Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:04:10 -0500
From: Don Socha <socha1de-AT-cmich.edu>
Subject: RE: silence


Thanks for asking, Steve.  Actually, I think Lyotard 
addresses the issue himself in the SubStance article I 
mentioned.  I plan on putting my hands on it again in a day 
or so, but until then let me say that what I'm getting at is 
not far from how I read Buddha's saying that "To be idle [or 
to resort to 'quick-fix' symbolism'] is a short road to death 
and to be diligent [or to accept no 'symbol' as 
representative of any comprehensive 'understanding'] is a way 
of life; foolish people [those who buy in to abstract terms, 
for example, like 'freedom,'] are idle [allowing the words 
and symbols of those in power to determine their reality, 
even to delimit the very mystery of their own motivations], 
wise people [a term necessarily open to continued 
redefinition] are diligent [careful, suspicious, 
hermeneutically inclined perhaps].  

But as to the 'unconscious' in particular, I recommend 
reading the piece by Lyotard I mentioned.  I believe he is 
adressing Irigary's critique of Lacan's notion of 
signifier/signified relations between a mere penis vs the 
concept of the phallus.  

At any rate, I'm going to look for the article again and get 
back with you.  I've also read your response to Eric and yet 
need to take a closer look at what your concerns are as 
well.  

Best
Don Socha

>Don
>
>> To impose any symbolism onto the unconscious, in other 
words, 
>> consequently reconfirms power relations rather than 
>>suggesting alternatives.    
>
>Please can you clarify why you argue this case, why is it 
that an 
>understanding of the unconscious reconfirms power relations ?
>
>
>steve
> 
>
>