Re: "speaking as if castration doesn't exist!"

Dear Bobo,

I don;t mind being disagreed with. :) But I do want to restate a point:

>i'll have to disagree with Chris, though, and say that this has nothing to
>do with penises. the phallus is alligned on the penis at some point or
>another, but i'm not sure if the organ itself ever plays an active role.
>in
>the same way, oedipus isn't necessarily familial. the father doesn't
>always
>play the castrating role. i think this is what you mean, dan, by objecting
>to making the empty standard equal the phallus: it reduces the analysis to
>the family, to oedipus. but really it's a matter of avoiding the reduction
>of oedipus to the family; there's plenty of other ways to enter into the
>symbolic and be oedipalized besides the familial entrance, a very diverse
>number of things which can be brought under the form of the phallus/empty
>standard.

Q: What do you get by metaphorizing phallus into *power* and castration into
*disempowerment*?
A: You can marry Freud to Foucault?

Q: What do you get when you metaphorize penises?
A: You rob Freud of his biopsychological socioscientific numenos?

Q: Why would you want to?
A: Because Freud was wrong?

Q: Would you rather go for blinding or castration?

Q: Do you think blinding someone is just a metaphor for castrating them?

These are easy questions?

:) Chris
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


Partial thread listing: