstacles, a living being was forced to leave, a kind of organic elasticity, or, if you like, the expression inertia in organic life. Conservatism versus progress - death versus life, and Freud, having established these poles, further deconstructs the concept of “life” and then shows that these are not opposites at all, and they generally have one goal. Life is not the opposite of death, it is only a temporary deviation from it.
Promotional video:
This is a workaround to death, an attempt to avoid "short circuiting". The organism, Freud notes, wants to die, but only in its own way. After this explanation, it becomes obvious that the drives for life and death do not represent a primitive dichotomy, a binary opposition, from this it is impossible in any way to deduce any archetypes or primary mythological symbolism like "yin-yang". Freud goes the other way, "short-circuiting", not "short-circuiting" on the Eros and Thanatos. His thought does not die in the mythology of Manichean oppositions; it follows a more complicated path. There is no practical benefit to be drawn from the death drive, life and death will not explain anything on the couch, these sophisticated intellectualizations can only perform a protective function. Freud warns and breaks with mystical traditions such as Maslow's pyramids or Ken Wilber's ladders. which is to be expected to contribute to his development into superman. But I personally do not believe in the existence of such an inner desire and do not see any reason to spare this pleasant illusion. "But I personally do not believe in the existence of such an inner desire and do not see any reason to spare this pleasant illusion. "But I personally do not believe in the existence of such an inner desire and do not see any reason to spare this pleasant illusion."
Eldar Hagverdi