Freud
>would have snarled and twitched to hear people talk about Oedipus and
>castration as though the originary basis was not in the Developmental
>Agenda
>of the Body (Instincts and Drives) and in the Sordid Little Family Drama
>itself. He would have flinched to have heard Oedipus condensed into "social
>practices" or "cultural constructions". And Lacan too, I think.
isn't this exactly what d&g disagree with in freud, that oedipus is assumed
from the start instead of culturally imposed? 'following foucault'?
For
>example, Lacan sees the "premature birth of man" [compare human babies to
>other animals in terms of their development and capacity for autonomy]
>which
>is required by the larger brain [most primatologists and anthopologists
>still agree on that] which puts baby completely at the mercy of [mommy].
because of this premature birth, this is why we can't speak of
babies...there are no babies, the baby is born as an infant-mother
unit...the baby is like a mutating deterritorialization on the mother's body
and desire, a becoming-pregnant: the production of the intense
infant-mother assemblage differenciating towards the two extensities infant
and mother (phallic separation isn't necessary for individuation, as some
would think...castration is not a 'necessary evil'.)
Now
>my
>feeling is that, from the point of view of a BwO, maybe castration should
>not exist?
it still makes it scream...but you're right in a way; the BwO knows nothing
of what makes it scream, it is not in the BwO's capacity to name it's
oppressor...
pasted from other message>>>
Dear Bobo,
I say so too -
terminology doesn't matter much to me.
But what about the "referents" (the things the terminology refer to)?
well, they do change to a certain degree according to the terminology used,
like if i use a certain terminology the argument is forced into someone
else's arguments (some sort of striated space)
me, i don't care, i occasionally use terms from authors i've never read,
that isn't to say that i don't grasp the concept, but it's hard to use
someone's concept and not get trapped in that person's 'views' or
'position', which are things that stem from commentary, not the author
himherself and himher's concepts...hard not to get stuck as 'commentary',
hard not to be interpreted as interpretration.
:) bobo
:) Chris
>:) CHRIS
---
p.S - there's a passage in the abecedaire (i don't know where) on the
castration/brutality of/against horses and the people who were affected by
it...deleuze says "there's something there" or something like that.
---
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>would have snarled and twitched to hear people talk about Oedipus and
>castration as though the originary basis was not in the Developmental
>Agenda
>of the Body (Instincts and Drives) and in the Sordid Little Family Drama
>itself. He would have flinched to have heard Oedipus condensed into "social
>practices" or "cultural constructions". And Lacan too, I think.
isn't this exactly what d&g disagree with in freud, that oedipus is assumed
from the start instead of culturally imposed? 'following foucault'?
For
>example, Lacan sees the "premature birth of man" [compare human babies to
>other animals in terms of their development and capacity for autonomy]
>which
>is required by the larger brain [most primatologists and anthopologists
>still agree on that] which puts baby completely at the mercy of [mommy].
because of this premature birth, this is why we can't speak of
babies...there are no babies, the baby is born as an infant-mother
unit...the baby is like a mutating deterritorialization on the mother's body
and desire, a becoming-pregnant: the production of the intense
infant-mother assemblage differenciating towards the two extensities infant
and mother (phallic separation isn't necessary for individuation, as some
would think...castration is not a 'necessary evil'.)
Now
>my
>feeling is that, from the point of view of a BwO, maybe castration should
>not exist?
it still makes it scream...but you're right in a way; the BwO knows nothing
of what makes it scream, it is not in the BwO's capacity to name it's
oppressor...
pasted from other message>>>
Dear Bobo,
I say so too -
terminology doesn't matter much to me.
But what about the "referents" (the things the terminology refer to)?
well, they do change to a certain degree according to the terminology used,
like if i use a certain terminology the argument is forced into someone
else's arguments (some sort of striated space)
me, i don't care, i occasionally use terms from authors i've never read,
that isn't to say that i don't grasp the concept, but it's hard to use
someone's concept and not get trapped in that person's 'views' or
'position', which are things that stem from commentary, not the author
himherself and himher's concepts...hard not to get stuck as 'commentary',
hard not to be interpreted as interpretration.
:) bobo
:) Chris
>:) CHRIS
---
p.S - there's a passage in the abecedaire (i don't know where) on the
castration/brutality of/against horses and the people who were affected by
it...deleuze says "there's something there" or something like that.
---
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com