/lit/ - Literature

>>6894539
>"The other represents the subjects reaction to the choices and decisions presented to oneself and the name-of-the-father, the façades one presents to the environment, and how one approaches obstacles and situations. The way one interprets one’s options in general, logically processes and decides in which paths one shall enforce their will. Where the little other symbolizes what one already wishes to do, the big Other, represented with a a capital O, is the domain is everywhere where one would stop and think, weighing the options as if they’re on scales. The dialectic of desire and pleasure are balanced by a focus on the mind relationship between the big and little other: One cannot be judged heavily for other, for the inclinations they cannot help – it’s instead the choices we make upon which judgment falls. The little other also masks the big Other, disguising one’s intentions from others and titrates one’s appearances, often in order to manipulate others or one’s environment. Outwardness in all its forms. In this we come to understand the subject as a dialogue between the desires of the other and the ego impulse drives of the Other balancing out their respective demands to archive exclusionary unity within the symbolic order."

>"The other and Other dichotomy form a balance between one’s inner identity and outward identity; What the subject would inwardly perform as a vacuum or unhindered, versus what they would externally do when confronted with obstacles and choices. other is “who you are in the dark”; Other is “the face that you keep in a jar by the door”. (Or if you prefer, other is like hardware, raw potential, inclination, and inner integrity, whereas Other is like software querying it for results.) These are not only classically opposed, in a sense, but also demonstratively opposed in the Apollo and Dionysian sense: If you recall, by impeding one's own death drive to be wrought near one's own symbolic interpretation as a demonstration, the analyst enforces a gambit of otherness at the expense of big Other, guarding one's trust in her and enforcing the repetition of Object a within their relationship. However, don’t be blindsided into declaring that favoring Other over other is any less criminal. When the subject internally hides the object of their pleasure in a completely safe register without fear of traumatic castration, the subject may turn to completely disregarded the dangerous nature of their environment in order to indulge her natural curiosity and venture forth the unconscious unyielding. They may overindulged in the pleasure demanded from the Other; the slightest bit of logic applied to one's Oedipal situation would have keep her from entering the domain of the hysteric, kept the subject safe and alive."

It's so simple, why haven't you idiots absorbed this shit and solved the psychological disturbances of the socio-political system today with this perfectly brilliant and coherent theory?