Desire & Drive

[Music] Hello, thank you for joining us on another episode of Y Theory. As always I am one of your hosts, Ryan Angley, Todd, the other host. How are you? Hi Ryan, I'm good. Excellent, very good. Good to hear. Today we are talking about two fundamental terms in psychoneletic theory, but the fact that they're fundamental and maybe in some ways basic grounding, it's hard to think of many ideas without, in psychoanalysis, without some understanding of desire and drive, despite how basic they are, very, very difficult and to understand contested. We are going to work through, starting from Freud, how to understand these ideas, how other thinkers within psychoneletic theory think of them, and try to suss out where the fault lines are, the tension points, and where people diverge and say this reason or that for that reason. So, anyway, Todd, you're going to start us with the source, right? We're going to start with the source. It's interesting just what you said, I do think it might be difficult to find two psychonelic theorists agree on their definition of either desire or drive. I mean maybe desire would be easier and drive more difficult. What's interesting is that Freud has a clear, not all that clear, but at least a clear theory of drive than he does of desire, because it's not, I think, totally evident that he has an understanding of desire, except in so far as he associates it with, for one, the unconscious, and for two, with the pleasure principle, I mean those are related because those are principles is what governs the unconscious. And I do think that so for him, desire is getting rid of, if you think he has a theory of desire, it would be something like getting rid of the buildup of excitation and then, then pleasure is that that release of excitation. I think it's worth, I think it's worth underlining that this already, like what you're saying, is a contested idea that is, we have friends that would totally disagree with what I just said. Yeah, yeah, that's, it's worth saying. And so hopefully they're not listening or that they, they went out for a beer when this part of the podcast was going to come back and then, they'll come back later. And then they'll be like, I like the whole thing. Yeah. So, so, so that would be, I think, Freud's theory of desire is this, my desire is a desire to eliminate excess excitation. And either, he has two different ways of formulating, like either get to a homeostatic point, which would be like a minimal level of excitation that I can, I can deal with and live with, or to return all the way to zero. And now there are people who say, well, that's the difference between drive and desire right there or a difference between pleasure principle and death drive that death drive is the return to zero. And pleasure principle is the get to the homeostatic, but I don't think that, I don't think that's right. And I think there are other people that think the opposite. So, maybe we should even, shouldn't even broach that. But then, and then, but the theory of drive in Freud. So, he has, he has three main points in his career where he talks about drive. So, the three essays on sexuality early. And then the instincts and their vicissitudes, which is, of course, poorly translated to, which is, which would be, instincts, of course, has this naturalist connotation to it that Freud didn't mean because he will use the word that German has a German has a word instinct. And he will use the word instinct when he means something natural. And so, he uses the word "trib" which doesn't mean something natural. And so, for Lecon, it's important that it's, that it's mediated through the signifier, that "trib" unlike instinct has this mediations or the signifier. But it's also interesting that he doesn't use the term vicissitudes necessarily. It's "trib" and "trib" shiksala, the, the, the fates of the drive. So, yeah, that's fast. You said that to me pre-show. I had never heard that before. That's really, really interesting. Yeah, it's the, it's the, it's the problem of like the fact that we speak different languages. Yeah, of course. It's unfortunate. But anyway, "trib" thing, I just, I just want to throw out there that, yeah, in, in the standard edition, everything's translated as "instinct", but as you're saying, like, you know, in German, it's "instinct" with a spelled almost like English except there's a "k" and then "trib" means "drive", just for anyone listening. I mean, you know, many people listening probably know this distinction already. But drive, "bate", just to throw this out there, when Freud is saying this, he's referring to something that is exceeding biological necessity. I think that's fair. Yeah, that's absolutely correct, right? Yeah. Yeah. So then, so that's in 1915, he writes that's one of the papers on metapsychology. And then there's the real revolution though comes in. And so for him, and then the real revolution comes in 1920 when he writes "beyond the pleasure principle", and he conceives of the death drive. And then, so what's interesting is that death, he conceives it. So he starts off talking about compulsion to repeat. And then in that, in "beyond the pleasure principle", and from compulsion to repeat, he comes to this idea of what he calls "death drive". And so I think a lot of readers, LeCon, among them, and Slavo, even more than LeCon, I think, has developed this a little bit further. Think of death drive as itself involving repetition. So Freud, I think Freud thinks of it as just the desire to drive, to die. But I think that LeCon, and so they think, no, it's instead a sort of structure that death drive is a form that the drive takes to not to get rid of satisfaction, but to follow a circular repetition of circular pattern. And LeCon, even when he diagrams drive, he diagrams it as a circle going around an object that it's constantly missing. Yeah. So this is interesting too. You said the first place that Freud conceives of this is in three essays on theory of sexuality. And that's where he says, I mean, I think this is what you're referencing, the great line that the finding of an object is always the refining of it. Yeah. And I think that's the first idea. What is that? What is that, what is that essay? Is that 1890? No, it's 1903. It's three essays. Okay. So anyway, okay. So we're the finding of an object. I'll always refining of it that's this circular pattern. Can I right now introduce a not a challenge to what you're saying, but like just to go with this point of how contested these terms are. And we're trying to like mediate the differences. There are without names. There are people who believe that the way that you described the drive is like sort of like extending this excitation. That is how people in psychoanalytic circles describe the pleasure principle that the purpose of the pleasure principle is to make it so that like a pleasure is not extinguished or exhausted. So it is, it installs itself as like a limit so that pleasure can be extended. So how would you grapple with that understanding or make it easier? Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah. I mean, I don't think the problem with that is that I think Freud finds that that's pretty that that phenomenon of, you know, like extending excitation. I think he thinks that's much more difficult to understand than just talking it up to the pleasure principle because what that means is in order to extend excitation, I have to cause trouble for myself. And so that's why I don't think that can be assimilated to pleasure principle. And I think that's why Freud's move is directly like he and his thing that actually in beyond the pleasure principle that turns him from, at least in his narrative, that turns him from pleasure principle to death drive. He's like, there are all these different forms of evidence he goes through. And then he finally gets to act to psychoan out like the psychoanalytic session and what he calls the negative therapeutic reaction that when someone's on the verge of finding the, of solving their neurosis, they end up subverting, doing what they can to subvert the, the analytic process. And he's like, well, why would they do that? And so it seems like it's really tough to assimilate that to pleasure principle because what they're doing there is extending the excitation, right? Like not allowing it to come to an end rather than, and then that, rather than just getting rid of it, like letting the, letting the session end, or letting the analysis end would be getting rid of the excitation. And instead it's like you, you sustain it more and through causing, through like backsliding in your analysis. And that backs, I think that backsliding or self-destructiveness, it has to be known, has to be death drive or has to be drive. And can't, it seems to me like doesn't make sense to think of it as pleasure principle because pleasure principle seems more straightforward to me. That's interesting. Yeah. I think what I want to, to bring up here is that this is a definition of the drive that I think probably G-Jack is most well known for to be able to, use it, belabored word, already, extending. He's extended this idea of-- and he associates the death drive pretty exclusively with undermining of the self. Right. And also with repetition, right? Like those two things. Well, I don't know how much he emphasizes self-destructiveness, although I think you're right that he does. But for him, it's totally repetition. And I think he does a nice job of drawing out this distinction between desire as this moving forward-- like, desire wants to move forward. And in the Leconn, associated with metanomy, so this movement from one signifier to a connected signifier to another. And I think we've all experienced-- I think the great example would be the kind of macho guy who goes from one sexual conquest to another, thinking each one is going to be-- I have that conquest. I'll really have something. It's just constant disappointment of, oh, yeah, whatever, it wasn't that great. And then move on to the next one, into the next one. And each time the realization of desire coincides with a dissatisfaction. Right, right, right. Oh, I was just going to say, maybe people know-- Slavenway's also talked about the figure of the zombie in the horror film. He's used to talk about that. The zombie is a figure of a drive like absent desire that it just is this pure repetition. And what a zombie does is it repeats without desire. And that is what's sort of terrifying about it. There's no kind of-- Oh, there's no intention. It's headless. Yeah, it's headless. I know he thinks that he thinks that drive is this totally headless repetition without the-- And so if you can think-- I think it's nice to think of the opposition between desire as this movement forward and drive as this stuck repetition. Yes, certainly. I think it does kind of nicely break down the opposition. So it's not a total opposition. Because in some sense, desire and driver operating on the same terrain is just desire has the fantasy of attaining the object, whereas desire has no object. Like it's a desire sort of contains within it the unconscious recognition that there is no object that could satisfy it because it's satisfied by missing the object, by nothing. So nothingness or nothing is the object of drive and then some evanescent object as the object of desire. This is-- I've described this to you. And sometimes I describe this to my students as when you buy a new iPhone, I'll even get to the end. I think in some ways, this is in popular discourse is understood as buyer's remorse, is the confrontation with the idea that your desire can never be satisfied. And I think that there's something that's really great about Apple products where people think they want the thing, they want the new MacBook, they want the new phone or whatever, but what they really want is the box. And I just-- I know that this is totally anecdotal, but most-- I just-- I asked my students who have Apple products like I do this every year, at least in one class, who has an iPhone or MacBook, who still has the box? And most people still have the box. They still have the box. And it goes even beyond this. If you go on eBay, a product that has no box, that has the same quality as someone who's selling the exact same product, but with the box, the person with the box can charge whatever-- Twice as much? Twice as much. It's just so much more money. And because this is the thing is that we think we want-- we think we want the product, but we want that we want the box. I think is what ends up happening. That's really good. I think that LeCon, because he was an early investor in Apple, like I think he understood-- [LAUGHTER] No, but he was, he unfortunately, died before they were created. But-- He doesn't support Steve Jobs. Yeah, maybe not. Yeah, maybe not. So I don't know exactly the origin data of Apple. Yeah, that doesn't matter. That I think that the distinction between object of desire and what LeCon calls object awe, which is the object that causes our desire-- Exactly. --I think it's pretty nicely captured in the opposition between the iPhone and the iPhone box. Yeah, but like you just described, I think. So what's interesting is, is that the object awe-- the famous LeCanian object awe-- is the box. It's the box. Yeah. The object of desire is the iPhone. And so we are not satisfied. And I think it's nice to-- so one way of thinking about this opposition between desire and drive is drive entails the, again, unconscious recognition that it's the object awe that satisfies us, the object. And so it doesn't-- getting the object is nothing to drive. Right. It doesn't-- but desire believes that the object of desire is what satisfies us. So it wants to tear through the box. Yeah. Yeah. You're like a kid on Christmas. Yeah, like a kid-- I mean, I was a terrible kid. I constantly was disappointed on-- two in the afternoon on Christmas day was for me the most depressing time in all of human existence. And I thought-- and it's because I was so stuck in the logic of desire. And the fantasy of the-- I mean, fantasy maybe is just the idea that the object of desire is the object awe. Yeah. That's the deception of fantasy. Like it thinks that the object of desire, the iPhone, is really the thing giving me will produce the satisfaction. But it never is that that produces the satisfaction. So I think it's-- this association of desire with missing and I'm sorry, of drive with missing and failing and desire with success. That's a nice way of think of the opposition. So they're overlapped on each other. But one just entails this idea of success that the other doesn't. And I think works against as well. Like the drive-- Right. I think that's a key. Yeah. I think that's key that the drive is-- because if the drive entails this unconscious recognition that I'm satisfied only by not getting the object, by failing to get it, then it's going to do whatever it can to subvert my any possible realization of my desire. Because it's only through not getting it that I actually get it. And I think-- Right. So that's why when you're-- I mean, everyone does this, right? When you're doing various self-destructive acts, you're really-- you're harming your self-interest or you're good. But you're at the same time, you're fueling your drive. So it does make it hard to imagine-- that's why I think there's no-- I think Freud thought that there's no such thing as human happiness. Well, yeah. Of the drive. Like the drive is-- and don't you think it's fascinating that the one contemporary philosopher who's relatively friendly to psychoanalysis, Alain Badu, has no theory of death drive. And he just a few years ago wrote a book on happiness and having a goal of philosophy, right? It's interesting. It's interesting. No one who had a theory of drive would write a book on philosophy of happiness. That's what they just think that's not in the cards. The happiness is imaginary. And it's imaginary because of drive. Like the moment that what you think you're going to be happy is the moment that you'll do the most self-destructive thing you can. Well, it's interesting, too, that the idea of happiness conflicts as well with, I think, understanding the body in a psychoanalytic sense, which is that-- I mean, you used a word-- I'm probably 10 minutes ago about a homeostatic state. I think that psychoanalysis as a theory rejects the notion of homeostasis at all. You can't have this-- Oh, what is it? There's no-- There's no yin and yin. Well, it shouldn't have said that. Yeah, for it shouldn't have said that. He shouldn't have said that there is a-- Right. I think you're exactly right. Because there's always something. There's always-- there's always-- And Lecon gets into this more with the idea of the cut. There's no zero. There is only-- There's only minus one. We start at minus one. But yes, you're going to say. No, I think that's right. And I think yin would be a great heretic in that sense. Yeah, yes. It's great. The notion of a kind of homeostasis is integral to his way of thinking, and his followers, like Jordan Peterson, today. Oh, that's-- Yeah. But that's what they're trying to-- And I think it's true that homeostasis seems to be-- people who pedal homeostasis also often pedal happiness. I think when Freud says the end of civilization is discontent, I can't stand up in front of my fellow-- He uses the sexist fellow men as a profit and advise how they should arrange society. It's because I think he understands that. That there's-- I mean, I think it is nonetheless-- so then I think one of the interesting questions is is psychoanalysis doomed to just be kind of like a commentary on how political projects run awry because they are constantly undermining themselves? Or is there a way to integrate that to see how that undermining is itself has a kind of positive valence to it? So this is-- yeah, I wanted to jump in on this because it was the point that I wanted to get to is that a book we referenced a couple times in the podcast, "A Lanko's a Pantsix Recent," "What Is Sex." She does a good deal of work. And what I think is the largest chapter in the book that begins about objectoring to donology and then becomes about the drive as understood by Freud and then is understood by Lacan and Delos. And she makes the claim that for Freud, the life drive, which would be aero's, and then Thanatos, which is the death drive. I don't think he used the term Thanatos. He doesn't use Thanatos. OK, it gets imposed on him. That gets imposed on him. He does. I think he says death drive only. He says death drive only. OK, so this-- another translation thing. Although this is-- I think you said this before-- this is an excellent example of the drive at work that we have-- these discussions are so many of them in psychoanalytic theory arise out of misunderstanding partially because of translation. And I think that-- Well, I think what you just said is right. Like the drive is the reason why we can never have a fine definition of drive. Yeah. Because there's a constant battle about what it means even, even though it's the simplest-- Lacan even says the drives are the myths of psychoanalysis. Like it's-- Yeah. It's the foundational for psychoanalysis. And yet, there's still a kind of contestation about what's the foundational term. I think it's like-- to me, it's almost like a meta-paraproxist. Like it's a meta-slip. And I think it does-- I mean, one of my interests-- like this is a little long-term interest of mine-- is to have a project on misreading and mishearing. These are the only ways that people read is by misreading. And the only way is people read-- here is through mishearing. There's only mishearing. There's only misreading. And tied into the drive, but maybe a future podcast. But-- yeah, so what Lacan does, I think she sums it up nicely by bringing Beckett into the equation by saying that the drive-- so the death drive is not opposed to life. And in fact, the death drive allows us to live. It allows us to die differently. And she says the altering the famous phrase from Beckett and the unnamable die again, die better. Yeah. And this is what-- as the motto of the drive. And so-- Yeah, I want to see you. So she says in there-- Yeah. Drive is a core of negativity that makes life worth living. Yeah. So that's, I think, fascinating that it's-- So in some sense, the drive isn't opposed to this social bond. But it on the one hand tears it down. But on the other hand, it's the condition of-- it's the thing that makes it possible as well. It gives us our universality and our connection to others. But it also the thing that sever us from others. And I don't think you can separate the severing from the connection. I think that's-- And I think-- It's well put. Yeah, I think it-- and I think maybe we could-- again, this is also contested because someone like Lee Edelman in the book No Future wants to see drive as just a pure-- this is a pure severing. So a broad negative force. Right. He even says that drive is the negativity opposed to every form of social viability. And that just shows you the way it's so contested. Because