Dude this channel is fire

i appreciate your input meaning

Look, this is sort of interesting, but could you add in a few steps that might make it comprehensible to humans? My understanding is that the Hamiltonian is a very useful mathematical operator used in mechanics to chart the evolution of complex systems, whether at the level of classical or the quantum. I kind of get that there might be topological aspects of this, in the derivation of the path of least action, for example, but I’m way behind on getting what it’s got to do with Lacan. It would be great if you could just fill in the dots, so we can see what you’re actually getting at.

@boundarylanguage

7 ай бұрын

Thanks. I am using the idea of the Hamiltonian as an analogy for the way that inclusiveness works in the metonymical "energies" of the signifier. This requires us to include secondary and unintended components of our "intended" meanings; what we didn't mean to say but said anyway, usually unconsciously. Like many mathematical terms, they are richly imaginative and we should not be restricted to consider only their literal mathematical meaning. However, we should respect their actual functions and histories!

@radicalreaderasmr45

7 ай бұрын

Lacan always seems to be obscure like that. I think he's using this to explain how Lacanian object of desire is always pointing at a more subconscious invisible desire.

@BjornHeijligers

3 ай бұрын

Totally with you.. I was looking forward to a mathematical description. I suspect "Gottman's partial derivative equations for human attachment are a good place to start creating such a mathematical form. Also this video seems to have a more mathematically defined approach:kzread.info/dash/bejne/d4F-1bt7dJDKfs4.htmlsi=GWLxvjrvS-dVUpC4

Do you happen to have any document or PDF of notes that I can reference whilst I rewatch this video?

great visuals

Your speech bot here is excellent.

Brilliant and Bravo!

@boundarylanguage

7 ай бұрын

thank you, but I feel I am always struggling. I hope I am not misleading too many people.

@1bionic1

7 ай бұрын

If I may suggest, please inspect this book by Heinz Von Foerster: Understanding Understanding (www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/foerster-2003.pdf). He explains (in the totality of the book) the feedback loop that is the essence of the Hamiltonian as an "optimizer function" for optimizing control in a dynamical system; as applied in "control theory"! Lacan was a cybernetician (cybernetics as the "science of regulation" as Von Foerster says) because he used a multidisciplinary approach; so was Von Foerster. @@boundarylanguage

Thank you for the video. What is a unary trait? Is this a signifier that is not opposed to or referring to another signifier?

@txikitofandango

Жыл бұрын

Oh okay, my question is partially answered in your donut video

@boundarylanguage

Жыл бұрын

Hi. The unary trait is one of Lacan's main ideas having to do with repetition and, hence, the subject's demands made to the imagined "Other." The unary trait is something that "counts as one" no matter how many times it's repeated. In Seminar XIV (The Logic of Phantasy), Lacan compares it to the recursive formula of x = 1 + 1/x, where the question is plugged back into itself to produce a series of repetitive stages. The one is both a number and a name of itself. If you want to play a game, think of how saying a number each time you see it, and turning that into a number makes this series: 1, 11 ("one 1"), then 21 ("two 1's) … This actually produces a constant, called Conway's constant, and the series is called "audioactive." Lacan's unary trait is a bit like this, since it is a kind of signifier of itself, insulated from the need to reference anything external. Hope this helps!

@user-tk8bk9ww9q

Жыл бұрын

​@@boundarylanguageHello, is there any chance that by "insulated" you meant to write isolated?

@Anabsurdsuggestion

11 ай бұрын

@@boundarylanguagewhat a great explanation

As in Alexander Hamilton? I just found this video and have no reference.

@boundarylanguage

7 ай бұрын

The "Hamiltonian" I use as an analogy is based on the work of the mathematician William Rowan Hamilton. Try en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)

my brain hurts

Not sure I agree with this.

@boundarylanguage

Жыл бұрын

You're welcome to state your objections. If I have time I will try to respond.

I'm very confused? Maybe its cause I'm a relatively new Lacanian coming in from Zizek, but Ive never heard or read anything about Topology and Geometry relating to Lacan or even Freuds Psycho Analysis!? Marx never even talked this much about formula's of economics or especially geometry! So im unsure, still interesting tho!

@boundarylanguage

Жыл бұрын

There's a lot of misinformation out there. Better to get it from the horse's mouth, although Lacan is not one for clear explanations. Check out bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/8/144490/files/2023/01/topology-checklist-2.pdf for a check-list on what Lacan does about topology and what others have ignored. Thanks

@animefurry3508

Жыл бұрын

@@boundarylanguage Thank you for the resources! Ill check it out!

@MoustafaHabra18

Ай бұрын

Yea lol, there's a reason for that. Using this type of mathematical language without justification or reason makes your work meaningless.

Hate hate hate robo narration 🫤