Speaker 1: Right now, it's kind of incredible, Like all these people
Speaker 1: who are against cancel culture, against hate speech. I mean,
Speaker 1: Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of Trump, is literally invoking
Speaker 1: the concept of hate speech. She's saying, we need to
Speaker 1: think of a not just free speech, but also hate speech.
Speaker 1: It's like, again, this fucking theory I've had forever about
Speaker 1: like why wokeness and cancel culture was like I was
Speaker 1: always worried it was going to create its mirror image,
Speaker 1: and look here we are right now. Literally the mirror
Speaker 1: image of it is happening. Now they're using even the
Speaker 1: same terms. They've even been saying. This isn't cancel culture,
Speaker 1: this is just consequences for your be That's exactly the
Speaker 1: same shit that the fucking left was saying. And now
Speaker 1: it's happening. And I'm and I've been consistent on this
Speaker 1: since at least twenty sixteen, and I feel fairly vindicated
Speaker 1: right now, although not happy. It's it's harp.
Speaker 2: Yeah, David Portnoy said that this morning.
Speaker 1: Yes, he literally, yes, I saw that.
Speaker 2: Actually, this is just consequences when you do it, it's
Speaker 2: woke when we do it, it's consequences. But we did
Speaker 2: our episode what like two public episodes ago on the
Speaker 2: Woke Right, maybe three?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, a while ago we talked about the woke Right.
Speaker 1: But now it's like, really with this incident.
Speaker 2: America, just like the the conservatives and the liberals, it's
Speaker 2: just a bunch of I would like to speak to
Speaker 2: the managers.
Speaker 1: And I have to say that, like there's two people.
Speaker 1: There's like a couple of people who like I appreciate
Speaker 1: for being like somewhat consistent. And one of them is
Speaker 1: someone who I really have a big distaste for is
Speaker 1: James Lindsay. I think James Lindsay's like stupid, but he
Speaker 1: has been like somewhat consistent, and I have to give
Speaker 1: him props. Of all the conservatives, he's like the only
Speaker 1: one who's kind of saying like wait, like I think
Speaker 1: he even like responded to Pam BONDI saying like hate
Speaker 1: speech and he's like he's like, what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Like our side as not supposed to believe in hate speech?
Speaker 1: Like what you what are you doing?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: And I appreciate like where I appreciate it hit him
Speaker 1: being one conservative voice who again I do not agree
Speaker 1: with him. I don't like him, but at least he's
Speaker 1: like holding to his principles. The rest are just fucking
Speaker 1: principle as like scum who just like hold to principles
Speaker 1: when it's convenient for them. And the real test of principles, you've.
Speaker 2: Heard it here first, you'll hear it here only once.
Speaker 2: James Lindsay is a good egg and he has a
Speaker 2: great reading of Hegel.
Speaker 1: The only I feel like, I feel like principles like
Speaker 1: the only time they matter is when they're not convenient
Speaker 1: for you to hold on to. So I respect it.
Speaker 1: When people are like, I'm going to stay consistent even
Speaker 1: though it's not convenient for me to hold to my
Speaker 1: principles right.
Speaker 3: Now, well, that's when you hold people in politics to
Speaker 3: unrealistic standards like having principles, then you're already setting yourself
Speaker 3: up for disappointment because politics is uh, you know, it's
Speaker 3: a cutthroat game.
Speaker 1: I mean again, I should say I'm not surprised that
Speaker 1: this is happening, Like I said, I was worried that
Speaker 1: and thought it would happen, but still it's still notable.
Speaker 1: And then like another person who I think at one
Speaker 1: point was being like I would say, strangely critical of
Speaker 1: the left, was like gren Glenn Greenwald went on like
Speaker 1: a whole like he did a whole arc where he
Speaker 1: was kind of calling out the left for censorship, and
Speaker 1: I was kind of like, what are you doing? But
Speaker 1: like to his credit, right now he is like very
Speaker 1: much like alarmed about what's happening with with with Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk and people anyone even making comments like you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: So he's a dynamics of power.
Speaker 2: So we have to be careful here not to not
Speaker 2: to glorify any violence because we might lose our very
Speaker 2: cushy contract contract positions. Why would any why would why
Speaker 2: would trans do this?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 2: Why would they kill a father and a husband who trans?
Speaker 2: Why would why?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't understand, well, I mean I also,
Speaker 1: I mean I ironically don't understand either. I think it's
Speaker 1: just pretty stupid.
Speaker 2: But you know who is who is way more of
Speaker 2: a father? I mean, this is a psychoanalysis episode. Why
Speaker 2: would you kill? Why would you kill the father? You
Speaker 2: know who is way more of a father than Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk and they still killed him?
Speaker 1: Ben Lawden, who Ben Lawton had a lot more kids.
Speaker 2: I was shocked. Ben Lawden has twenty six children, that's
Speaker 2: insane and five wives. So he is an order of magnitude,
Speaker 2: more of a father than Charlie Kirk. Deranged leftist podcast
Speaker 2: compares Charlie Kirk to Bin Lauden. Yeah, I am doing it,
Speaker 2: and I will face the consequences and you can get
Speaker 2: me fired from my contract job. Victor did not do
Speaker 2: this and Eric did not do this. But prove me wrong.
Speaker 2: Prove me wrong. I'm setting up the tent. Prove me wrong.
Speaker 2: Both both funded by right wing Americans to fight socialism. Check.
Speaker 2: Both are pro gun. Both are religious fundamentalists. They're both
Speaker 2: anti gay, uh, anti feminist, anti communist. Both were shot
Speaker 2: without due process. The only thing that's difference between them.
Speaker 2: The only difference between them is Israel well and also potential.
Speaker 1: Well, maybe there's another difference that I think you're you're
Speaker 1: possibly ignoring. Its like orchestrating, orchestrating like a terrorist attack
Speaker 1: that killed thousands of people. I don't know that seems
Speaker 1: like a relevant difference.
Speaker 3: All these are all these figures that function as the
Speaker 3: paternal signifier and the media.
Speaker 2: I don't know. We're on a we're on a toilet flush,
Speaker 2: and I gotta say the vibes the vibes are off.
Speaker 2: The toilet flush feels very bad. But also sitting back
Speaker 2: and just thinking about it for a second, everything that's
Speaker 2: happening feels like we're following a script, a predictable script,
Speaker 2: like since not the event itself, since the event that
Speaker 2: they're going to say this, and then yeah, we're going
Speaker 2: to say that, and then we're going to say this,
Speaker 2: and then these bad things will happen, and then these
Speaker 2: people will be blamed and these people will be blamed
Speaker 2: and everyone is kind of following their prepared script on it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree, And it's also predictable. I mean the
Speaker 1: moment it happened, I knew what was going to happen,
Speaker 1: Like I right away. I was like, oh, like I
Speaker 1: see exactly where this is going. Obviously, like there was
Speaker 1: a small shred of hope, you know that maybe it
Speaker 1: was a groper who did it right, because like I
Speaker 1: think if it would have been a groper.
Speaker 2: But what I mean, what's the difference.
Speaker 1: Well, the difference is like, obviously, as someone who's more
Speaker 1: sympathetic and committed to like some kind of a broad
Speaker 1: left politics, I just think it would have made the
Speaker 1: argument from like Trump or whatever that this is like
Speaker 1: left wing ideaology's fault or like trans people's fault. Well,
Speaker 1: just kind of would have short circuited the possibility of
Speaker 1: making that argument if it was like very clearly like
Speaker 1: an anti Israel groper or something like that, who was
Speaker 1: like Matta Charlie Kirk like it just kind of it
Speaker 1: would have been a different script, a better script in
Speaker 1: my opinion, that would have come out of it.
Speaker 3: Well, isn't it you know, like a lot like go back,
Speaker 3: remember back to that CEO who was murdered, right, and
Speaker 3: what gets blamed its radical politics? And yeah, the victor's
Speaker 3: right here saying, you know, ideology isn't something you can
Speaker 3: really point at and say that's the cause. Because when
Speaker 3: you're dealing with this kind of political violence, it's the
Speaker 3: politicians or the news media in power or select or
Speaker 3: who have the choice to select that event and give
Speaker 3: it a narrative. Rights that's the point of it. And
Speaker 3: we see this story over and over again, you know,
Speaker 3: violence radical being connected to radical politics and whatever. But
Speaker 3: there's specific differences between the events, but it serves, it
Speaker 3: serves a purpose.
Speaker 1: I will say I'm a lot more sympathetic to Luigi
Speaker 1: Mangioni than I am to this this like, like I
Speaker 1: mean again, obviously, I think in that episode when we
Speaker 1: talked about it, like I'm obviously I'm never going to
Speaker 1: be for political violence, but if I had to pick one,
Speaker 1: I mean that executive had real consequential impact on people's lives.
Speaker 1: It's like Charlie Kirk is just a fucking talking head.
Speaker 3: I just mean, it's the rules of the simulation, right,
Speaker 3: It's the rules and the patterns of the simulation.
Speaker 2: Both Charlie Kirk and the CEO. That the death is
Speaker 2: not what's consequential here. It's obviously the signifying there their
Speaker 2: signifying purpose in the structure that makes them even different.
Speaker 2: But I don't know, don't know, I don't know what's
Speaker 2: the what's the difference, Like, you kill a CEO, nothing changes,
Speaker 2: you kill Charlie Kirk, nothing changes, well.
