Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:54:50 +0100 From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: silence Don Ok - the below is contains enough to make me realise that I was in danger of misunderstanding, misreading your response to Eric - I'll re-read the lyotard text referred to, which I have on the shelf, somewhere behind me and to the left... The Irigaray text Speculum is simply 'magisterial'... I remain of course miltantly foolish (laughs) but then any 'leftist' has to be aware that like sysiphus they are pushing a boulder uphill... regards steve Don Socha wrote: >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 >> >> >> >> >> > > >
HTML VERSION:
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 SochaDonTo impose any symbolism onto the unconscious, in otherwords,consequently reconfirms power relations rather than suggesting alternatives.Please can you clarify why you argue this case, why is itthat anunderstanding of the unconscious reconfirms power relations ? steve