'Neuropsychoanalysis' is a valuable project. It has the potential to recognise in the Freudian intervention its effective indeterminacy, and its weight for any domain to which it is applied, in this case neuroscience. Yet for this conjunction of neuroscience and psychoanalysis to satisfy its respective fields, it cannot be forced to compromise on either of them. It must avow the radical contingency and constitutively self-contradictory moments from which basic coordinates such as pleasure, drive, and action.
I found myself enjoying (uh hm) your article very much, as it is well-written, witty and polemical. You seem to have a writing style that is both simple and difficult and that demands the reader to spend time with it, which was exactly what I did. It took me four goes to finish it, each starting from the beginning and pushing toward 20%, then 50%, then 80% and finally 100%. I have learned much from your article and I agree with your main point. As I have not read Mark Solms (haven’t mustered the interest yet), my comments will only focus on what I have understood from your essay. The first point is: I am not sure I agree with your statement that [psychoanalysis] ‘defines itself by the relations it maintains to philosophy, psychology, literature, sociology, theology, etc. It problematises an already defined field, and introduces discrepancies and irregularities where previously there was a sense of unequivocal agreement.’ Aside from the fact that the experts from these various fields would not agree with the ‘unequivocal agreement’, this definition does not mention the Unconscious, which is briefly touched upon somewhere later, so I wonder if you have written about it before. For me, psychoanalysis is defined by its interest in the Unconscious. And it is in the Unconscious we find the emptiness, the lack and the void. It is also because of the Unconscious, the psyche becomes something infinite. The definition of psychoanalysis in relation to other disciplines reminds me of teleology instead. It seems to me to be more of an unintended (or unconscious?) effect of PSA. Exactly because PSA’s emphasis on the Ucs, it carves out an infinite space that would inevitably clash with other disciplines. My second comment or question is: when talking about the drive, what exactly do we refer to? What I mean is, should we use the singular form ‘the drive’ to designate something diffuse and undifferentiated, or should we use the plural from ‘the drives’ to make space for self-preservative, sexual, or even life and death? I honestly don’t know but found myself a bit confused. It has never been very clear how sexuality arises from this primordial soup. Even Laplanche proposes the ‘propping up’ theory, it still is a ‘enigma’ for him and for me. Later on, you talk about how sexuality emerges. But to really think about it, how does it happen? Why? Not from a biological, Darwinian perspective, but from a psychoanalytic perspective? Why there is a need for it especially human sexuality is notoriously non-productive most of the time. I do think it has something to do with the originary object and its refusal to be assimilated by the subject. My third comment concerns your statement ‘Every pleasure is an instance of displeasure. Every enjoyment of an object is a testament to the inadequacy and insufficiency of the enjoyed object. Enjoyment is founded upon a subjective failure — enjoyment is in its very act an inverted non-enjoyment.’ It makes me wonder, does this conclusion presupposes that we human beings are deeply entangled in our own self-phenomena and are unable to be open to the absolute otherness, which presents both the possibility of terror but also pleasure? Is it possible that one can mature enough to find some pleasure in otherness to compensate for this foundational paradox? All in all, I find your article deeply thought-provoking and rich in references, and I appreciate your profound insights.
I found myself enjoying (uh hm) your article very much, as it is well-written, witty and polemical. You seem to have a writing style that is both simple and difficult and that demands the reader to spend time with it, which was exactly what I did. It took me four goes to finish it, each starting from the beginning and pushing toward 20%, then 50%, then 80% and finally 100%. I have learned much from your article and I agree with your main point. As I have not read Mark Solms (haven’t mustered the interest yet), my comments will only focus on what I have understood from your essay. The first point is: I am not sure I agree with your statement that [psychoanalysis] ‘defines itself by the relations it maintains to philosophy, psychology, literature, sociology, theology, etc. It problematises an already defined field, and introduces discrepancies and irregularities where previously there was a sense of unequivocal agreement.’ Aside from the fact that the experts from these various fields would not agree with the ‘unequivocal agreement’, this definition does not mention the Unconscious, which is briefly touched upon somewhere later, so I wonder if you have written about it before. For me, psychoanalysis is defined by its interest in the Unconscious. And it is in the Unconscious we find the emptiness, the lack and the void. It is also because of the Unconscious, the psyche becomes something infinite. The definition of psychoanalysis in relation to other disciplines reminds me of teleology instead. It seems to me to be more of an unintended (or unconscious?) effect of PSA. Exactly because PSA’s emphasis on the Ucs, it carves out an infinite space that would inevitably clash with other disciplines. My second comment or question is: when talking about the drive, what exactly do we refer to? What I mean is, should we use the singular form ‘the drive’ to designate something diffuse and undifferentiated, or should we use the plural from ‘the drives’ to make space for self-preservative, sexual, or even life and death? I honestly don’t know but found myself a bit confused. It has never been very clear how sexuality arises from this primordial soup. Even Laplanche proposes the ‘propping up’ theory, it still is a ‘enigma’ for him and for me. Later on, you talk about how sexuality emerges. But to really think about it, how does it happen? Why? Not from a biological, Darwinian perspective, but from a psychoanalytic perspective? Why there is a need for it especially human sexuality is notoriously non-productive most of the time. I do think it has something to do with the originary object and its refusal to be assimilated by the subject. My third comment concerns your statement ‘Every pleasure is an instance of displeasure. Every enjoyment of an object is a testament to the inadequacy and insufficiency of the enjoyed object. Enjoyment is founded upon a subjective failure — enjoyment is in its very act an inverted non-enjoyment.’ It makes me wonder, does this conclusion presupposes that we human beings are deeply entangled in our own self-phenomena and are unable to be open to the absolute otherness, which presents both the possibility of terror but also pleasure? Is it possible that one can mature enough to find some pleasure in otherness to compensate for this foundational paradox? All in all, I find your article deeply thought-provoking and rich in references, and I appreciate your profound insights.