a link sees death drive in some way formative of a social link. Right, right, right. Yeah, if that's the way that you live-- if this is what makes life worth living, and that is the drive is the zero point, again, taking away minus one. But it is the minus one point of all social bonds and the society in general, if you follow along that idea. Right, right, absolutely. Absolutely. So I think it's-- but for Edelman, for Lee, it's much more that drive is only the negativity. It doesn't have the-- it doesn't. And so that's why he says that there can be no politics of the death drive. And so that puts him radically at odds with a link, I think, a Slavoy, and people like that. Because they try to envision ways in which-- all of Slavoy's political interventions are attempts to think about drive as a form of political or social connected. So I want to-- it's a loaded capitalist word. But I mean, would what you're saying be that-- maybe we could sum it up like this-- the drive does have this negativity in it. But to insist it as negative in an evaluative sense, as in it's always taking away, it's never additive, is to ignore how the drive can be productive. Absolutely. Right, absolutely. I think that-- I mean, maybe this is Aegel's great contribution that negativity always has a productive-- yeah, it was a productive-- like, in fact-- That's super interesting. Yeah, in fact. And I think that part of the problem is that Freud often can think dialectically. But he-- like, take-- and I think this is what Alenka is doing to Aeroson death drive in her book, like that. That she's dialectizing Freud's dualist-- like, he just Freud, you know, when he first thinks about this, and it's basically and beyond the pleasure principle, though there's sort of intimations of it earlier. Yeah, yeah. He has a different dualism. So he has a dualism of the sexual instinct, or sexual drives, and the life drives, in, say, in the Narcissum essay. And then, in, beyond the pleasure principle, it's the dualism of Aeroson death drive, like you just mentioned. And then-- but it's dualistic. So it's like, or manakiest. They're just separate. And they don't interact with each other. And what Alenka shows is that instead, it's no, death drive is kind of the privileged term. And the productivity of Aeros actually comes out of that negativity of death drive. Yeah, and that's the way of thinking those two-- Well, I mean, that makes-- So they have a dialectical connection. I was just going to say it makes them more haggilian. It's like, thinking with contradiction. It's not saying, well, they're contradictory. They're opposed. So they're two separate things. Right. I think it's so hard, I think, to not fall into a dualist way of thinking and think, oh, there are these two things that are opposed. But instead, think the dialectical way of there's one. And then that's why the problem is, I think this is why people don't like to think like this, is that if you think dialectically, it seems like it's monastic way of thinking. Like, and that's not like a monk. But like, there's only its monist. Because one term, in order to think dialectically, one term has to be privileged in order to then to be undermined, right? And then to produce-- the other term has to be produced out of it, like sent most simply in like Hagle's relationship with a master and the servant. They don't exist separately. Like, they don't come to each other separately. It's instead the one is going to produce out of the attitude of the other. Yeah, that's great. That's-- you know the example I like a lot. I mean, this is just briefly-- Slavoy is great. Reading of Hagle is that the second term is produced first, if you think-- Right, the thesis antithesis-- synthesis, which is void in Gisex reading. But the antithesis is produced first, and that produces the thesis. And the example that I like from American history is the War on Drugs is a Nixon-- I forget what year-- he commissions this report to find out about whether marijuana should be considered a scheduled one narcotic or how difficult it is. And he gave it to his top Republican lackey and the guy produces the report. And he says, no, we shouldn't make it illegal or attack it. And he says, OK. It puts it in his desk. And now we have the War on Drugs forever that this terrible thing. So it's not that-- I mean, a lot of people like to say is like, oh, we were working with incomplete information. This is like one of the-- I really don't-- this is like a popular thing. Is that people don't do things bad on purpose. They act with incomplete information. That's Socrates, right? Like, yeah. You know, there's no one conscious, no one wills evil. Right? They're just mistaken. They're just-- yeah. And so on. But so this isn't-- and so then the problem is that, well, Nixon is just a-- he's an outlier, exceptional figure, whatever. But anyway, so the-- point is that like the second term that you know marijuana isn't that bad. That was actually produced first and then the first term that marijuana is going to like kill your kids and it's going to be this gateway drug forever. That was produced second. So like, anyway. Yeah, that's great. Right. I mean, that's a good way of justifying your marijuana habit. That's why you're right. No, don't say that on a podcast. I don't. That's okay. I'm just kidding. Sorry. Let's be clear. That was a joke. That was a joke. That was a joke. No, but to come back to the point, I think it's a great point. And I think another good example of this is a link that's right. That death drive, like you would think like first there is the pure life drive and then death drive interrupts that. Right. That's a virtue. But yeah, yeah. Your point is the interruption of death drive. Life drive emerges out of that. Yeah. Yeah. Like, it's a really, really good point, I think. And it's, I think it absolutely has to be emphasized. I mean, it follows from what you're just saying about the priority of the second term. And again, just to come one more time back to the Hagle Master Servant Dialectic. For Hagle, even though the master seems like it's first there's mastery, then like, subdue the servant. It's actually the prior position is this position of the servant who experiences this, what he calls this absolute dread in the face of death. And thus says, I don't want to get into any, I don't want to get any fight to the death. And so that, that, that position actually is existentially prior to the one of mastery. So I think, I think you can go through like all of these oppositions and find two things. They're not really oppositions, but dialectical relations. And secondly, that what seems to be the secondary term is actually the first term. Yeah. That's great. And that's, I think that's an important way out of like the Yin and Yang thinking of desire and drive as like these, you know, these two forces that make like a whole circuit. And like, it's all, like, it's almost like, like, it's like a fun game. Like, they're like starskying and hutch. Like, they have what the other, what the