Lacans "big other"

[Blimblam]

For the past few months I've been triggered from a particular sort of pattern of thought I've observed.  The particular moments are when I would observe members talking about some ideal version of themselves, often under the label of "alpha male," and to achieve that position they must control the way the thing they see as oppressing them views them.  Also that they could not do this on their own so they turned to external materials that they feel validated who they are so they can see themselves in a positive light and provided them a set of rules and guidelines for how to act to manipulate and control the external oppressive force into veiwing them in an idealized state. 

It has mainly been triggering when i see a person who has taken the stance of the idealized image they would like to see themselves as and from that elevated position look down on others implying they are a bad or wrong  for loving the pwBPD. 

I first notticed the trigger in myself clearly when I began to get into the Meyrs briggs because it felt validating to be told by an external gaze of "who I am."  I learned about how all the functions work etc. The thing is I began to nottice how the people on YouTube really into the Meyrs briggs used the MBTI as labels to elevate themself and become dismissive of other types rather than really try to understand the other.  Also they tried to explain everything within the frame of the mbti and it became especially clear when they tried to understand the archetype of the shadow through mbti that they were completely failing to comprehend the archetype of the shadow whatsoever. 

The mbti had become for them what Lacan refers to as "the big other," an idealized version of themselves that had completely detached from them except as authority that gave them a model of rules and guidelines from which to perceive reality.  If you or anyone didn't follow those rules and guideline the "inner critic," would chime in to set things back in line. 

Which brings me to the film the big lebowski, a reference to the big other.  A film that portrays the absurdity of the conflicts that arise from each character having a big other in opposition to another characters big other. The dude in response of Walters big other,"This isn't vietnam Walter!" Not that a person in necessarily wrong just when they assume of their role of the big other to hold people that don't fit in to its well defined rules and regulations in contempt as the dude says, "you are not wrong your are just an a$$hole." Also nottice how the character Walter needs the character of Donny who represents the schemA mode of the vulnerable child to oppress so he can assume the position of the big other by always telling Donny, "shut the fook up Donny you are like a lost child." Ultimately the conflict of opposing big others destroys the vulnerable child.

Which brings me to the film Hook about how Peter pan assumed the role of "the big other," and as Wendy states in response "you have become a pirate Peter." Later in the film Peter reconnects with his inner child who had been destroyed by the big other so he doesn't pass to his children the curse of the big other represented by Captain Hook who's goal is to destroy the lost boys who represent the vulnerable child.  The movie implies that we are trying to recapture the magic of childhood taken from us by the big other by assuming the role of the big other to win the big others approval but that path ultimately leads to the continuation of the problem itself. 

The following is a passage from the Lacanian philosopher Saljov Zizek in regards to the big other.

Zizek on the big Other, ego ideal and ideal ego in Lacan

Lacan’s big Other is not to be taken as something ideal, quasi-platonic. The big Other doesn’t actually exist, “il n’y a pas de grand Autre.” “n order for interpellation (interpellative recognition) to occur, material practices and/or rituals  of real social institutions (schools, laws…) do not suffice, that is, the subject has to presuppose the symbolic Institution, an ideal structure of differences. This ‘ideal’ function of the ‘big Other’ qua ego ideal (as opposed to ideal ego) can also be discerned through the notion of interpassivity, of transposing on to the Other – not my activity, but my very passive experience. Let us recall the proverbial crippled adolescent who, unable to compete in basketball, identifies himself with a famous player he watches on the television screen, imagines himself in his place, acting ‘through’ him, getting satisfaction from his triumphs while sitting alone at home in front of the screen – examples like this abound in conservative cultural criticism, with its compliant that in our era, people, instead of engaging in direct social activity, prefer to remain impassive consumers (of sex, of sport…), achieving satisfaction through imaginary identification with the other, their ideal ego, observed on screen. What Lacan is aiming at with the ego ideal (the point of symbolic identification), however, as opposed to ideal ego (the point or figure of imaginary identification), is the exact opposite: what about the basketball player himself? What if he can shine in the game only in so far as he imagines himself being exposed to some – ultimately fantasized – Other’s gaze, seeing himself being seen by that gaze, imagining the way his brilliant game is fascinating that gaze? This third gaze – the point from which I see myself as likeable, in the guise of my ideal ego – is the ego ideal, the point of my symbolic identification, and it is here that we encounter the structure of interpassivity. I can be active (shining on the basketball court) only in so far as I identify with another impassive gaze for which I am doing it, that is, only in so far as I transpose on to another the passive experience of being fascinated by what I am doing, in so far as I imagine myself appearing to this Other who registers my acts in the symbolic network. So interpassivity is not simply a symmetrical reversal of ‘interactivity’ (in the sense, described above, of being active through (our identification with) another): it gives birth to a ‘reflexive’ structure in which the gaze is redoubled, in which I ‘see myself being seen as likeable’. (And incidentally, in the same sense, exhibitionism – being exposed to the Other’s gaze – is not simply a symmetrical reversal of voyeurism, but the original constellation that supports its two subspecies, exhibitionism proper and voyeurism: even in voyeurism, it is never just me and the object I am spying on, a third gaze is always-already there: the gaze which sees me seeing the object. So – to put it in Hegelian terms – exhibitionism is its own subspecies – it has two species, voyeurism as well as exhibitionism itself in its ‘oppositional determination’.)”

– Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (116 – 117).

[Skip]

For the past few months I've been triggered from a particular sort of pattern of thought I've observed.  The particular moments are when I would observe members talking about some ideal version of themselves, often under the label of "alpha male," and to achieve that position they must control the way the thing they see as oppressing them views them.  Also that they could not do this on their own so they turned to external materials that they feel validated who they are so they can see themselves in a positive light and provided them a set of rules and guidelines for how to act to manipulate and control the external oppressive force into veiwing them in an idealized state.  

It has mainly been triggering when i see a person who has taken the stance of the idealized image they would like to see themselves as and from that elevated position look down on others implying they are a bad or wrong  for loving the pwBPD.  

I first notticed the trigger in myself clearly when I began to get into the Meyrs briggs because it felt validating to be told by an external gaze of "who I am."  I learned about how all the functions work etc. The thing is I began to nottice how the people on YouTube really into the Meyrs briggs used the MBTI as labels to elevate themself and become dismissive of other types rather than really try to understand the other.  Also they tried to explain everything within the frame of the mbti and it became especially clear when they tried to understand the archetype of the shadow through mbti that they were completely failing to comprehend the archetype of the shadow whatsoever.  

The mbti had become for them what Lacan refers to as "the big other," an idealized version of themselves that had completely detached from them except as authority that gave them a model of rules and guidelines from which to perceive reality.  If you or anyone didn't follow those rules and guideline the "inner critic," would chime in to set things back in line.  

Which brings me to the film the big lebowski, a reference to the big other.  A film that portrays the absurdity of the conflicts that arise from each character having a big other in opposition to another characters big other. The dude in response of Walters big other,"This isn't vietnam Walter!" Not that a person in necessarily wrong just when they assume of their role of the big other to hold people that don't fit in to its well defined rules and regulations in contempt as the dude says, "you are not wrong your are just an a$$hole." Also nottice how the character Walter needs the character of Donny who represents the schemA mode of the vulnerable child to oppress so he can assume the position of the big other by always telling Donny, "shut the fook up Donny you are like a lost child." Ultimately the conflict of opposing big others destroys the vulnerable child.

Which brings me to the film Hook about how Peter pan assumed the role of "the big other," and as Wendy states in response "you have become a pirate Peter." Later in the film Peter reconnects with his inner child who had been destroyed by the big other so he doesn't pass to his children the curse of the big other represented by Captain Hook who's goal is to destroy the lost boys who represent the vulnerable child.  The movie implies that we are trying to recapture the magic of childhood taken from us by the big other by assuming the role of the big other to win the big others approval but that path ultimately leads to the continuation of the problem itself.  

The following is a passage from the Lacanian philosopher Saljov Zizek in regards to the big other.

