File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2004/lyotard.0410, message 24


Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:50:14 +0100
From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Source of line of thinking


roger,

In theoretical terms I tend to agree with the below - which makes me 
wonder precisely why the analysts who call themselves Jungians, are 
always in my limited experience - how ridiculous this seems as I write 
this - so much more humane.  With the caveat of the common social 
imaginary, which should be taken into account and couldn't  this be 
considered the common identity you are refusing. Either way  a clearer 
explanation as to how you can accept Lyotard's false consciousness of  
'humanity' as a species, given the implications of the below would be 
interesting, because isn't the underlying implication of the below the 
rejection of the notion of 'species' - Or is it that a subject is 
forever only a human being in your theoretical structure ?

Technics later - tomorrow perhaps, have worked enough this weekend...

steve

>Ok, Klein and Jung. The problem with Jung that I have is that he assumes a uniform self-same consciousness and unconsiciousness running between humans. I don't and won't buy that. Why? It should be obvious. I will not subcribe to a before the fact identity between subjects. On the other hand, there is something binding between us that Lyotard in his writings on Kant and the Sensus Communis betrays. We all feel but with the stopgap that each instance of feeling is entirely singular. This does not mean that cultural patterns cannot develop. Of course they do. But that is a second order of commonality. (I'll have to come back to this later). And just a short note on Klein: I was analyzed by a Kleinian  for two months and found it to be one of the most confining environments I have ever experienced. 
> 
>
>  
>

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005