Jan 25, 2021
Field Museum; October 2020
Partial Objects series
Loading...
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Yemen
seen from Singapore
seen from Lithuania
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from India
seen from Russia
seen from Brazil
seen from India
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands
seen from Kenya
seen from India
seen from Moldova
seen from United States
seen from United States
Field Museum; October 2020
Partial Objects series
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Separating the individual from the argument
Even if we think someone is an exceptionally good reasoner (most) of the time, how can we tell when their judgment is being clouded by experience and personal psychology?
How do we say that they are a good reasoner to begin with? Because we agree with, and understand their reasons? Can supplement them (the reasons) with our own? Can see through and extend the initial argument?
And what to do when we disagree with the arguments being made by the individual? If I choose to go the Freudian/psychoanalytic route (again, intentional conflation) how can I distinguish between bad argument, and my own psychological projection i.e. “This person is wrong because [I dislike this aspect of their personality for [these reasons]]”
Repressed feelings of anger towards a younger sibling, tension induced by not being allowed to argue against ones parents (lack of individuation?), and the inevitable outcome in partner choice: someone who will not argue against us. Underneath the surface simmers anger. Anger can (and that will) be expressed in socially appropriate ways that ultimately blunt the potential happiness of the individual in question.
Individuating from a romantic relationship
What does it look like when the male in the relationship assumes an utterly dominant personality? Worse, when the female in the relationship suffers from a lack of identity (lets go with not borderline, for a change) and is then forced, via osmosis or diffusion or whatever poorly chosen chemistry textbook analogy you wish to use, to absorb her identity from the male?
What happens when that identity is challenged?
Firstly - any attempts from a party external to the transference in the couple will be met with outright rejection and hostility. A defence mechanism designed to protect the ego. The female is trying to juggle two identities at once. Or, more accurately, to grow: to self-affirm and reaffirm. But in her role as “girlfriend” her identity needs to be kept separate. Suggestions that her super ego is being provided by her boyfriend - more accurately, that her identity is being provided by an external other, must be protected. Unconsciously: I built this identity for myself, by myself.
Is this what individuation looks like when instead of separating from one identity, you fuse into somebody else?
Partial objects unquestionably have a sufficient charge in and of themselves to blow up all of Oedipus and totally demolish its ridiculous claim to represent the unconscious, to triangulate the unconscious, to encompass the entire production of desire. The question that thus arises here is not at all that of the relative importance of what might be called the pre-oedipal in relation to Oedipus itself, since "pre-oedipal" still has a developmental or structural relationship to Oedipus. The question, rather, is that of the absolutely anoedipal nature of the production of desire. But because Melanie Klein insists on considering desire from the point of view of the whole, of global persons, and of complete objects—and also, perhaps, because she is eager to avoid any sort of contretemps with the International Psycho-Analytic Association that bears above its door the inscription "Let no one enter here who does not believe in Oedipus"— she does not make use of partial objects to shatter the iron collar of Oedipus; on the contrary, she uses them—or makes a pretense of using them—to water Oedipus down, to miniaturize it, to find it everywhere, to extend it to the very earliest years of life.
The only subject is desire itself on the body without organs, inasmuch as it machines partial objects and flows, selecting and cutting the one with the other, passing from one body to another, following connections and appropriation that each time destroy the factitious unity of a possessive or proprietary ego (anoedipal sexuality).
Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, “Psychoanalysis and the Familialism: The Holy Family,” p.72
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Why do I only feel attractive and sexy when I am objectified?
Not even objectified, that assumes too much [my being turned into an object]. Thinking of myself as an object, the totality of ‘me’—which refers to all that is contained by the membrane of my skin—is too totalizing. No one desires me as this totality, this being formed by intensities demarcated by a stratum of skin.
I am only desirable as patches of skin, patches of hair rising from this skin, skin covering certain body parts, and occasionally fluids that seep through openings in this skin. Partial-objects!
It is never me they are desiring, merely parts of me.
...Cutting spending often means cutting the growth of spending, so it grows less. Arguments against raising taxes always fail to point out that the tax system is progressive, so any increase in taxes is on the portion of income above that threshold (E.g. 40% tax rate on $1,000,000 does not mean someone making a million dollars pays $400,000 in taxes, it means they only pay 40% on the amount they make in excess of $1 million.) And I suspect that politicians of all stripes rely on this word play to disguise that they themselves don’t understand the underlying mathematical truths. They don’t read the bills themselves, they have staffers brief them on it. It’s all very sloppy, non-rigorous, and unanalytical, and in my opinion it is why the situation is as bad and confused as it is now.
Internet personality (or possibly just some guy, but then again, he runs the site this came from) Pastabagel's comment on the article: Framing Deficit Debates | Partial Objects