Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:39:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: HAB: Re: Habermas & Freud


Ken, I'm going to respond to this later, for the most part, in
another very long posting which was begun in early December, but
remains unfinished. 

I enjoyed the "Third Rock" series of November, once I made time to
read through all the postings carefully. And I began a reply to
Matthew, which became a response to the interactions that went on. At
this point--having responded thematically rather than chronologically
(resulting in my drawing on exchanges across several postings on the
same thematic areas), I've reached Matthew's claim early in his
response to me, 11/20, that I imply that there is a "correct reading"
of Habermas. So, I would prefer to respond to your engaging comments
today after I've finished the other posting, which is becoming a
short essay, I guess. 

Presently, I want to agree that, as you said today (polemically, I
suppose):

> K- Then there is no such thing as the Freudian "primordially
repressed" ... the idea that something must be 'given up' in order
for the subject to acquire language. 

Yes, I would agree that there is no such thing, in the sense that you
indicate and, earlier in your posting, evidently presume.

> In Lacan, ...In order for the subject to exist, it must eclipse
being - it must surrender jouissance (enjoyment/trauma) in order to
be a subject.

My stance is that *subjectivism* eclipses being (and subjectivism is
a common syndrome of "normal" life), but in healthy ontogeny, one
does not eclipse being in order to exist as a subject. In particular,
discovering the I-me difference in childhood is not, as such, a
repressive event. Primordially, we are all open (except for those of
us born into abuse).

Until later,

Gary

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---