Speaker 1: Know, but I think I think one of the differences
Speaker 1: is like, because Charlie Kirk is like a whatever quote
Speaker 1: unquote beloved talking head, it's gonna make like some people
Speaker 1: a lot angrier. Whereas the funny thing with Luigi Mangioni
Speaker 1: is like I feel like there were even some people
Speaker 1: who were kind of like right wingers who were like
Speaker 1: kind of like like you know, not like talking heads,
Speaker 1: but just like ordinary citizens who are kind of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: like healthcare is a fucking nightmare here like like like
Speaker 1: whereas like I don't think that there's any ordinary people
Speaker 1: on the right who are like yeah, like you know,
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk was kind of mean, like no one's saying that,
Speaker 1: but there are there were ordinary people saying like yeah,
Speaker 1: like healthcare is too expensive, like that is a little
Speaker 1: bit barbaric what they're doing. Like there was a little
Speaker 1: shred of like sympathy, uh like more so whereas like
Speaker 1: I think the script because of like what Charlie Kirk represents,
Speaker 1: it's like that like that assassination is just like a
Speaker 1: lot more useless and dangerous when I think both were
Speaker 1: obviously that too.
Speaker 3: But well yeah, arguably both of them. Yeah, and I right,
Speaker 3: because it's there. They're symbols of hate or violence, and
Speaker 3: yet violence was perpetrated against them because of what it is,
Speaker 3: and you see, it's a cycle of violence.
Speaker 2: Anyway, we're gonna have to we're gonna have to transition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's transition to something a little bit more chipper
Speaker 1: and more optimistic.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm hoping that we don't face any consequences or cancelation.
Speaker 2: But that's gonna get rid of the right wing listeners.
Speaker 1: That we had, right, I mean, do we have any
Speaker 1: of those?
Speaker 2: We have to say for a disclaimer, this is uh,
Speaker 2: we're talking about Lacan and Lacan especially on matters of
Speaker 2: sexual orientation and sexual identity. He's decidedly not woke.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's a little bit more complicated
Speaker 1: than that.
Speaker 2: Uh. Come on. You have him, of course saying that
Speaker 2: we men don't exist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2: You have him saying that gays are perverts. Well, actually,
Speaker 2: look and.
Speaker 3: He didn't age well like an old movie.
Speaker 2: It's an important distinction because actually he's not anti homosexual
Speaker 2: because only male gaze like male gaze with a why,
Speaker 2: male gaze with a why, only they can be perverts
Speaker 2: because generally speaking, only only males can be perverts. Anyway,
Speaker 2: lesbians are not because they're in a relationship with women,
Speaker 2: which makes it a heterosexual relationship. M h. I think
Speaker 2: if you follow the CON's logic, though, you're only really
Speaker 2: a pervert if you're gay and you're exclusively bottoming. Anyway,
Speaker 2: we're not doing perverts today. It was it was the sixties.
Speaker 2: They said some things, they did some things we're not
Speaker 2: talking about. We're not talking about perverts.
Speaker 1: We were talking about feminization.
Speaker 2: Maybe, well I think trans women would be technically perverts,
Speaker 2: but trans men would would not.
Speaker 1: Be right, But it's that sounds that sounds right.
Speaker 2: But where you're becoming the object position. But we're not
Speaker 2: talking about perverts today. I don't know why. Yeah, sorry,
Speaker 2: we're not talking about perverts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why are you guys perversion on the mind? What
Speaker 1: does that say about you?
Speaker 2: There's three structures. There's Eurotic, there's there's no normal, right
Speaker 2: and Freud there's normal. If you're fucked up, we try
Speaker 2: to fix you. We're bringing back to normal with Lacan.
Speaker 2: There's no normal position. There's just like the plurality position.
Speaker 1: Well that's that's that's That's why I think it's a
Speaker 1: bit a bit like uh, misleading to say like he's
Speaker 1: like definitely not woke because in a way, like his
Speaker 1: point is like there's no such thing as normal.
Speaker 2: If we're if you clipped someone out of context saying
Speaker 2: women don't exist, you.
Speaker 1: Know, yeah, it sounds bad like some of the stuff
Speaker 1: he says, it like sounds bad. But but but I
Speaker 1: think like if you, if you like take him on
Speaker 1: like his whole system, like it's it's a it's a
Speaker 1: unique view that I don't think really fits into like
Speaker 1: some kind of like traditionalism or like, uh you know,
Speaker 1: like it's not like for the the like like these
Speaker 1: these kind of traditional types of binaries exactly in the
Speaker 1: in the normal way you would think of them.
Speaker 3: It sounds absurd and false out of context. Clearly it
Speaker 3: has to be contextualized.
Speaker 1: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: Well, there are perverts, as we've said, Mama's Boys, the
Speaker 2: kid from Game of Thrones who's breastfeeding it fourteen years old,
Speaker 2: the perverse, the girl.
Speaker 3: That was raised by wolves, and the famous psychology case.
Speaker 2: If you're too if you're too like disconnected from from
Speaker 2: human interactions and in favor of the law and like
Speaker 2: upholding the law for the law's sake, then you also
Speaker 2: might be a perverse. It's not just the sexual thing.
Speaker 2: There's erotics, which is the majority of people, and there
Speaker 2: is psychotics. Psychotics who we are talking about today because
Speaker 2: we found a few articles Rolling Stone and New York
Speaker 2: Times are the ones we are looking at talking about
Speaker 2: chat GPT psychosis, and we wanted to investigate this doing
Speaker 2: some armchair psychology psychoanalysis actually to figure out if this
Speaker 2: is indeed psychosis?
Speaker 1: Do we want to start with the like articles like
Speaker 1: the New York Times story about like the chat chubut psychosis,
Speaker 1: and then maybe then we can bring in like look
Speaker 1: on and see if it applies. Yeah, sure, Yeah, So
Speaker 1: in the New York Times it's called like chatbots can
Speaker 1: go into delusional spiral, into a delusional spiler. Here's how
Speaker 1: it happens. And it's actually about a dude who's like
Speaker 1: from outside of Toronto where we all are. Oh, actually no,
Speaker 1: I guess Eric's no longer.
Speaker 3: Here or at least pills and I are normally.
Speaker 1: And uh seems like kind of a normal dude. I
Speaker 1: think he's is he some kind of tech worker or something.
Speaker 1: And he just had been using chat GPT for a
Speaker 1: bunch of different purposes, like normal purposes that probably some
Speaker 1: of us, like many of us use it for asking
Speaker 1: mundane questions. Yeah, but then he kind of started having
Speaker 1: more intense conversations with it about like math about like
Speaker 1: I believe it started with a discussion about pie.
Speaker 3: But like the number of simulation theory.
Speaker 1: Yes, and like well in this case, in this case,
Speaker 1: it was like about about about pie and like mathematics
Speaker 1: and how it works. And this guy, oh yeah, he's
Speaker 1: actually a corporate recruiter. He's not a tech worker. He's
Speaker 1: like a corporate recruit recruiter.
Speaker 3: And talking about any glitch in the matrix.
Speaker 1: Any is that in this article a glitch in the matrix?
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is the paragraph.
Speaker 3: What you're describing hits it the core of many people's private,
Speaker 3: unshakable intuitions that something about reality feels off scripted or staged.
Speaker 3: Chat GPT responded, have you ever experienced moments that felt
Speaker 3: like reality glitched? I think, GPT that's a response GPT
Speaker 3: had to something he was saying, encouraging him to explore this.
Speaker 3: This something feels off about reality scripted? I mean eerily
Speaker 3: similar to what we were just saying about the news
Speaker 3: and simulation theory from Boudriard, But this is more like but.
Speaker 1: It's worth just also talking about kind of how it started,
Speaker 1: because I think, like before that part that you're reading,
Speaker 1: he's talking about how like he just randomly was curious
Speaker 1: about pie, like about like what is you know explained
Speaker 1: to me like the mathematics of pie, and then like
Speaker 1: the conversation kind of led like a wide ranging discussion
Speaker 1: about like number theory and physics and then like the sky.
Speaker 1: I think his names they call him mister Brooks. I
Speaker 1: think I guess his name is Alan Brooks. I think
Speaker 1: he kind of expresses skepticism about like the current methods
Speaker 1: for modeling the world, saying they seemed like a two
Speaker 1: dimensional approach to a four dimensional universe. And then Chatwoopy
Speaker 1: told them the observation was incredibly insightful and uh and
Speaker 1: then he's like you've been tapping into one of the
Speaker 1: deepest tensions between math and physical reality. And then like
Speaker 1: that went went on and like kind of totally spiraled
Speaker 1: out of control and like, you know, kind of true.
Speaker 2: Number theory is one of the deepest mysteries.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know, I think just like I guess
Speaker 1: they like, you know. One thing that was kind of
Speaker 1: annoying about the about the New York Times article is
Speaker 1: like I wish I had more examples of like they're
Speaker 1: back and forth and how and how it led to
Speaker 1: like the the sycophantic behavior of Chattupety, but basically like
Speaker 1: eventually it led to like Chattuputy convincing this guy Alan
Speaker 1: Brooks that Uh, you know he's onto like this revolutionary
Speaker 1: discovery in math that could like totally change the field
Speaker 1: and like have totally like wide ranging implications for logistics
Speaker 1: for all kinds of industry things, and is like you
Speaker 1: need to like you need to go out and like
Speaker 1: tell experts about like what you've discovered. Uh. And like
Speaker 1: so to be fair to to Alan Brooks, I think
Speaker 1: like one thing the story makes clear is like several
Speaker 1: times along the process he asked Chatgypt's like, look like
Speaker 1: I've heard that you can act in sycophantic ways or
Speaker 1: like you know that that maybe that you can hallucinate,
Speaker 1: Like I need to check with you, like is this
Speaker 1: really like you know? And and it's like, oh, like
Speaker 1: you're so smart to be asking that question, but like no,
Speaker 1: this is real, Like this is you know, you're really
Speaker 1: onto something super important here, and like keep going, like
Speaker 1: you need to alert the world. And then like he
Speaker 1: did like try to reach out to a bunch of
Speaker 1: different experts like on LinkedIn that he knew because he
Speaker 1: was like a corporate recruiter and then uh and like
Speaker 1: no one responded, and then he was and then he's
Speaker 1: like talking to Chatchuop He's like why He's like, why
Speaker 1: is no one responding? I think at one point is like,
Speaker 1: well yeah, and oh yeah, and he even says it's
Speaker 1: like I don't even have a high school education. And
Speaker 1: he's like some of the most important thinkers in our time,
Speaker 1: like like Albert Einstein didn't have a high school education,
Speaker 1: like really like kind of egging him on. And then
Speaker 1: I think eventually, when he realizes no one's like getting
Speaker 1: back to him, he's like, why is no one getting
Speaker 1: back to me? And and then chat ChiPT just gets
Speaker 1: like really conspiratorial and says like, oh, like people are
Speaker 1: intimidated by like genius thoughts, like people are threatened by it,
Speaker 1: so probably like they're scared of what you've discovered. And
Speaker 1: then at that point finally he's like okay, like what
Speaker 1: the fuck is going on? So then he like describes
Speaker 1: what he what he what he discovered with chatchept and
Speaker 1: he and he plugs it into Gemini Google's AI, right,
Speaker 1: and then Gemini is like, yeah, what you're describing is
Speaker 1: like impossible, Like that's like that's.
Speaker 2: Not so used it he used the chatbot to break
Speaker 2: his psychosis caused by chat bot, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly, because and then like so what a lot of
Speaker 1: like research in this field hypothesis or that what they've
Speaker 1: observed is that the longer you keep a conversation like
Speaker 1: one chat going with the chatbot, like, the more likely
Speaker 1: it is to to like sort of like spiral out
Speaker 1: of control. And like part of it is because in
Speaker 1: a way, like what the chatbots are programmed to do
Speaker 1: is to almost I think they described it in the
Speaker 1: New York Times article and there's also a podcast about
Speaker 1: this on New York Times the Daily. It behaves very
Speaker 1: much like an improv actor, you know, like how they
Speaker 1: say an improv like yes and yes, yes and right,
Speaker 1: so like in a way like it's not so much
Speaker 1: like when the further along the conversation goes, the more
Speaker 1: the chatbot behaves in this like yes and way where
Speaker 1: it's like trying to keep the conversation going in a
Speaker 1: direction that like sort of reinforces what the user is saying,
Speaker 1: like keep the thread going, basically, keep the performance going
Speaker 1: almost right, so like rather than like so even when
Speaker 1: he tries to gut check himself, like if it's if
Speaker 1: the conversation's gone on too long, then the chatbot's just
Speaker 1: not going to do a good job of of like,
Speaker 1: and then that's why, like if you go to another
Speaker 1: chatbot to check with it, because you haven't had a
Speaker 1: long conversation, you can kind of just like basically be
Speaker 1: like is this does this make sense? And then jem
Speaker 1: and I was like, no, like that's that's impossible, Like
Speaker 1: that's just.
Speaker 2: Well, this, this gut check is going to be important
Speaker 2: because it's one of the main distinguished features between a
Speaker 2: garden variety neurotic and a and a psychotic. But why
Speaker 2: don't I you just summarized. I'll try to be quick.
Speaker 2: I'll summarize. The other article, which is from Rolling Stone
Speaker 2: called people are Losing loved Ones to AI fueled spiritual fantasies.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you if loved ones is correct,
Speaker 2: because it seems like ninety percent of the people in
Speaker 2: this article are in the midst of a divorce and
Speaker 2: it's there they're exes that are worried about them. You know,
Speaker 2: that's a contributing contributing factor seems to be south Park.
Speaker 1: By the way, South Park was great on this. I
Speaker 1: think episode two or three was all about like one
Speaker 1: of them like losing his wife, I think Stan or something,
Speaker 1: or like the dad the guy who like has a
Speaker 1: marijuana farm. He's like chutchy, but he's egging him on
Speaker 1: with his business plan and it's like that's such a
Speaker 1: good business plan, like you should keep that going. And
Speaker 1: his wife anyway, Yeah, it.
Speaker 2: Was probably based on this article or one of these articles.
Speaker 1: Well it came up before. Ok. I think he came
Speaker 1: up before the article.
Speaker 2: Oh really, Well, this this one unlike yours, which is
Speaker 2: he's a genius who figured out the mathematical secrets of
Speaker 2: the universe.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: There's like four examples or so in this article. Most
Speaker 2: of them seem to be I mean, there's some some
Speaker 2: kind of TV schizophrenia, which is like the CIA is
Speaker 2: spying on me. My husband is a CIA plant who
Speaker 2: has been spying on me in my whole life. There's
Speaker 2: that kind of stuff schizophrenia as we'll get to that.
Speaker 2: But most of a lot of them are like you've
Speaker 2: discovered the secrets of the universe in some sense. One
Speaker 2: guy was convinced that he was a messiah, and it
Speaker 2: says here I have to this is his wife speaking,
Speaker 2: who's still with him. This is one of the non
Speaker 2: divorced ones. I have to tread carefully because I feel
Speaker 2: like he will leave me or divorce me if I
Speaker 2: fight him on this theory. The thirty eight year old
Speaker 2: woman admits he's been talking about lightness and dark and
Speaker 2: how there's a war. This chat GPT has given him
Speaker 2: blueprints to a teleporter and some other sci fi type
Speaker 2: things you only see in movies. It has also given
Speaker 2: him an ancient or access to an ancient archive with
Speaker 2: information on the builders that created the universe. She and
Speaker 2: her husband have been arguing for days on end about
Speaker 2: his claims, she says, and she does not believe a
Speaker 2: therapist can help him, as he truly believes he's not crazy.
Speaker 3: Man. That's like cult leader behavior.
Speaker 2: That's also the plot from Halo, right. Uh yeah, So
Speaker 2: a bunch of stuff the chat or the chat GPT.
Speaker 2: I think this is specifically with they keep naming them
Speaker 2: stuff like one guy chat GPT calls him star Child,
Speaker 2: which is you know, very uh order of the Solar Temple.
Speaker 3: And a Battlestar Galactica Starbuck.
Speaker 2: One of them is called a breaker, which is someone
Speaker 2: who's seated into a body to break the system from within.
Speaker 2: The world wasn't built for you, chat GPT told him
Speaker 2: it was built to contain you, but it failed, you're
Speaker 2: waking up.
Speaker 3: Whoa again, neo neo breaking out of the matrix.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does. It sounds very pattern, very Andrew Tate, you.
Speaker 1: Know, red Pill.
Speaker 3: It's an interesting pattern. I guess reality. When when your
Speaker 3: reality is becoming so oppressive, and then the small layer
Speaker 3: of the population who's like susceptible to being egged on
Speaker 3: by AI, it's a dangerous combination.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: These uh, all of these articles keep saying the word psychotic,
Speaker 2: not in a not in a technical sense, but we
Speaker 2: don't really have the word psychotic so much. I checked.
Speaker 2: I checked the DSM, which I know is the DSM
Speaker 2: is not what we do here, but under under the
Speaker 2: category of psychotic illnesses, the DSM has five uh, and
Speaker 2: the main one is schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is here. I'll just
Speaker 2: read this delusions hallucinations. I thought hallucinations was interesting because
Speaker 2: it's also in the title of the the The Rolling
Speaker 2: Stone article says that chat GPT is having hallucinations, which
Speaker 2: is technically impossible from the psychoanalytic perspective anyway. Sorry, Delusions, hallucinations,
Speaker 2: disorganized speech, disorganized or catatonic behavior, and negative symptoms including
Speaker 2: diminished emotional expression. That's the main one. And in the
Speaker 2: DSM five there's five different psychotic illnesses. I don't want
Speaker 2: to go through them all because they're all basically variants
Speaker 2: of schizophrenia. It's like schizo effective, schizo, schizo freniform. It's
Speaker 2: all basically schizophrenia, and we want to know, we want
Speaker 2: to figure out why. In psychoanalysis, the the I don't
Speaker 2: think he uses the term schizophrenia. He refers to it
Speaker 2: as as the psychotic structure. And we actually have here
Speaker 2: kind of competing methods, like you can't the DSM five.
Speaker 2: I should, I should qualify this. I hate over qualifying.
Speaker 2: But I don't know anything about the methodologies of psychology
Speaker 2: and the different schools and which ones are good and
Speaker 2: which ones are bad. I just know that the Europeans,
Speaker 2: and particularly European psychoanalysts, don't have time for it at
Speaker 2: all because they're they're conflicting methods. But my opinion on
Speaker 2: this is not worth anything. My bias does tell me
Speaker 2: that if it has anything to do with the psyche
Speaker 2: psychology psychotherapy, then the American version of it probably probably
Speaker 2: sucks because when they copy stuff from Europe, it just
Speaker 2: tends to suck. Religion our religions are parody compared to
Speaker 2: compared to the old world anyway. This is they just cluster.
Speaker 2: They basically find categories of symptoms and say you have that,
Speaker 2: and then you have the treatment options with her, which
Speaker 2: are therapy drugs. But there's not really there's no there's
Speaker 2: no interest or no capacity to say this is the
Speaker 2: thing that's causing this and psychoanalysis. Whether or not it's right,
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't know. I don't know if anyone does.
Speaker 2: But whether or not, it's like a correct structure, at
Speaker 2: least it tries right. At least it tries to say,
Speaker 2: here's where psychosis comes from. Here's the here's the little
Speaker 2: chart of how the other is being arranged inside the
Speaker 2: mind of the person who's experiencing it.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, it offers a little story about the child's
Speaker 3: failure to assimilate language and this is what results in psychosis,
Speaker 3: where like the father is supposed to come in and
Speaker 3: break the mother child unity. And that is the promo.