Zizek on the big Other, ego ideal and ideal ego in Lacan

Lacan’s big Other is not to be taken as something ideal, quasi-platonic. The big Other doesn’t actually exist, “il n’y a pas de grand Autre.” “n order for interpellation (interpellative recognition) to occur, material practices and/or rituals  of real social institutions (schools, laws…) do not suffice, that is, the subject has to presuppose the symbolic Institution, an ideal structure of differences. This ‘ideal’ function of the ‘big Other’ qua ego ideal (as opposed to ideal ego) can also be discerned through the notion of interpassivity, of transposing on to the Other – not my activity, but my very passive experience. Let us recall the proverbial crippled adolescent who, unable to compete in basketball, identifies himself with a famous player he watches on the television screen, imagines himself in his place, acting ‘through’ him, getting satisfaction from his triumphs while sitting alone at home in front of the screen – examples like this abound in conservative cultural criticism, with its compliant that in our era, people, instead of engaging in direct social activity, prefer to remain impassive consumers (of sex, of sport…), achieving satisfaction through imaginary identification with the other, their ideal ego, observed on screen. What Lacan is aiming at with the ego ideal (the point of symbolic identification), however, as opposed to ideal ego (the point or figure of imaginary identification), is the exact opposite: what about the basketball player himself? What if he can shine in the game only in so far as he imagines himself being exposed to some – ultimately fantasized – Other’s gaze, seeing himself being seen by that gaze, imagining the way his brilliant game is fascinating that gaze? This third gaze – the point from which I see myself as likeable, in the guise of my ideal ego – is the ego ideal, the point of my symbolic identification, and it is here that we encounter the structure of interpassivity. I can be active (shining on the basketball court) only in so far as I identify with another impassive gaze for which I am doing it, that is, only in so far as I transpose on to another the passive experience of being fascinated by what I am doing, in so far as I imagine myself appearing to this Other who registers my acts in the symbolic network. So interpassivity is not simply a symmetrical reversal of ‘interactivity’ (in the sense, described above, of being active through (our identification with) another): it gives birth to a ‘reflexive’ structure in which the gaze is redoubled, in which I ‘see myself being seen as likeable’. (And incidentally, in the same sense, exhibitionism – being exposed to the Other’s gaze – is not simply a symmetrical reversal of voyeurism, but the original constellation that supports its two subspecies, exhibitionism proper and voyeurism: even in voyeurism, it is never just me and the object I am spying on, a third gaze is always-already there: the gaze which sees me seeing the object. So – to put it in Hegelian terms – exhibitionism is its own subspecies – it has two species, voyeurism as well as exhibitionism itself in its ‘oppositional determination’.)”

– Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (116 – 117).

I highlighted the part I understood and grayed out the part that feels like a private party where I don't know anyone or the language being spoken.   I feel like an outsider to that conversation.   Just sharing  

There are a lot of impressionable young men looking for a better identity and falling in behind the glamorized image of a man's man and lady's man - the alpha male. While this movement is new, its not a new phenomenon.  And it is it concerning to see young men embrace these values and discard more traditional values as failed - sure.

I'm also concerned by the national debt.

But none of this is triggering me - catalyzing deep wounds and bringing them to the surface.  Why do you think it is catalyzing deep feelings in you?

There is a flip side to this too. Someone may wonder why you see people with mental illness as, for lack of a better word, better or "more".  Some might equally find this triggering.  I loved my old dying dog... .but I didn't seek out another ill dog after she passed. I loved my ex, but finding another women with emotional struggles was I wanted to avoid.

Is in some way, does the condemnation of women with BPD feel like a condemnation of you?  Is it the acceptance by some members that they (pwBPD or women in general) deserve to be treated poorly, even harmed, evoking feelings that someone could turn it on you?

[cosmonaut]

Ok, Blim, explain it to me like I'm two:  What's the "Big Other"? 

[Blimblam]

It's the thing we are explaining to the two year old of how the world is.

[cosmonaut]

The Big Other is how the world is?  The system of the world?

[Blimblam]

It's the illusion of how the world is.  That gives the guidelines and cordinates of reality but is actually not real.  The big other determines what "cool" is. To each generation and every subculture the big other is different but fits into a larger framework that is also the big other. Like a where's waldo book each page is a different big other but all the pages fit into the book.

