From: Wynship West Hillier <wynship-AT-voyager0.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lacan...
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 22:34:24 -0700 (PDT)


Henk,

Thanks for writing back.  My responses:

> He is one of the many post-Freudians - and for one reason or 
> another one Freud seems to make all other superfluous. He is 
> a kind of _Rocky IV_ (after Adler and Jung).

I have been reading Freud and can appreciate that.  I guess I
tend to value Lacan's contribution over Adler's and Jung's because
both of the latter portrayed themselves as "better than klunky old 
Freud", whereas Lacan at least claims to be true to the master in
both letter and spirit.

> Besides, psychiatry and philosophy mix badly. One of the very 
> few who could keep the shaman in the cupboard - at least most 
> of the time - was Jaspers. Lacan doesn't even try. A hermetic 
> style of writing only enhances the 'magification'.

If you think psychiatry and philosophy mix badly, try politics!
(or engineering!, or . . .).  I'm not familiar with the "shaman
in the cupboard" metaphor.  Could you explain.
 
> Lacan's connection with Heidegger escapes me, as it did escape 
> Heidegger in his days. 

Well, he explicitly quotes parts of Heidegger's philosophy to motivate
his own work.  I'm curious as to what Heidegger might have thought
about this.  Do you have a reference?
 
> The cultural decor against which Lacan played his role is, of
> course, a very interesting one. Perhaps I would appreciate him 
> more if I started to see his life as a surrealistic work of 
> art... 

Yes.  i glanced through Turkle's _Psychanalytic Politics_ and it seems
as though he did not "practice what he preached".  And he's got a lot
of nerve to give a seminar on Ethics and then turn around and read his
mail, take tea, answer the telephone, and leave the room, DURING AN
ANALYSIS (where HE was the analyst).  "Feel free to continue in my
absence."  !!!

Thanks to you,
Wynship


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