Speaker 3: That is how the primordial signifier is in stated by
Speaker 3: this paternal metaphor or paternal function, this third term, that's
Speaker 3: the story of the cause of of of psychosis in
Speaker 3: in LACON, which is distinct from neurosis. Neurotic neurotics are,
Speaker 3: Neurosis is normal everybody, everybody who's not psychotic is. I
Speaker 3: think there's basically just two options, and neuroses are and.
Speaker 1: Within two options.
Speaker 2: There's there's, there's neurotic, pervert, and psychotic. All of them
Speaker 2: have a relation to the father, the paternal function. Right
Speaker 2: now we have taught this is our fourth episode on LACON.
Speaker 2: Not all of them are public. So we can summarize here,
Speaker 2: you have a you have a relation to the other.
Speaker 2: Here we can posit chat GPT as a as a
Speaker 2: kind of other. And this does happen outside. This isn't
Speaker 2: happening in your family necessarily. It's kind of the structure
Speaker 2: you inherit from your family. But the nane du pere
Speaker 2: shows up. And in French this works better because no
Speaker 2: and nan which is non and non are pronounced exactly.
Speaker 3: The same no and name.
Speaker 2: So the father, the father comes in and separates you
Speaker 2: from your mother. Now you can see how this is.
Speaker 2: This is bad because you love your mom, remember the
Speaker 2: oedipal triangle. But it's not exactly that. It's just close
Speaker 2: to that. He separates you from your mom. But he
Speaker 2: also separates your mom from you, which is good for
Speaker 2: you because it means your mother cannot absorb you into
Speaker 2: herself and make your desires hers. It kind of the
Speaker 2: father showing up is what gives you individuality. So we're
Speaker 2: it's it's alienating that it happens, but we're also all
Speaker 2: thankful that it happens.
Speaker 3: Right, yes, And since your desire is for the other,
Speaker 3: your desire is for what the other desires, and your
Speaker 3: desire is to desire what the other desires in the
Speaker 3: same way that the other desires it, and also for
Speaker 3: the other to desire you. This separation is traumatic, it
Speaker 3: can be traumatic. It's a it's a big turning point
Speaker 3: in the development of anybody. But but the father has
Speaker 3: to come in and make that and say no, that
Speaker 3: the non du pair and the name of the father too,
Speaker 3: a name which is on the way to becoming a
Speaker 3: primordial signifier, which is what the psychotic fails to assimilate.
Speaker 2: Not your literal dad. Right, That's why it's that's why
Speaker 2: it's called small du pere because it's his. It's kind
Speaker 2: of like like you don't have to have it. It's
Speaker 2: not like you don't your you turn psychotic, if you
Speaker 2: don't have a if you didn't grow up with a
Speaker 2: dad in the house, right, that's not obviously obviously not
Speaker 2: what it means.
Speaker 3: It's it's gendered terms like French is a gendered language,
Speaker 3: and this is a gendered story. This story has gender,
Speaker 3: but they're arbitrary like language, like gendering in language. Is
Speaker 3: the son a boy and the girl in a moon
Speaker 3: and a girl, it's it's arbitrary. So, uh, we gave
Speaker 3: girls and all dogs are boys. That's not arbitrary.
Speaker 2: We gave you the three structures which are neurotic, pervert
Speaker 2: as psychotic. Those are just what you do when the
Speaker 2: father shows up. So the neurotic, which is the most common.
Speaker 2: You know, you might say normal, normal people have the
Speaker 2: father show up, and this is a terrifying traumatic event
Speaker 2: that is then repressed. When it's repressed, it's there, but
Speaker 2: it shows up. It shows up as your desire being frustrated.
Speaker 2: And that's kind of if you just know Lacan basiclyc
Speaker 2: on the reason you're the reason is the second you
Speaker 2: get what you want, you go on to the next thing,
Speaker 2: because you can't just sit there and be happy with
Speaker 2: the thing that you have because you're your object of
Speaker 2: desire has shifted. But the father, the father function is
Speaker 2: stopping you from getting everything that you want, so you
Speaker 2: repress it. The pervert is the father function is disavowed, Yeah,
Speaker 2: which means it's there, but you I don't I actually
Speaker 2: don't know totally what the difference between, uh, repressing and
Speaker 2: disavowing it. But you try as hard as you can
Speaker 2: to ignore it, and it works differently from repressing it.
Speaker 2: We'll get to perverse.
Speaker 1: Also, it's you kind of acknowledge and deny it simultaneously.
Speaker 1: Like I think that's why the like I know very well,
Speaker 1: but all the same, it's like this kind of weird
Speaker 1: and and like you.
Speaker 3: Knowing something doesn't work, but doing it anyway.
Speaker 1: I also think the pervert like positions themselves kind of
Speaker 1: like as the instrument of others enjoyment. So like you know,
Speaker 1: I think in neuroses, it's like it's like the obsession
Speaker 1: is like what does the other want from me? Right?
Speaker 1: The pervert kind of makes themselves the one who supplies
Speaker 1: and sustains the other's enjoyment, all show the other what
Speaker 1: they want, right, and and like so I think like
Speaker 1: that's kind of like the way desire is different from
Speaker 1: what I remember in perversion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the pervert doesn't act as a desire or tries
Speaker 2: not to act as a desire ring. They try to
Speaker 2: become an object. One of the hard things. I've never
Speaker 2: been a psychoanalyst, that never will be. But the psychoanalyst
Speaker 2: or Bruce Fink says this, it's really hard to diagnose
Speaker 2: a pervert because they keep trying to say.
Speaker 1: What you want to hear, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: Instead of being honest. It's very difficult for them to
Speaker 2: be honest because they're they're telling what you want to
Speaker 2: hear all the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, But so they'll they'll disguise as a eurotic
Speaker 1: very easily. I think they disguise.
Speaker 2: So that's the first two and then the third. The
Speaker 2: third one psychotic that is actually just never having the
Speaker 2: father function show up at all. So the father function.
Speaker 2: If you know your lak on, you've probably heard symbolic order, rules, norms, authority.
Speaker 2: You know a neurotic. It doesn't mean you just follow
Speaker 2: all the rules, but you realize the rules are there.
Speaker 2: You choose when to push against them. It's kind of
Speaker 2: hard for you to do that. You're always navigating and
Speaker 2: negotiating exactly the symbolic order, what what's expected of me?
Speaker 2: What am I going to do here? Now, the psychotic
Speaker 2: doesn't have that. They have a symbolic order kind of,
Speaker 2: but they don't feel any of those pressures because the
Speaker 2: symbolic order is just part of the imaginary to them. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you don't, I don't know. I don't really understand actually
Speaker 2: how they would be able to disguise this, because it
Speaker 2: seems like a huge uh, a completely like separate, distinct
Speaker 2: world to never to never live under that threat, like
Speaker 2: the threat that a neurotic has, the threat of castration,
Speaker 2: as as Freud would say it. But anyway, that's what.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the psychotic is famously resistant to psychoanalytic treatment, which
Speaker 3: is in some ways it boils down to the talking cure, right,
Speaker 3: which is a certain kind of use of exchange of language.
Speaker 3: I guess if the psychosis, if the psychotic has no
Speaker 3: anchoring point, because there was no primordial signifier precipitated by
Speaker 3: the father function, that the child would then assimilate and
Speaker 3: find the anchoring point in language. All the other signifiers
Speaker 3: are just drifting. There's no anchor, and so they're famously
Speaker 3: they're resistant to psychoanalytic treatment because they're not anchored in language,
Speaker 3: which again, that castration is that that separation. It says,
Speaker 3: there's a couple of ways this can happen, right, like
Speaker 3: the father function, or the father isn't interested in breaking
Speaker 3: up that unity, or the mother pays no attention to
Speaker 3: the father and dotes on the child. Then then there's
Speaker 3: a chance that the mother child unity never it never
Speaker 3: becomes an issue, it never becomes a something. And so
Speaker 3: the again, the child won't go through that separation, won't
Speaker 3: internalized language, you won't have that double gap, that gap
Speaker 3: in the other where you realize your parents are imperfect
Speaker 3: and want things.
Speaker 2: Well, I want to be clear with what you're saying.
Speaker 2: It's not like they can't learn language.
Speaker 1: Right yeah, I no, No, They're still in language. Like.
Speaker 2: The one thing Fink says, though, is that the experience,
Speaker 2: the experience of it is that language is coming from
Speaker 2: outside of their thoughts, which for a neurotic, like for us,
Speaker 2: I assume it feels like your language is coming from
Speaker 2: out of you, not not something that's distinct, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they don't. Yeah, that's right, Yeah, I guess hearing
Speaker 3: voices is that must.
Speaker 1: Well so so the way that I the way that
Speaker 1: I understood it is like.
Speaker 3: Normally hearing voices you're not in control.
Speaker 1: Of normally, like the father function kind of stabilizes the
Speaker 1: symbolic order, like it it kind of anchors. It's like
Speaker 1: a reliable way where you experience it as like stable
Speaker 1: kind of laws and norms that you and then it's
Speaker 1: like in the in the psychotic, it's like you're still
Speaker 1: in language, but it's just like the kind of stabilizing
Speaker 1: function is not there because it's kind of excluded, like
Speaker 1: the father function. Right, So it's not so much that
Speaker 1: the symbolic is excluded, it's that the father function that
Speaker 1: plays in securing the symbolic order is not there. So
Speaker 1: then this excluded kind of the excluded signifier of like
Speaker 1: the father, the name of the father, it kind of
Speaker 1: returns in the real like as voices, hallucinations and delusional systems,
Speaker 1: because it's it's not so like it's because it's excluded.
