/lit/ - Literature

>>16559850
Oh yea? this one is at least 60 Million. But in my opinion it's priceless

>>8900071

i actually just read an essay by zizek where he articulates the difference between the deconstructionist, derridean stance, and the lacanian psychoanalytic one pretty succinctly. in Derrida meaning collapses with the reader. the very process of reading in such a way as to make the text cohere undoes the text—as subjects, we cannot help but decimate, denaturalize, alienate our object from itself.

with lacan the object already has the subject inscribed into it, and thus is basically illegible to the subject because he cannot reckon himself into it. there is a stain, an incommensurability, a blind spot at the heart of the object—the text, the film, the mode of production—which marks the subject's place in reality, but which the subject cannot get "out of." it's like a malevich painting (one of zizek's references in the essay): we are always taking the white background for our object, and trying and straining to see around the black square, unaware that the black square is OUR PLACE already carved into the heart of the object itself. of course the painting literalizes the process, so the metaphor must fall flat. but if you've never tried to analyze something and run up against the point at which it is no longer clear if you are projecting something into it or pulling something out, then all of this will always be lost on you.

anyway, in short the difference is in where the break down of meaning occurs. derrida retreats into the subject, lacan tries to break the subject's world open onto the object. the essay is called "The Undergrowth of Enjoyment," and can be found on google.

sorry if this isn't succinct, i'm just now wading into lacan myself.