other lacks. Right. And it creates, it adds up to 100% because they each have 50 or something. It's not in that, that's, that's not the point. The point is that like the, these two, these are two forces that like are have opposed ends and they resist each other. And that is, and that resistance is that which creates, I don't know, like again, it's like a thing, like a unique path for, for, for people. Like it allows for, for one to die differently. Right. I think that's right. And don't you think it's fascinating that you can't have like on the one, just like I agree with totally what you said about the different forms. But in a certain sense, they operate on the same exact territory and follow the same path. They just, they just, the path is just not understood in the same way, even though it's falling the same path. You know what I'm saying? No, I do. I do. Yeah. Well, I like it as, so right. The thing that you said earlier is that like, that, desire, it, it seems to push forward. And you want to think about that almost like, well, I don't know, maybe do you want to think about that as a straight line? I think that'd be like an easy way to, yeah, to conceptualize it for someone listening. And then you want to think about, you know, drive as a circle. And so it's like, like, I, you know how I think about it is like, you know, you know, that like that's the, no one does this because like a stupid thing. But like if you, you watch like like a kid's playing and something from like on TV from like 1950s and they're like pushing like a, like a wheel around with a stick. Yeah, right. Like, so that's like, that's what we, we have is like, we, you know, that's how I'm thinking about in my head is like the, the wheel and the, and the stick is this, as this, as this shape, like again, it's like this pushing forward, but this repetition and this like, dragging back or, or like a, a, a hauling back, which is something that the phrase I'm taking from, from, from Joan, Joan Copjack, who references this in, in, in LeCan that there's a, isn't, isn't, I may have to stop to try to look this up, but like the German word that, that Freud uses for the drive, doesn't it have, is it holder holder, like holder, something is in there? Oh, Vitor Holung. Yes. Vitor Holung is rep, that's, that's repetition. Repetition, sorry, repetition. Yeah. And so in repetition, which is central to the drive, in, in that German word is the notion of hauling, like, like, like, of, like, of hauling back, right? Is that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that, anyway, I think that that's like, that's fascinating. Like a, like, a, like, if you tried to, like, if you tried to have a, a fighter jet take off with the, um, the parachute already coming out of the back of it. I like that. I like that as a vision of drive. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's good. I mean, I do think it's interesting the way that could there be, is it possible to imagine a subject, a pure subject of drive? Mm-hmm. And I don't think so. Like, I don't think, like, like, even this example of the zombie, like that, I mean, that's not like a real, that's like a fantasy thing. And I mean, in the layman terms. Yeah. I don't know about that. But, yeah, but, right, because there, like, there's not such thing as an undead person. And I, but I don't know. I mean, I, I feel like that the, the, it's, you can never, like, you need the illusion that you're moving forward. Yeah. And thus, desire, you know, and thus, you have to be within the logic of desire in order to, to activate the drive. So I think that the, I don't think that there's, it's, I mean, I think that you can sort of take into account the drive, take into account your self-destructiveness. But I don't think you can, I don't think you can totally make that into your conscious aim. Mm-hmm. You know, like, I, yeah. Well, I mean, I think that's what it means to, to understand the consciousness and the unconscious are opposed to each other. And that, yeah. If, like, I think desire can be, I don't know about this, but I think that desire can be made conscious. Like, you can, you can have these moments of conscious awareness of desire, but I don't think that drive can because, yeah, no, no, I'm just going to sit. Yeah. Well, I was going to suggest like, isn't this the, the difference between psychoanalytic theory and a theory of self-help? Because, yeah. Like, I mean, this is one of, you know, one of Freud's great insights, right, is that like, you know, as he says about psychoanalytic theory that a cure is a bonus, which is not like, I'm, I'm caching checks and like, adds a bonus if the patient's cured at the end. It's not like that. It's, you know, and he says that in the impossible professions, essay that like, you know, about government and health care and education, teaching, yeah, that the, there's no, there's no end, there's no end point, there's no logic, like, there's no logic that is pushing you toward like any particular kind of end. So I think, so the, the self-help difference is that like, oh, once you, and this was, I mean, this happened in Freud's lifetime, right? Like, what the development of ego psychology is, is like, if you just recognize like the, the, the drive and how you're trying to undermine yourself, then you don't have to. If you just recognize you want the iPhone box, you won't get another iPhone or whatever, you know, like, and that's not, that's not the point and that's not possible. Right. I don't think it's possible. I think that's correct. So, so, so you agree that there is no pure subject to the drive, basically. Yeah. Yeah. If there was, then I think you're right, then in some sense, psychoanalysis could be reducible to self-help. Yeah. Yeah. Although, it's funny because someone said to me, I read my book, Capitalism as Desire, Capitalism as Desire as I read it for it as a kind of self-help book. And I didn't, I didn't mind that. I thought that was kind of nice. But, but it would be, it would be kind of a perverse self or a kind of, you know, undermining self- undermining self-help, right? Like that, like, it would only be the recognition that I, there's no help for me. Yeah. Or, well, we're just like, there's not, I mean, again, I mean, to, to go back to like, to, to Freud's conclusion and the impossible professions is like, there's just no, there's no perfection of it. Like, I think you can, I think, you know, maybe what this person was, you know, they were using self-help as a shorthand, like, you know, you can read something, you can read psychoanalysis. And, and you can, oh, I don't know, I don't want to say like, you can become woke or whatever, but like, you can become, you can become more, more aware of certain, you know, systemic functions and like for either yourself or or in the social bond, right? Like the, the group or the individual. But it doesn't, it doesn't prescribe a set of, of solutions and it doesn't give a path to like personal fulfillment, which I think, I almost wonder if, if it did, if it would