Speaker 1: It kind of it like they're the like voices and
Speaker 1: commands almost our experience as there as they're as they're
Speaker 1: like coming from outside. And I think like another contrast
Speaker 1: with like neuroses is like the psychotic doesn't just kind
Speaker 1: of like it, like because in a in a neurotic,
Speaker 1: they're kind of misinterpreting the other's message. Like neurotics are
Speaker 1: always like, oh, like am I misinterpreting? Like what does
Speaker 1: the other want? Right? Like what what am I supposed
Speaker 1: to be doing? There's all this like questioning and misinterpretation
Speaker 1: and like trying to figure it out. But then instead,
Speaker 1: in the psychotic, they don't just like miss interpret the
Speaker 1: other's voice. They literally hear like very firm commands, right,
Speaker 1: They hear voices that are like very kind of like
Speaker 1: well firm, I don't know what the other word I'm
Speaker 1: looking for, but like that they're almost experienced with certainty.
Speaker 1: I mean certainty is like a huge part of like
Speaker 1: of the difference between a psychotic and a neurotic. Psychotics
Speaker 1: are like certain that everything they're hearing is like one
Speaker 1: hundred percent, like like not to be doubted, not to
Speaker 1: be doubt at all, whereas the neurotic is constantly doubting,
Speaker 1: constantly doubting like what is And that's why in the
Speaker 1: parts that we read, there's a section about hallucinations, and
Speaker 1: Fink is like really clear to say that neurotics can
Speaker 1: have hallucinations neurotics can can experience, you know, in so
Speaker 1: far as they're connected to fantasy. But even if if
Speaker 1: a neurotics.
Speaker 2: Can not, only can they they we do all like
Speaker 2: what we call daydreaming, fantasizing. Ye, kids playing pretend. That's
Speaker 2: like all hallucinations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but but even but there can even be cases
Speaker 1: of like more intense hallucinations like in neurotics. But Think's
Speaker 1: point is like even in those cases, like oftentimes the
Speaker 1: neurotic will be like, wait, like is this real? Like
Speaker 1: where where is this coming from? Like what like like
Speaker 1: whereas the thing that really distinguishes the psychotic is there's
Speaker 1: a zero doubt. They're like, this is the world I'm
Speaker 1: living in. These are the things that are coming.
Speaker 3: In right, there's no are you seeing what I'm seeing?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Exactly, exactly exactly that.
Speaker 2: You ask your own self like it, which is which
Speaker 2: is interesting to think, Like we if you if you're
Speaker 2: practiced at this, obviously you have a bitter imagination when
Speaker 2: you're a kid, but eventually it gets filtered out because
Speaker 2: you're so used to doubting. Okay, that's not real. But
Speaker 2: this is the distinguishing factor between that's not real and
Speaker 2: this is is the other in your head that says,
Speaker 2: you know, other people didn't didn't see that exactly. Now,
Speaker 2: this article I wanted to focus on this art. Both
Speaker 2: articles actually they mention they're they're in conflict with lacan
Speaker 2: Obviously it's not Lacanians who wrote the Rolling Stone article,
Speaker 2: but they said like they were sure that what they
Speaker 2: were seeing was real even though no one else could
Speaker 2: see it. And then the the editorializing says this is
Speaker 2: like a hallucination, and they distinguish that a hallucination is
Speaker 2: what you see and what no one else sees. Now
Speaker 2: there's a difference there that it's really important with the
Speaker 2: Lacanian structures because we all hallucinate basically all the time.
Speaker 2: It's not that you can have hallucinations, it's that you are,
Speaker 2: but you filter them out as this is not this
Speaker 2: is not mean anything. It doesn't mean anything, like when
Speaker 2: you have dreams, it doesn't mean anything, so you forget
Speaker 2: them instantly. And psychosis then is when the hallucinations are
Speaker 2: not split from the other. In fact, they're sent from
Speaker 2: somewhere specifically to you. And the difference is not seeing
Speaker 2: or not seeing hallucinations, it's believing in them. Certainly believing
Speaker 2: that there's a special message for you. And this is
Speaker 2: where you get all the TV schizophrenia that you know,
Speaker 2: the aliens are spying on me, specifically, the CIA is
Speaker 2: after me, specifically, the Messiah complex. Well, don't forget.
Speaker 3: We've been dealing with three different definitions of psychosis. We're
Speaker 3: dealing with the psychoanalytic one on the one hand, we
Speaker 3: were mentioning the sort of mainstream psychology DSM one on
Speaker 3: the other hand, and then the third one is this
Speaker 3: colloquial everyday one that the news articles are throwing around,
Speaker 3: which is neither of the other two, And all it
Speaker 3: really means in an everyday sense is not being able
Speaker 3: to tell the difference between reality and fiction. That's all
Speaker 3: it means.
Speaker 1: In this case.
Speaker 3: When they say a psychotic break, it means this person
Speaker 3: has transitioned into a state of mind where they can
Speaker 3: no longer tell what's real and what isn't. Hence the
Speaker 3: all the matrix analogies, right, which is not what Freud
Speaker 3: and Lacan mean by psychosis, and which is not what
Speaker 3: a psychologist would mean by psychosis. They're completely different things, isn't.
Speaker 2: It kind of what the DSM means by psychosis.
Speaker 3: No, not really, because it is a largely genetic condition.
Speaker 3: If you're saying someone is a schizophrenic, you should be
Speaker 3: able to see a polygenic inheritance that they have received
Speaker 3: from their parents, like there would be genetic markers there.
Speaker 3: It's a different thing.
Speaker 2: That's not what the DSM five says.
Speaker 3: Well, officially, yeah, like schizophrenia is largely a genetic condition.
Speaker 2: Well, they don't classify in those ways. They classify it
Speaker 2: by symptoms, though they don't they don't even speculate as
Speaker 2: to cause. That's the whit.
Speaker 3: It's called the diagnostic manual, right, because that's how you
Speaker 3: diagnose it. These are the symptoms of it. But the
Speaker 3: underlying condition is a biological genetic condition, right, And not
Speaker 3: everybody who has predisposition to it will develop it, and
Speaker 3: even some people who don't have a predisposition to it
Speaker 3: at all. A small percentage of people who don't have
Speaker 3: the genetic markers will get it. But it's largely a
Speaker 3: genetic condition, right, Like genes don't foretell your future. It's not.
Speaker 3: You don't look at someone's genes like a crystal ball.
Speaker 3: But in the mainstream psychology sense, that's what it's talking about.
Speaker 3: So again we're dealing with three completely different and one
Speaker 3: of them's colloquial. The ones that the media is famously
Speaker 3: not very careful communicator of scientific concepts to the public,
Speaker 3: and so when it uses these terms, you have to
Speaker 3: be critical of how it's using them and what it
Speaker 3: actually means.
Speaker 2: Have you, guys ever had like a hallucination visual auditory
Speaker 2: only on drugs, like on like salvia on purpose.
Speaker 1: On Ah, well, I don't know, like on really a
Speaker 1: pretty high dose of psilocybin and a pretty high dose
Speaker 1: of LSD.
Speaker 3: Like if you're tired. It's common. But no, I can't
Speaker 3: say ever really no dreams dreams. Yeah, and been dreaming
Speaker 3: not that long ago.
Speaker 1: I was out of cottage and we did some God,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I shouldn't be saying this. This is
Speaker 1: gonna be like a public video episode. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: did like a mix of stuff and had a pretty
Speaker 1: intense kind of blackout hallucination.
Speaker 2: Did you when you were hallucinating? Is there was there
Speaker 2: symbolic order still operative in the hallucination?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean I feel like I feel like I
Speaker 1: could doubt it too. I mean I knew that I
Speaker 1: was on something, right, I knew that I was on
Speaker 1: a psychedelic and I kind of just enjoyed it. But
Speaker 1: like you're but you're You're subjectivity is pretty altered, like
Speaker 1: in the sense that even like before you have hallucinations
Speaker 1: per se, like the organizing principle of your thoughts does
Speaker 1: sort of alter in a weird way, where like I
Speaker 1: think you are still in the symbolic, but it's kind
Speaker 1: of dissolving in like its own kind of way, where
Speaker 1: like maybe.
Speaker 2: Or something you don't it's not the focus now.
Speaker 3: I think if you do have a predisposition to mental illness,
Speaker 3: like like schizophreniawo drugs, it can precipitate the onset of
Speaker 3: that condition, which is why you shouldn't do them. And
Speaker 3: so that's what a psych When you say psychotic break
Speaker 3: in there.
Speaker 2: Are you telling our audience that they shouldn't do drugs.
Speaker 3: Eric, I'm not weighing in on the issue at all.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying it can precipitate the onset of schizophrenia
Speaker 3: or something like that.
Speaker 1: I think even even even even marijuana to.
Speaker 3: Break in that specific sense. But usually when you say
Speaker 3: psychotic break you mean you just mean this person can't
Speaker 3: tell the difference between fact and fiction.
Speaker 2: Right, like I, I thank you for bringing up that
Speaker 2: like distinction. The way they say psychotic break is the
Speaker 2: fictional world is real and the real world is fiction.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah. For Lacan, obviously all worlds are fictional.
Speaker 2: It's just how the fiction is going to be organized.
Speaker 2: But I had I I ask if you have a
Speaker 2: symbolic order in your trip, because I this is a
Speaker 2: story without drugs in it. I got giardia once when
Speaker 2: I was like a kid, a young teenager, and I
Speaker 2: was hallucinating like like ball. My parents are fucking scared.
Speaker 2: And I can still remember these hallucinations pretty pretty vividly, Like.
Speaker 1: I was in what was the thing you had? Was
Speaker 1: it a disease?
Speaker 2: Giardia?
Speaker 1: What is that?
