@CapenerSean what did you think of the 3rd and 6th chapters? tbh i think the last one is interesting for shifting the convo about sexuation in lacan but i think others execute the argument a lot better
@boreddeleuzian@enniottefire fwiw i think chapters 2 and especially 3 are better for what the lacanians think lack brings to the table (as, amongst other things, a way to think psychic life as always already social)
@boreddeleuzian @zhenyamoder @Sofia_Phobia so the description of 'desexualization of reality' doesn't speak to a sexual reality that gets changed/lost but rather a question of ontological inconsistency, through a 'reality' that can only be falsely articulated (and historically, has been articulated through sexual myths)
@boreddeleuzian @zhenyamoder @Sofia_Phobia here are the passages that follow that quote, i think zup's point is a bit more subtle! specifically the claim that "Psychoanalysis is both coextensive with this desexualization ..[]" -both these traditional cosmologies and the ontology of modern science are historical moments 1/
@boreddeleuzian @zhenyamoder @Sofia_Phobia crowds and party is really good! really hits home on the claim that a theory of lack is important to understand the multiplicitious desires within a political party/movement
@h_blaubear ahahah ok i hear that, then maybe my unhelpful response would be “right after one another”! but fr what i usually do is i circle words or phrases i dont understand/leave marginalia w/ a ‘?’ (as opposed to underline which i do based on content) and later return with a translation
@h_blaubear i think its a bit of a false dichotomy, as you build 2 different skills — translation builds specific vocab (for the content of the text) whereas reading for comprehension builds general understanding skills/learning through context — so it depends on what you’re trying to get!