[cosmonaut]

Isn't this just another way of saying a zeitgeist?  You mention in your OP that there are these groups that have become so taken with the MBTI that they see it everywhere.  I think that these degrees of obsession are not necessarily uncommon.  It's easy to read too much into something, and the pattern recognition system in our brains goes haywire and we start to see it everything in everything.  Is that what you are getting at here?  That people are taking a concept and running with it to the degree that it has become a fundamental aspect of their worldview?  Is that what you are getting at with the concept of Big Other?  Because almost all of us here have never heard of this concept before.  We need you to explain it to us.

Do you feel that people are doing this with the concept of the "alpha male"?  That is has taken over their lives?  Become their world view?  And if so, what about that is so triggering for you?  I think Skip had really good questions.  When we are triggered, it means that there is some unresolved hurt still inside of us.  What do you think that hurt might be?

[Blimblam]

The big other isn't really necicerily a zeitgeist. 

It's the gaze of how things are supposed to be we feel govern our lives.  "Because you are supposed to."

I don't feel people with mental illness are "better."

Its realy about scapegoating.

Or situations where somone has built their confidence on an idea that characterizes other people as inferior.

If you read the section from Zizek on the gaze at the basketball player and how people see themselves. 

[Blimblam]

But skip it has nothing to do with womem with BPD that's the thing. 

I found it triggering because I see those parental narratives that enable them to see themselves as the ideal version of their ego then when they assume the position of their ideal ego and look back at themself they see their own pain, splitting occurs when somone sees that painful part of themself as some external oppressor oppressing some formal inferior version of themself "beta male."  Then going around seeing other people as beta males.  But it's like we exist in a house of mirrors and the opressive other is what jung tefers to as our shadow and and the inferior I the ideal version of ourself these are all just mental projections. It reminds me of don Quixote.

It's that point where we create the idea of the "beta male," as a way to shame people into some delusional fantasy. 

In what I described the "parental narrative," is the big other and it is the big others gaze that looks down on the beta male.  But the big other is not real.

[Blimblam]

When ever we feel the "inner critic" or the inner critical parent that is the big other.

I first read about the inner critic in the cptsd literature, but it's in Lacans work I really see the best model of the inner critic and its development.  I'm pretty sure they teach Lacan to everyone who goes through film theory because I think I learned his concepts from watching tv and film mostly by osmosis.

[Blimblam]

It's like when we originally developed a sense of I we lost the original connection with our mother and ourself a a whole and that space we felt connected us to our mother as a whole left a feeling of alienation like a hole or lack and a scar. Kind of like a belly button but a psychological one and we are left trying to plug our psychological umbilical cord into something external to feel whole again and that's what desire is.  But that part of us is still within us that we have dissociated from and that space we have dissociated from also contains all of the emotions that we dissaciated from our entire lives.  So when we look into that abyss we feel those dissacociated painfull emotions looking back at us and that's why we seek something external to cover that space to look back at us with a loving gaze.  All those emotions in that abyss attach to external signifiers and attachments as a way to acess them to be resolved. Once we let go of those painfull parts of ourself we can look into the abyss and rediscover our mothers loving gaze was always there.

Where once was our mothers gaze we saw ourself in the mirror the way our mother saw us and as an other an ideal version of ourself the way our mother saw us.   But this ideal image of us became projected onto our fathers so we seeked to understand the rules and guidelines of our father to know how to become that idealized version of ourself the one who is whole and complete. then that image shifted from our father to the big other with rules and guidelines that make up the coordinates and waypoints for our reality.  

[Blimblam]

So the big other becomes the rules and guidelines to see ourself as cool.  It reminds me of the mill house quote from the Simpsons ,"but my mom thinks I'm cool."  But we no longer seek out mothers approval but that of the big other.  The big other dictates what is cool. Then maybe we get older and what what cool is changes so it's becomes "succesful." The big other dictates the rules and guidelines of success. 

[Blimblam]

The big other is the matrix.