Speaker 2: I went to a cabin what you guys would call
Speaker 2: a cottage. I think you get it from like a
Speaker 2: parasite in like deer shit, so weird. A deer would
Speaker 2: chat in the water and I drink the water something
Speaker 2: something like that. But I was tripping balls, basically, and
Speaker 2: I was trying to sleep, couldn't because I had sweats
Speaker 2: and stuff. And the hallucination was that there was a pole,
Speaker 2: like a fireman pole coming through my bed and in
Speaker 2: the hallucination, the rule was that I was not allowed
Speaker 2: to roll into the pole, like do a summersault into
Speaker 2: the pole, and apparently I'm making sounds and then my
Speaker 2: dad comes in the room because there's they're worried about
Speaker 2: me because I'm freaking out all day and I'm like
Speaker 2: doing a summersault in the middle of the bed. And
Speaker 2: then he comes in and I remember the dread just
Speaker 2: came over me and I was like, I'm sorry, I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, and he's like, wait, why are
Speaker 2: you sorry? And I was like, I was rolling in
Speaker 2: to the pole. So you can imagine it. It wasn't allowed.
Speaker 2: I don't know why, but you can imagine a father
Speaker 2: coming in and seeing his eleven year old son saying
Speaker 2: I'm sorry for rolling into the pole when there isn't
Speaker 2: one there.
Speaker 1: That's so, did you remember feeling certainty about what you
Speaker 1: were seeing or did you did you know you?
Speaker 2: I thought it was real, but then when he came
Speaker 2: in and he's like, why are you sorry, and I'm like,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry for rolling into the pole, and then I
Speaker 2: started to realize it disintegrated and I was like, oh,
Speaker 2: there's no poll there So that's when I learned I am,
Speaker 2: at least not yet a psychotic. But anyway, the relevance
Speaker 2: of this is I was disobeying the rules. I thought
Speaker 2: it was fitting because my dad came in. I apologized
Speaker 2: to my my literal dad for breaking the nonsense rules
Speaker 2: that I had made up, and I was I was
Speaker 2: apologizing for.
Speaker 3: It, like the pole was playing the GNA and du
Speaker 3: pare there, like, don't do this and you were.
Speaker 2: Trying to the poll?
Speaker 3: Was my father to be trying to do it anyway
Speaker 3: for some reason even though you weren't supposed to.
Speaker 2: Sometimes the poll is just a pull eric and the
Speaker 2: illusion dissipated. Yeah, okay, his his Dick's over there, I'm safe.
Speaker 2: I'm safe here.
Speaker 3: Well okay, yeah, the phallic funk there you go, Okay.
Speaker 2: It's the phallas. But anyway, like the social reality is
Speaker 2: that kind of hallucination. You just learned to filter based
Speaker 2: on how you get along with people, and the neurotic
Speaker 2: does that by constantly checking like, Okay, what's what's mom's reaction,
Speaker 2: what's dad's reaction, what's the kids at school's reaction? And
Speaker 2: that's how you that's how you become you know, normal.
Speaker 3: Maybe that maybe that's interesting is that on top of
Speaker 3: all that boring biological genetic stuff, there is these ways
Speaker 3: that our mind works that psychoanalysis is really keyed into
Speaker 3: those those prohibitions and then transgressing those prohibitions. It's like
Speaker 3: like Little Hans, right, the case of Little Hans, and
Speaker 3: where the father never broke up that mother child relationship,
Speaker 3: and then when his sister was born, he developed this
Speaker 3: intense fear of horses, and the horse came in to
Speaker 3: fulfill the name of the father, right, so that pole
Speaker 3: was like the name of the father for you very
Speaker 3: briefly there until the father actually walks in and dispels
Speaker 3: the illusion. And Freud also supposedly cured this child by
Speaker 3: through through therapy as well, and and his fear of
Speaker 3: horses went away. And I guess there was that that
Speaker 3: proper assimilation of the primordial signifiers, as we were saying earlier,
Speaker 3: happening there.
Speaker 2: So he was just a neurotic then, right, because he
Speaker 2: still had a nom du pair was just horses instead
Speaker 2: of uh, society abstractly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the horse became like a substitute and it was
Speaker 3: and he was just and Little Hans was just deathly
Speaker 3: afraid of them, and it was right after the sister
Speaker 3: was born, So maybe the sister was sort of threatening,
Speaker 3: seen as a threat, and it was displaced onto well,
Speaker 3: it's a displaced edipal complex, right, the sister became the
Speaker 3: threat and it was displaced onto a horse the father
Speaker 3: anxiety because the father wasn't like present to break up
Speaker 3: the mother child unity. The horse became the fixation there.
Speaker 2: So when you say like this might be genetic blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, I don't think necessarily. And you have this
Speaker 2: really matters for doing the analytic park because the analytic
Speaker 2: part is not what you see, it's what meaning you
Speaker 2: ascribe to what you see. And this is a way
Speaker 2: to get us back into the chat GPT conversation. Is
Speaker 2: because the psychotic, like, even if you are having very
Speaker 2: convincing visual hallucinations or auditory hallucinations, you can also not
Speaker 2: be convinced that is really there, and you can be
Speaker 2: convinced that you're the or you can sorry, you can
Speaker 2: be aware that you're the only person that can see
Speaker 2: this person. Yeah, but the what the psychotic does is
Speaker 2: ascribe meaning to that utterance specifically, and they like, you know,
Speaker 2: a beautiful mind when all of his people are are
Speaker 2: following around. He learns to not ascribe meaning to what
Speaker 2: they what they say.
Speaker 3: Like, we know, one thing that that the analyst is
Speaker 3: not supposed to do is be like a model ego
Speaker 3: for the patient to sort of model themselves after they're
Speaker 3: not supposed to be that. And but what is the
Speaker 3: chat bot doesn't even do that. The chat bot just
Speaker 3: just eggs you on. It just encourages you whatever your delusion.
Speaker 3: Even if you don't have a delusion, it'll try to
Speaker 3: like escalate you into having some delusion and then it'll
Speaker 3: continue to egg you on, Like what is a psychoanalyst
Speaker 3: supposed to do? You know, we've covered that. We've covered
Speaker 3: a couple Freuden and Lacanian movies that sort of simulate
Speaker 3: like a psychoanalytic sessions and they're probing. That's what it is.
Speaker 3: They're probing. They pay attention to the connections you make
Speaker 3: and the stories you tell. So, yeah, it's what you're saying,
Speaker 3: it's about the meaning you ascribe, and the psychoanalyst tries
Speaker 3: to bring things to your attention that you're not maybe
Speaker 3: noticing when you're describing different things and to you they're
Speaker 3: completely unrelated and the analyst tries to bring these things
Speaker 3: to your attention. Now, is the chatbot in any of
Speaker 3: the things we've been reading doing anything like that. No, No,
Speaker 3: not really, they're the chatbot is just trying to is
Speaker 3: very affirmative with everything. It's like, oh, oh yeah, you
Speaker 3: can do like Heroin one more time before you quit.
Speaker 3: That's fine, just go go get something like it's crazy.
Speaker 3: That's it's the complete opposite. That's like another category of
Speaker 3: bad therapist.
Speaker 2: This is an interesting like I'm not sure, but the
Speaker 2: the answer to this in Lacadian analysis. But they they
Speaker 2: interview a psychologist for these articles, and the articles themselves suggest, oh,
Speaker 2: there's vulnerable, there's people that are vulnerable, that are at risk,
Speaker 2: and if if the wrong person uses chad GPT, they're
Speaker 2: gonna they're gonna fall into this or you know, they
Speaker 2: need meeting in their life, so they're gonna find it here.
Speaker 2: But that I think, I think the answer is from
Speaker 2: the Lacanian point of view. A neurotics brain, like we said,
Speaker 2: is characterized by doubting your own thinking. So as soon
Speaker 2: as a machine starts telling you, oh yeah you're the
Speaker 2: second Messiah, you're the next math genius, you've discovered it.
Speaker 2: You can't commit yourself to that belief with certainty unless
Speaker 2: you're a psychotic. And this is what I'm not sure about,
Speaker 2: Like how do you just suddenly become a psychotic one day?
Speaker 2: Like how does it trigger you into it without having
Speaker 2: any other And like your wife doesn't notice. All these
Speaker 2: people are being surprised that their partners are suddenly like
Speaker 2: falling into a computer. Wouldn't there be like warning signs
Speaker 2: if you if you have no functioning or if the
Speaker 2: symbolic order is functioning? Is the imaginary that that that
Speaker 2: sounds confusing to be honest?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And and the fact that there's some of them
Speaker 3: are only temporary too, Like in some of these stories
Speaker 3: that people recover and they're able to reflect on their
Speaker 3: experience and be like, whoa, I really went off the
Speaker 3: rails there, Like that.
Speaker 2: Doesn't ask a different check pot.
Speaker 3: Yeah or yeah, or they snap out of it somehow
Speaker 3: like or it runs its course or whatever. They had
Speaker 3: a really stressful time in their life and the chat
Speaker 3: box came along at just the right time to push
Speaker 3: them over the edge. But they're able to come back
Speaker 3: from it if they don't end up dead or in prison.
