if it is of any usel, the blurred distinction between the necessity of the
oedipal family as such and its writ large version in the qunatative
repetiion of the law of the father in state apparatus, institions etc is
held together by the grammatical throwness ( Heidegger underpinning) of
lacan's account-hence my problem about the closures of apprehension and
paranoia-re lacan and recent interpollations, the existentials of the
Oedipal family become invidiously universalised in lacan's insistence that
the infant takes up a linguistic speaking position already prepared for it
in advance-( a gesture variated but essentially repeated by irigaray's
insitence that the pre-birth infant already hears a sexually differenciated
language -see Ethics of Sexual Difference section on the intertwining) basic
link- the concept of the future at work doesnt come from the future at al-it
is essentially reactive
(single parents (such as myself) tend to sabotage such neat mythic destinies
by saturating their pre-birth embryo's with Frank Zappa lyrics etc Irigaray
meetys Connie the Cone dread thought!).
my son has had sole possession of me all his life in an oedipal scenario-we
break every incest taboo without breaking them simply by getting along as
qualitaively differeciated people-trouble from the agencies of miraculation
though when his attitude to authority is i don't accept your
authority!-hence Kristeva's apposite views that single mothers are
terrorists in the symbolic order.
i think the point about fuzzy aggregates of women holds ( or at least my
thesis doesnt hold if it doesn't) (if anyone is interested in extending a
phenomenological criitique i don't have time to write-there is loads of room
to take that anlysis into Husserl's time of the circle qua Irigaray's own
solipsism )
i am more hesitant on the reduction of becoming-woman solely to the breast
mouth asssemblage- agreed in a pre-event kind of logic logic but what about
post the radical break from one's carnal birth? my own view is that
constructing a BWO ( obviously always different for everyone) does entail
the kind of reading dan gives but perhaps giving birth to oneself a second
time warrants a more complex treatment?
Ruth.(c)
>>> daniel haines <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/19 4:08 am >>>
chris & bobo & all,
>>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.
lol!
you're right bobo, that is pretty much my objection; you're right too about
there being other ways to enter the symbolic: your teacher, your boss, a
policeman... they can all "play" oedipus for you... it doesn't have to be
your father!!!!
seriously - i don't understand how or why you want to divide oedipus from
the family. how exactly can oedipus not be familial? he marries his
_mother_ !! that is a rather crucial detail, it seems to me. why do you
want to keep oedipus as the figure of desire? an oedipus who no longer
desires his _mother_ but a women who just happened to be passing? who
doesn't usurp his father but just the man who he saw asking her the time??
how is this still oedipus?? -- unless, of course, we already _know_ it's
always always oedipus....
;-)
> Q: Why would you want to [metaphorize the phallus/ castration]?
> A: Because Freud was wrong?
>
aha!
so "sometimes... a cigar _is_ just a cigar..." ?
dan
http://on.to/machine
http://switch.to/capital
"The immediate thought was too dreadful to
articulate: August had been right and, for all
we knew, horrific microbes were right now
invading our every pore" - EIGHTBALL #20