be taken more seriously by some people who dismiss it, because like, I, and here I'm thinking of like, like, I don't know, like your board wells or your, your knoll carols and like, you know, your, your people that think that it's, it's just like analysts and, and, and, and psychminal like theorists are just creating problems and they're not, there's no, there's no solution right? It looks like a very American saying, I think, anyway. But I don't know. What do you think about that? - No, I think that's probably, I think it's probably right that if, but again, that would require psychoanalysis to abandon the territory of the unconscious, which is the only territory. - Yeah, that's true. - So that it wouldn't have any insights at all because I think that's the whole, that's its whole ballgame. Like its whole premise, and it's not even a premise, the whole discovery of psychoanalysis is that the unconscious, you know, rules over consciousness. And so once that's your, once that's what your discovery is, then I think there's no way you're gonna be effective as self-help or as like something therapeutic. Or, you know, 'cause there's a way in which, like once you recognize that, what drives you to analysis, other than like, okay, I can get over the idea of getting over this. - That's not very appealing. - Sure, yeah. - I think, you know, like, I think if you're the one always making psychoanalytic interventions, you're not gonna, people aren't gonna be convinced by you very often. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Because it's not, again, it's not, I think you're right. Like there's no clear aim that you're going for that could be realized. That's the whole, in fact, that is the whole point is that not only do I, not only can we not realize the aim, but not realizing the aim is the aim. - Is the aim. - Yeah, right, right. - And so it's a real, and I think, so that's, so I do think that in that sense, psychoanalysis is on the side of the drive against desire. Although, you know, it's not like desire can be the enemy that can be eradicated because you can never fully, as we just said, maybe you can't really fully be us, just a pure subject of drive. But I do think, you know, I think people are both drawn to psychoanalysis today and resistant to it, because we live in a real desireful time. And I think the more that you get on, like it seems like to me the logic of internet is completely the logic of desire, right? Like you, like the Google search, you search for one thing, and then you go to another, and then you go, that gets, - Yeah, it's a synonym. - And then you go, "Yeah, it's a synonym." - And then you go, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." And there's no, and it always holds out this promise of getting something, and then you never get it. So there is the logic of drive kind of lurking in there, underneath, but it's never explicit, I think. - Yeah, no, that's really interesting. And like I think that it is, it's so funny, it's like one of the basic insights and discoveries of Freud is like, you cannot master the unconscious, and that is, and if you start there, it means that you, well, I mean, like you start, and I actually think you start new end there, right? Like I mean, that's like the kind of the, you're just dealing with the consequences of that. Like it's just radiating outward, and that's why there's no end of analysis, which is why, you know, what Likhan has moved to tie the end of analysis with the recognition that there is no big other, that like, you know, you have to start, you have to start analysis with this idea that the person that you're going to has something to tell you, and then you have to end with the idea that like they don't have the secret that you might be looking for. And it's like, you know, I mean, it's like, I like, I mean, it is quite like teaching, it's like stand-up comedy. Like if you went into a comedy club and you thought that every single person that's going to come up and talk is an idiot and unfunny, that's, you're not going to have a good time, and the crowd's going to be terrible. And like, they're, you know, every comic's going to get boot off the stage. It's the same thing, you know, you go to a college class, like, and you think like this person doesn't know anything. They may not, but if you start that way, like that's going to be-- - Yeah, you can't start that way. Right, so again, that nicely catches the way that the being misled or the, you know, like that's Likhan's, the title of seminar, '21, like, Likhan Dupair, like the, if you're not, don't allow yourself to be duped. - Mm-hmm. - Yeah. - So if you don't, and I think that you could read that in this way, if you don't allow yourself to desire - Yeah. - or to be sucked in by the fantasy, - Right. - then you're going to miss the satisfaction of the drive, right? Because, so even though in some sense, he says, and what did he say, like, fantasy or that drive is the, is desire minus fantasy, but you need that, you need the moment of fantasy in order to get, to get drive working. So it's not like you can just get, it's not like you can just have one without the other. Like, you can't, even though, I mean, you've sort of alluded to this at the, what you just said, that at the end of 7R11, he talks about the end of analysis. - Yeah. - And it's the one time, it's funny because Slavoy makes such a big deal out of it. I think that's why people say, oh, look on, his idea of the end of analysis, traversing the fantasy. - Yeah. - Yeah. - But he only says it one time, yeah. - In 7R11. - Yeah. - But it's interesting what that means, right? Like, does it mean, like, and I think the zombie thing, leads you to believe that it means getting, like if traversing the fantasy, entering the drive would mean just like getting rid of the fantasy. But I don't think it can possibly mean that. I just don't think that can be right. I think it has to be, Richard Boothby says, as Richard Boothby says, that you, like traversing the fantasy means allowing yourself to be even more gripped by the fantasy without any possibility of getting out of it. - Yeah. - You know? - Yeah. I think that I, another, like, I think one of LeCon's insights that is like the strongest for me, the non-dupe error, like to not be duped is to make the mistake. Like, I think it's just such a powerful logic, you know, like that's the-- - And the duping is the fantasy. - The duping is the fantasy. - The duping is the succumbing to fantasy. And so I think what we're coming back to is this relation between desire and drive. Like, you can't just opt for one without the other. You can't-- - Yeah. - Yeah. - I think that's right. - No, no, it's great. I mean, that's great. I think, you know, just for like an example of like where you need to be, like one needs to be duped by the political process, like to vote, I think. And you need to be, like the notion that is, I mean, I think people who just in America right now, in some elections, people who don't ordinarily vote are voting, which is