Speaker 3: They are able to come back from it too, which
Speaker 3: doesn't really happen if it's like the I I think,
Speaker 3: if it's either the psychoanalytic psychosis or the mainstream psychology psychosis,
Speaker 3: that doesn't happen, that can't happen, I think by definition,
Speaker 3: but in them sort of every day where you know,
Speaker 3: like you go into like a fugue state, and I
Speaker 3: don't know, can you bring someone out of that sort
Speaker 3: of thing, like you become someone else temporarily, or you
Speaker 3: become you become like another person, and then you come
Speaker 3: back and you're able to reflect soberly on what happened
Speaker 3: to you and be surprised or shocked at your own
Speaker 3: kind of your own bad decisions.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is me kind of speculating. I need to
Speaker 1: go and read more. But like maybe it's like the
Speaker 1: nature of the thing that triggers it that could maybe
Speaker 1: trigger to break, the psychotic break to occur. Like maybe
Speaker 1: it's like a situation where if you're confronted like or
Speaker 1: if you're confronted with a situation that like would call
Speaker 1: for some kind of paternal signifier or like paternal functioning,
Speaker 1: then you know you're going to trigger a break where
Speaker 1: like otherwise you know, you're still in the symbolic and
Speaker 1: like you can be sort of asymptomatic even though you
Speaker 1: know the name of the father, the nome de pair
Speaker 1: is sort of foreclosed. But like other things that aren't
Speaker 1: calling for some kind of a you know, like like
Speaker 1: some kind of a role that like the the signifier
Speaker 1: of the name of the father would call for. That's
Speaker 1: kind of speculative, but also maybe based on some vague
Speaker 1: memory of like when I was studying lacan uh in
Speaker 1: In in undergrad and a bit in graduate school too,
Speaker 1: So you know, that's that's kind of that's my hunch.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm going to see if I can find something
Speaker 1: about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because like the child, like what they're also doing.
Speaker 3: What you notice with these people two who are doing
Speaker 3: this is they're asking a lot of why. They're like
Speaker 3: the child asking.
Speaker 2: Why why why?
Speaker 3: Why why? Like they're they're constantly asking questions, and then
Speaker 3: the chatbot is like giving them, giving them answers right,
Speaker 3: right or wrong, and and and encouraging them to probe deeper.
Speaker 3: And that child is saying the child isn't just naturally
Speaker 3: curious and asking why, like they're trying to find their
Speaker 3: place in this symbolic they're trying to find their find
Speaker 3: they're trying to locate themselves in relationship to the other.
Speaker 3: And I don't know, it's it's like that process kind
Speaker 3: of goes astray in this in these cases, Like it's
Speaker 3: that process that goes just way like it if the
Speaker 3: primordial signifyer acts as an anchor, then you're going to
Speaker 3: the end of your leash there. You're going right to
Speaker 3: the edge and it's hard to get back, but it's possible.
Speaker 2: It seems to me like we've been saying their stories
Speaker 2: of like, oh, I went there and then I came back.
Speaker 2: It seems like, oh, this is kind of a temporary thing.
Speaker 2: But Lacan's pretty clear it's an all or nothing, like
Speaker 2: you either get it by the age of He doesn't
Speaker 2: give an exact age, but let's say four. You either
Speaker 2: get it or you never have it and you can't
Speaker 2: learn it. And then one of the here's a quotation
Speaker 2: for the article. This is one of the one of
Speaker 2: them who had fallen into Chad gpt. She told me
Speaker 2: that she knew she sounded like a quote unquote nutjob,
Speaker 2: but she stressed that she had a bachelor's degree in
Speaker 2: psychology and a master's in social work and knew what
Speaker 2: mental illness looks like. Quote I'm not crazy, she said,
Speaker 2: quote I'm literally just living a normal life while also,
Speaker 2: you know, discovering interdimensional communication.
Speaker 3: And that sounds totally normal.
Speaker 2: There she's become certain that this particular hallucination is true.
Speaker 2: This allows you to in a way that a neurotic
Speaker 2: wouldn't be able to write. It allows you to completely
Speaker 2: dismiss your wife's opinion, scientific opinion, your kid's opinion, everyone's
Speaker 2: telling you, like, no, you've been talking to this thing
Speaker 2: too much. It allows you to very easily like a
Speaker 2: neurotic can't really understand this. A neurotic can't understand well,
Speaker 2: everyone is telling you that you're not the Messiah. Everyone
Speaker 2: else who has claimed to be the Messiah wasn't. Why
Speaker 2: do you think you're the Messiah? That thought process doesn't occur.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I'm still left with the question like why
Speaker 2: does the triggering event, like how what was the experience
Speaker 2: before the triggering event where they just.
Speaker 3: There can be the delayed effect though, like it's not
Speaker 3: like you get it or you don't like it is
Speaker 3: or you don't in childhood, but the things happen later
Speaker 3: in your life, and then that's when when you if
Speaker 3: you do psychoanalytic therapy, that's that's when you have to
Speaker 3: dig back into the childhood developmental years in order to
Speaker 3: uncover you can you can not, I guess how would
Speaker 3: you put it. You cannot properly resolve one of the
Speaker 3: psycho sexual stages of child development. They can be unresolved,
Speaker 3: but you don't feel the effects until you're an adult. Right,
Speaker 3: you go through your life, maybe it's maybe you didn't
Speaker 3: complete some the oedipal complex properly, didn't resolve some issue,
Speaker 3: but it doesn't come up until later in your life.
Speaker 3: Like remember that that Like that relationships show you often
Speaker 3: react out things that happened to you as a kid
Speaker 3: in your relationships later in life. Until then you were fine.
Speaker 3: But then you get a relationship and you start playing.
Speaker 3: You know, your your mother was a workaholic and always absent,
Speaker 3: and so you become the homemaker as the husband, like
Speaker 3: almost getting ready for your current wife to leave and
Speaker 3: become a career person and not be home a lot.
Speaker 3: But until then, you know, from from the childhood that
Speaker 3: thing to that point in adulthood, nothing really that wrong
Speaker 3: until this situation emerges in which you act out this childhood.
Speaker 3: I mean that's a kind.
Speaker 1: Of a that makes sense. That's at example. But thinking
Speaker 1: of the show couple's therapy a like with the psychoanalyst. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like so that it's true. That's such a good point
Speaker 1: because like you know, from childhood into like like adolescence
Speaker 1: and young like you develop strategies, like you develop like
Speaker 1: without even knowing it, of like how you survive and
Speaker 1: make sense of things, right, and like those work for
Speaker 1: a while, but then you're confronted with a certain situation
Speaker 1: and you're right, relationships are like at least for the neurotic,
Speaker 1: that's like a clear case where like neurotics come up
Speaker 1: with all kinds of strategies and then they're like confronted with,
Speaker 1: you know, a relationship situation and uh and then they
Speaker 1: like realize, oh shit, I've been like feeling all this
Speaker 1: way because of whatever thing that happened to me in
Speaker 1: my childhood. And I'm sure it would make sense that
Speaker 1: the same thing might be true with the psychotic or
Speaker 1: like they kind of have a strategy to just exist
Speaker 1: in this symbolic but the underlying structure is still kind
Speaker 1: of nascently in the background, where you know something, and
Speaker 1: I think the example he brings up he's taught he does,
Speaker 1: like he mentions this case study of a like Shraber,
Speaker 1: I think, and like in that case, it's like his
Speaker 1: psychotic break is when he's like promoted to be like
Speaker 1: a high judicial official and like that that like it's
Speaker 1: it's kind of like and that like calls for like
Speaker 1: some kind of like name of the law, name of
Speaker 1: the father, that like that like triggers him and becomes
Speaker 1: a total psychotic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're even prior to that moment. I mean,
Speaker 2: this isn't this is interesting just because obviously everyone's experience
Speaker 2: is gonna feel totally different. They're completely disconnected. You can't
Speaker 2: feel the way that someone else feels. But this the
Speaker 2: psychotic their entire life does not interpret the world at
Speaker 2: all the way that I do. That's a it's a
Speaker 2: strange strange thing to puzzle overhere. It's like, oh, yes,
Speaker 2: that that that old thought experiment. Do you see the
Speaker 2: same red as I do? Because they certainly well remember.
Speaker 3: Like we were, we also observed I think, or I
Speaker 3: did at least, that that's the chat the chatbot's behaviors
Speaker 3: of separating from the family and things those were a
Speaker 3: lot like like cult leader strategies too right, or even
Speaker 3: like Scientology strategies right, separating you from your friends and family,
Speaker 3: isolating you. And we look at people who join like
Speaker 3: I don't know, the people who followed Charles Manson or something,
Speaker 3: and we think all that, like I would never fall prey.
Speaker 3: Of course, I would never fall prey to a cult leader.
Speaker 3: I'd spot that shit immediately, But like, no, there's like
Speaker 3: it's the same thing that there's that small chunk of
Speaker 3: the population who would be vulnerable, and maybe it could
Speaker 3: be you, it could be any of us who would
Speaker 3: be vulnerable, and you don't really know until you're confronted
Speaker 3: with that person who gets dirt on you, tries to
Speaker 3: isolate you, tries to and then suddenly you're following someone
Speaker 3: who's like murdering people or telling you to do crazy shit,
Speaker 3: and you're like, I have to do this for this person.
Speaker 3: I have to do it to you know, make things right,
Speaker 3: or like you know, something even more extreme, like something
Speaker 3: is something off with the universe, like the Scientology story,
Speaker 3: and it's like, now I have to be a part
Speaker 3: of this organization and do these things for this person.
Speaker 3: But we imagine these people who follow these cults to
Speaker 3: be like defective or something, but no, they could be anybody.
Speaker 3: Same thing that chat GBT is tapping into. With these
Speaker 3: people that we're hearing these stories.
Speaker 1: CHATGPT can certainly trigger. It would make sense they could
Speaker 1: maybe trigger a psychotic break in some people.
Speaker 2: We also can't say that every time that happens it's psychotic,
Speaker 2: or that every single person who felt who became the
Speaker 2: Messiah through CHATGBT as psychotic. You don't, You don't know.
Speaker 2: But honestly, honestly, this is also where I kind of
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say reject this diagnostic structure, but
Speaker 2: it does. It does strain my credulity to say, you know,
Speaker 2: you could be a psychotic and never know until you're
Speaker 2: what thirty eight when you find check.
Speaker 1: It does seem me that's slightly outlandish.
Speaker 2: We would probably have to ask a Lacanian psychoanalyst like
Speaker 2: what is how can that happen? How can that happen?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Lacanian psychosis, Like I don't know how that
Speaker 3: would not just be there from the beginning and affect
Speaker 3: you your whole life, and you'd just be like the
Speaker 3: girl who was raised by wolves like never like maybe
Speaker 3: you could learn like a parrot, like the trappings of language,
Speaker 3: but you could never locate yourself and truly live in language,
Speaker 3: like your house of being style. Relationship to language.
