From: Ariosto Raggo <df803-AT-freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: $
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:31:33 -0500 (EST)


> 
> >Perhaps, I have not questioned Lacan. But as far as reading him I assure
> >you I do nothing but.
> 
> I did not say you did not. It is evident from your wonderful email address
> that you are quite, quite familiar with Lacan.

  He eats, sleeps, breathes Lacan, I would not trust him Ashley. And he
shows us what mastery he has over everything, including the objet petit
a, by being very lucid and simple in his transmission of very esoteric
notions that drive intellectuals bananas, but not him, he is to the
point of no longer needing the crutch of the algebraic formulas which
can tend to the symbolic when abused and played with unknowingly. I
still think chapter 6 could be worked-through for quite a while. it
could get into Merleau-Ponty and Callois and surrealism and really fun
stuff but he is probably going to change the subject and make it go on
one of those metonymic slips..........The email address is truly a
master's stroke.

 
> >I didn't say the subject is the signifier, I said
> >"the signifier crossed by the stroke of the drive." And because I read
> >Lacan, I have some quotes for you to explain to the list and to me who
> >would like to know where Lacan talks about this mysterious "signified of
> >the Other," and how exactly the "signifer erupts from the real"--this
> >reference I have got to have! You don't mean _Television_, do you?
> 
> In any case, though it may have been through clumsy expression, you implied
> the matheme $, the split subject, in fact stood for the signifier... to
> quote:
> 
> >$=the Lacanian subject, that is the signifier crossed by the stroke of
> >the drive (that is, the scopic drive).
> 
  Excuse for interrupting a-gain, but does this have anything to do,
excuse my pea lacanian brain to reiterate; but does this have to do
with the split between the eye and the gaze??

> I haven't time this morning to respond in full to so many biting, and
> clever, remarks, but the 'mysterious' signified of the Other is hardly
> difficult to locate in Lacan. In fact, the essay is even published in
> English, which surely you have at least caressed in the fetishism which you
> seem to be displaying, in _Ecrits_: 'The subversion of the subject and the
> dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious'. I'll look up the page
> numbers if you have trouble finding it.
> 
  Very 'mysterious' for sure like wearing all black and jamming the,
what is it, secondary conscious operations of rational propositional
discourse? I don't know, I think it's one big intellectual hoax, best
leave Lacan to his enigmatic followers, they will all commit suicide i
am sure and the whole thing is no longer going to be even mysterious
and so possible to disclose in the analytical situation and will remain
forever a secret well kept by the now very silent Lacan himself. If he
were here, I am sure he would bless my interpretation and elevate me to
priviliged Lacanian status, I would truly be one of the list Avatars.
And what is more, I would not masturbate while reading Lacan, i mean
seriously Ashley. 

> >That's what you paraphrase badly, but there Lacan is talking, if I am
> >not mistaken about "truth!" And that final thing, about the subject
> >having a signified, really? Where exactly did you find that? [And to
> >make it easy for you, I will assure you, that I will not respond with
> >further references (You will have the last word (!) since "les mots y
> >manque") I will simply proceed to read!
> 
> How do I badly 'paraphrase'? I was quoting. with the addition of one and
> omission of two words, verbatim.

 You put him in his place Ashley. 

Ariosto


--