great. But I think that, like, you know, for a long time, there's like this, like, South Park, like, cynicism that, like, oh, it doesn't matter. Like, you know, you think that you vote counts. Like, no, I'm outside of this. Like, I'm really, like, I'm hip to the real truth about this. And it's like, no, you're not. In fact, actually, you're contributing to the, I mean, that's the idea of cynicism is that, like, the difference between, I'm into how I defend it. The difference between the cynic and the pessimist is the pessimist expects the worst. The cynic needs the worst. - All right. - And, like, they're sustained by it. So they need that system to act in the way that it is for them to still have a point, for them to still be okay. They need, and that's the thing that sustains their supposed, like, air of enlightenment by not being duped, but you need to be duped. You know, you need to think, you need to think the comic that's gonna come on the, the stages that gonna be the funniest person you've ever seen. You need to think that the class that you're going into, like, it might be the, you need to start there, you know, or else, well, it's easier if they're going to your class rather than mine. - Well, that's very kind of mine. It's hard to think that it's gonna be fun. No, I think I was gonna say, do you, I thought what you just said is really good. And here's my question. Do you think that there's a link between this cynicism and the belief that drive is pure negativity without any positive, you know, correlates, right? - That's interesting. - No, can you keep going or is that my question? - No, that's my question. I'm just gonna give you the card question. No, I'll add a little bit. So, yeah, please. - In other words, like, the way you're describing it, it sounds like, you know, the cynic, the cynic doesn't, we refuse to accept any investment in the fundamental, in the social fantasy. - Sure. - Yeah, I think that's right. - And so, isn't that a belief that I can have, that drive can be this purely negative thing without any, it can avoid the social, like drive is the, it's sort of the rejection of the social or the negativity relative to the social order. It doesn't have, and it's not, like Alenka says in what is sex, it's not the thing that actually also is constitutive of the social order. I'm not sure that she totally says that. - Yeah, yeah. - We're gonna attribute that position to her. - Sure. I don't know, don't you think? - Well, you're making me realize is that, like, to think of the drive in that way, and to tie it to cynicism is to think that, that there's a meta-language, and to think that there is, like, you can be, and I think it goes, I actually think that it is, in some ways, a handshake with a self-help idea, like to go back to a phrase that I used in the previous episode, that, like, you can have the secret truth of the universe, you can be hooked into it and you can be outside. side of some system that you don't want to be a part of or you wish were different. And yeah, I think that, yeah, so anyway, I would link the cynicism to that impulse to thinking one is on the outside of something. And to bring drive with you as the basis of that sort of philosophical difference, I think is to misunderstand the unavoidable and fundamental place that drive has in the social bond. So I think that you, I think is incompatible at a fundamental level with cynicism and with a compensatory belief in some sort of metal language. That one can write outside the book. Drive is that. Yeah, I think that's right. The recognition of drive is the recognition that you're implicated in the things that you most reject even that you can't. There's no ability to kind of separate yourself. And then some way desire is premised on the idea that you can separate yourself. Yeah, you can separate. Yeah, and the worst articulation of it is that you can separate yourself by having choices like, you know, whatever shampoo that you get or something. Well, my least favorite is the local movement, I have to say. Yeah, by local. By local. Yeah, I mean, fine, whatever. But it's not a, like, I'm not against, of course, saving gas, money of trucks that are moving vegetables or whatever. But of course, I'm for that. But the idea, the problem is the psychic thing that if you're buying local, you're some way, you're not, you're opting out of the global capitalists, which I don't think is pop. Like, I don't think that's possible. And I think you're right. Like, that's tied to like this cynical withdrawal. And even though these people aren't cynical at all. Yeah. Well, it has the value. I mean, that wouldn't, wouldn't like Freud or LeCon say this that like the own, the buy local only has the value that it does because of the like, success of global capital. Of global capitalism, right? Like any time, I just think, isn't this the lesson of psychoanalysis that one of the main lessons that any time you need someone else to play the heavy, someone else to play the bad guy, then you've, you're, you're, you've missed it. And that, that, that you have to understand that you're also your own bad guy. Like you're, you know, you're part of the thing that you're fighting against. And the other, otherwise, you wouldn't be fighting against it, right? And you're invested in it and you're fighting against it. And like, I think it's true. It's so true. It's a, it's a horrible recognition in everyday life because you realize these people that annoy me and I'm constantly quarreling with like I, I rely on them to have my own position. You know, and I think that's a pretty disturbing. I, yeah. Yeah. That's the lesson. I mean, is that the great lesson from group psychology? I think like, like, like, how the, the, the individuals inflected in the group and the group is already in the, in the individual and it works at that level, that sort of like, inextricable level, right? Like, like, the, I mean, I mean, that's, I mean, where else does the, the, like, the, the libertarian or the off the grid fantasy come from, then something like that, like to just completely separate from, from this tie that you, again, that you nonetheless need. And it would be, I mean, I don't know, again, but it's a, I was just thinking it's fascinating because you could, I think it's easy to imagine drive as this total indifference to the social and thus equivalent to local living off the grid. Like why wouldn't that be drive? It's like, by, it's opting out, but the thing is, it's not drive because it's, it, it's the failure to, to recognize drive and it's sort of, it's completely the logic of desire and the fantasy associated with escape, right? And not, like drive is in some way constantly culpable, like it's constantly, and it doesn't, it can't avoid, it's called, it's the recognition in some sense that you're always stained, you're always, you're always culpable with the, the social or that you're trying to retreat from. Like it's only desire that can posit a total successful retreat. It's so, it's so fascinating. Like, I mean, even as we're talking about it, it's like, I mean, you get, like you totally get the idea of why, you, you get the idea of why it's important that LeCon begins his, you know, return to Freud by, you know, with, with the drive or like, or he recuperates the drive in, in, in many ways. But you can also get why it would be rejected because what, like why, why, you know, it's, I mean, this is why Freud struggled with it. Is that like when you, when you fully reckon with the drive and like it's, it's a, I'm saying, no way in the situation. To no one situation. Yeah. And it's like, you know, you won't, like, of course you want to be, maybe this is part of, I haven't read it, but I wonder if this is part of like, um, Slavoy's recent, like the courage of hopelessness, or like this sort of like move is that like, there is, there is a kind of hopelessness to, to the, to the drive that does not admit for like an, an easy out, or even just like a, like a, like a path forward, like if the path forward is desire and, and desire, of course, being like the, the, the, the total dissatisfaction and the inability to obtain the object, ah, because of that impossibility. Then that's an interest, a very interesting way out that is not a way out and so that's not a way out. Right. So that's why it needs, but so, but this is the important part, I think, it, and one could be led to the raw negativity, I think at this point, but, but this is, this is where one needs to see that like this, this movement and this repetition, though it may not, it certainly is not like progressive in like a like a political sense. Like if we do these things and these things like we have finally moved forward, it nonetheless it does, I mean by hauling back we move forward. I don't know. Yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. So like it is still still additive, but it's still it is still productive. Just you know, not in a in a in a zigzag way, maybe. Yeah. Yeah. In a like a negative way only. And I do I think I really like what you're saying. And I think it's it's you know, it's but it's so tempting isn't it to even to to turn desire into the bad guy. Yeah. Of course. But the lot what's funny is that if you do that, you've actually betrayed the logic of drive. You know, like you you've like you've you've by making the desire into the bad guy. You've slipped into the logic of desire. Yeah. Yeah. You know what I mean? Like you so so desire the I'm sorry drive in some way in in fundamental way needs that the error of desire, you know, you're not the non-dupe air like that. Yeah. You know, the need of that of the error of desire and in a corresponding fantasy in order to system that's the that's the food of drive. And so without that air. So you so it's it's it's an irony that it's tempting to to dismiss desire altogether. But that would be to fall into the logic of desire. I think that's the irony. Yeah. That's interesting. But I also think, you know, what you said about LeConn sort of recouping Freud's notion of drive and really sort of redefining it. And then I mean there's there's great moments right. So there's 1920 and then there's LeConn. It's basically in seminar 11, I think because yeah. Early on he's he associates a drive with just taking up your position within signification. So it's like signification is drive right in some in some strange way. That's like seminar one and two. And then it's only seminar 11 early 60s where he had and in the in the a cre like on Freud's dream and the analyst's desire or maybe a little bit in position, the unconscious, a little bit in subversion, the subject and the dialectic of desire. But again, not much on drive in the a cre not even any in kind of exot, which is kind of that's it. Yeah, you would think a discussion of drive there, but there's not. And then so there's hardly any and then seminar 11 and then a little in seminar 16, but not much. And then that's it. You know, it's just there's a real it's so I think maybe he kind of shies away from it as well. You know, like it's interesting. Well, because it's so funny that there's so isn't like I mean, I'm not like great. Like there's so much to say about it. And I mean like, you know, like it talks about it like, you know, in a way that's different from as we talked about Lieidelman talks about it who talks about it and you know, in a way different from how G check talks about it who talks about it in a different way than how Delos talks about it, you know, that drone cop or drone cop check. Yeah, yeah. Like it's so so there's so much to there's so much to there's so much to say about it. But like the two sort of progenitors of the idea like, I don't know like did like did they did they see the limit of of it like like a and by limit. I mean like, you know, sort of as we were talking about like, well, maybe there maybe the limit has to do with analysis itself. So like maybe that's true. Yeah. Practicing analysts and the other people are. I do think that like like I wrote um, Capitals and Desire was going to be about the way in which capitalism was the logic of desire put to struck placed over top of the logic of drive, which was sort of informed every society, and then this logic of desire. And then Mari Rudy read it, and she's like, that's just, you know, she's like, I hate this whole way of like opposing drive as great and desire as sort of ideological. And she's like, she's like, don't do that. And so then I just took it all out. And I think, and I kind of think she was right. Like I fell into this trap of demonizing desire, and you know, apotheosizing drive. And I think that's an error. You know, I think that, so I do think that, I think the problem with drive is, it, I think there's this real tendency to seek it as the thing that's gonna explain everything. - Yeah. - There's a radicality to it. It's like, yeah. - Yeah. And I think that maybe that's what Lecon was wary of. Like I don't want to give people too much food, so they'll stuff themselves. And so I'll give it, you know, and give just a whole posity of stuff. And then, yeah. But I do think that that's a problem. I think there's a problem that it becomes a kind of universal key to explain everything. And that's never good. - Yeah. No, I think that's good. I think that's great. That's excellent. - Yeah. - No. - I'm tempted, it's funny. I'm tempted to start a new sciatopic, but within this, but maybe that makes this the most appropriate time to put it into the episode. - I think it's probably a good time. Although I do want to say one thing, Ryan, you are not a possible occur. (laughing) Let's make that clear to everyone. - Yeah, not a pot. - Not a total joke, okay. - Yeah. (laughing) - We came, but you know what, that's really funny. I think that was about the half hour mark that you made that joke. And it's a half hour later, and this is a total circular movement. So how appropriate? - That is appropriate ending. So over and out, Ryan. - Over and out, thanks so much, Todd. - Okay. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music), I'm Ryan.