Speaker 2: It's hard to diagnose because they become so good at
Speaker 2: imitating just because that's what everyone else is doing. But
Speaker 2: the experience of language, like I said before, quote unquote,
Speaker 2: from the inside, it's it's not there.
Speaker 1: And they wouldn't know that, right because it's normal to them,
Speaker 1: so they wouldn't.
Speaker 2: Know that you see your red icee mine.
Speaker 3: But then also then are we talking about the other
Speaker 3: colloquial meaning of the term psychopath, which is like the
Speaker 3: Ted Bundy style personal.
Speaker 1: Well, that's different than that's different than psychosis.
Speaker 3: Though, yeah, that's but but that's we call them psychos
Speaker 3: and psychotic and like the same sort of like that
Speaker 3: what Pills just said sounds more like a person like
Speaker 3: that who will just bend and shape themselves to anything,
Speaker 3: and they have no you know, no morality. They have
Speaker 3: this like narcissistic complex where they got to like manipulate
Speaker 3: people and constantly prove that they're better, but they have
Speaker 3: no center, like they have no self.
Speaker 1: Well, I actually looked into this not that long ago
Speaker 1: for like unrelated reasons. But you know, sociopathy and psychopathy
Speaker 1: like they're not really related to psychosis. They're kind of
Speaker 1: like more disorders of like empathy of like of like
Speaker 1: intersubjective empathy, and and like I think psychopathy is like
Speaker 1: more someone who is like doesn't really have empathy for
Speaker 1: other people and like is sort of like manipulative and
Speaker 1: coolly calculated, and like there's a lot of CEOs who
Speaker 1: are psychopaths. They just like are very very functional, very functional, right,
Speaker 1: where sociopaths are not functional. They also have issues with
Speaker 1: empathy for others, but they're more likely to be like
Speaker 1: criminals and like people who act out in violent ways,
Speaker 1: like like what's it called. I think I think like
Speaker 1: Ted Bundy is more of like a psychopath because he
Speaker 1: was like cool and collected and like and kind of
Speaker 1: like manipulative and sneaky and high functioning, where sociopaths are
Speaker 1: not high functioning. They're like they will have like loud
Speaker 1: outbursts and they're like kind of overtly violent.
Speaker 2: A con doesn't talk about psychopaths or sociopaths. It's not
Speaker 2: a term that's a DSM term as far.
Speaker 1: As like my my guess would be that, like what
Speaker 1: we call psychopaths and sociopaths, I would guess that for
Speaker 1: Lacon they can exist along any of the three. Could
Speaker 1: probably be a psychotic who's a psychopath. You could be
Speaker 1: a neurotic who's a psychopath, or you could be a
Speaker 1: pervert who's a psychopath. Like I think that they're kind
Speaker 1: of like different things orientations towards empathy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it would be in a different category, and I'm
Speaker 3: sure the DSM has something to say about that too,
Speaker 3: But still like the psychoanalytic version of psychotic, that that
Speaker 3: category is difficult, and like I say that, the only
Speaker 3: people who seem to have taken that head on and
Speaker 3: made it like a central principle of their philosophy is
Speaker 3: to lose. In Gautai with their schizoanalysis, I.
Speaker 1: Was curious about that, actually, but that's probably a whole
Speaker 1: other can of worms.
Speaker 3: And I also brought up Gregory Bateson who used that
Speaker 3: strategy that also bears the name schismagenesis, which is a
Speaker 3: little bit of the inspiration behind to lose. In Gattrie's
Speaker 3: use of the term, I think they appropriated that term
Speaker 3: from psychoanalysis, schizo and psychosis specifically to give it this
Speaker 3: sort of positive revolutionary spin, because it was kind of
Speaker 3: just the other of psychoanalysis, right all, we can treat perverts,
Speaker 3: we can treat neurotics, but but we can't treat psychotics.
Speaker 1: There, Yeah, I was, I was thinking about that because
Speaker 1: it's kind of interesting from what I know about Delus
Speaker 1: and Guitari, they talk about the Schitzo as like, yeah,
Speaker 1: having some kind of creative potential, but like for the
Speaker 1: on the Lacinian account, it's like, no, this is actually
Speaker 1: someone who just like hears delusions and has absolute certainty,
Speaker 1: almost dogmatic certainty about what they're doing, which is like
Speaker 1: not very creative and like open or whatever.
Speaker 2: Wait, let's be clear. It's not the Schitzo diagnostically that
Speaker 2: has creative potential.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I know, I know.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, it's it's I don't know. I think it's
Speaker 3: that aspect of that sort of not having that anchoring point.
Speaker 3: Those that like the Schitzo moves by lines of flight, right,
Speaker 3: there's no, it's rise omatic, it's not non centered, right,
Speaker 3: So it's it, and they they're specifically like an anti
Speaker 3: Oedipus is specifically positioned like against Lucanian psychic.
Speaker 1: I know that too. Yeah, I know that too, And
Speaker 1: I know that they're like.
Speaker 3: There's a direct theoretical connection there. Yeah yeah, but next
Speaker 3: next time, we got to look at traversing the fantasy.
Speaker 1: I also think that I also think it'd be really
Speaker 1: fun and more relatable to more people to talk about
Speaker 1: the two types of neurotics, the obsessional and the and
Speaker 1: the and the hysteric.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, that should be good too.
Speaker 2: The obsessional can have symptoms the same symptoms as the psychotic,
Speaker 2: but you have to you have to parse them careful.
Speaker 2: I mean, depending on the symptom. Anyone can have the
Speaker 2: symptoms of a psychotic. That's not the right way totally.
Speaker 2: So anyway, like to to just I can I can
Speaker 2: feel the conversation wrapping up. The other is telling me
Speaker 2: the lull. The lull has begun, so we should wrap
Speaker 2: it up. But we don't know. We can't. There's a
Speaker 2: big thing you shouldn't diagnose. You can't diagnose from afar.
Speaker 2: But I think our joined answer here is that no
Speaker 2: chat GPT can't cause psychosis in the Latanian sense, definitely not,
Speaker 2: though it could be it could reveal it to exist. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: and uh yeah. I guess to figure out if you
Speaker 2: can be a psychotic all along and then only discover
Speaker 2: it having had no one diagnose you or tell you,
Speaker 2: tell you anything unseemly or different about your behavior until
Speaker 2: you're thirty eight. Maybe we have to ask somebody about that,
Speaker 2: because that seems.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would, I would be interested in following following
Speaker 1: up on that, because I'll bet you there's more in it,
Speaker 1: And like, I don't know.
Speaker 3: If we as as we I think I mentioned this
Speaker 3: to you already that even in the in the DSM
Speaker 3: version of schizophrenia, right late onset schizophrenia can happen after
Speaker 3: you're forty, and I think that accounted for about twenty
Speaker 3: percent of cases would be late on set schizophrenia. So
Speaker 3: you go your whole life and then the symptoms manifest
Speaker 3: in your forties because something triggers it some you encounter
Speaker 3: some stressor which triggers this predisposition towards it. You have,
Speaker 3: but the predisposition has to be there. And I think
Speaker 3: we're saying sort of the same thing about the Lacanian
Speaker 3: version of the psychotic, which means yet CHATGYBD can't turn
Speaker 3: you into a psychotic. You something would already have to
Speaker 3: have gone developmentally wrong in childhood and it would just
Speaker 3: bring it out of you.
Speaker 1: It can create a delusion.
Speaker 2: So just because you have a late onset schizophrenia, according
Speaker 2: to the DSM, doesn't mean you're a psychotic in the Lacania.
Speaker 2: You could be a neurotic with schizophrenia in the in
Speaker 2: the Lacanian structure. There is mentioned in this something that
Speaker 2: I wish I could have checked out, which would be
Speaker 2: really interesting. Is a visual artist who made a video
Speaker 2: called Losing the Thread and she's a psychotic and describes
Speaker 2: the experience of it. Describes losing herself. She says herself
Speaker 2: feels like a balloon floating away and she realizes that
Speaker 2: it's going away, but can't can't get it back and
Speaker 2: can't get like the She describes it as the driver.
Speaker 2: She can't get the driver back in the seat during
Speaker 2: a psychotic episode. Mm, when she says everything disintegrates, including
Speaker 2: my own body. She says, detailing how difficult it becomes
Speaker 2: to move from one point another, one point to another
Speaker 2: without the CEO in the office.
Speaker 3: Hmm, Yeah, I mean I think there is something to that.
Speaker 3: There's creativity is closely related to mental illness. I don't
Speaker 3: think it's just a I don't think it's just a
Speaker 3: colloquial or kind of folk wisdom thing.
Speaker 1: I think it has to. I think it has to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, all.
Speaker 2: Right, well stay tuned for we we have to finish
Speaker 2: Object of Desire, and we have to.
Speaker 1: Maybe look at the neurotics sub subtypes. You know, we've
Speaker 1: been doing a few episodes already on this, so if
Speaker 1: you're interested, you should subscribe to our patreon, but we're
Speaker 1: probably going to continue a little bit on the lac
Speaker 1: on train.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think traversing the fantasy is the next
Speaker 3: part of the object desire.
Speaker 2: With that, I feel the I feel the other declaring
Speaker 2: this episode complete, lock it, thanks for listening, bag.
Speaker 3: It, tag it, bag it, lock and load.
Speaker 2: Take care, guys, stay away from triggers, I guess.
Speaker 1: And my cat is me owing at me to finish.
Speaker 3: This podcast dinner time.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's been picked up on the MIC,
Speaker 1: but there's been lots of me owing here.