just to qualify-i don't accept the natural/unatural distinction re fuzzy
aggregates (missed that bit first read)
>>> 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
aggregates (missed that bit first read)
>>> 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