Dear Bobo,
I'm going to stop trying to clarify the point. In fact, I think we might be
in quite a bot of agreement. :)
>isn't this exactly what d&g disagree with in freud, that oedipus is assumed
>from the start instead of culturally imposed? 'following foucault'?
That's what I said, yep.
>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'.)
The only place this really departs from Freud and Lacan is here: "phallic
separation isn't necessary for individuation, as some would
think...castration is not a 'necessary evil'.)"
>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...
That's consistent with Artaud's idea, I think.
>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)
Right. So are we still talking about "castration" when we metaphoize it.
perhaps only if Freud was right. But not if Freud was wrong. If Freud was
right, literal castration is the *archetype* (for want of a better word),
oh, here's one - numenos (of all that can be metahphrozed as castration).
Weird, because literal castration is ubiquitously unconscious (and hence
already metaphorical, thankslacan & JD). If Freud is wrong then literal
castration is just one phenomena of abuse among many. That's the point I've
been trying to make again.
Cool -
>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.
Thanks Bobo!
Have not read that bit, but it does make some kind of sense, in a way that I
have not yet been able to map. And in what seem to be historically
contingent ways, which vary greatly, but the basic idea behind "castration"
qua Freud does seem to fit the herdsman's rationale?
:) Chris
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
I'm going to stop trying to clarify the point. In fact, I think we might be
in quite a bot of agreement. :)
>isn't this exactly what d&g disagree with in freud, that oedipus is assumed
>from the start instead of culturally imposed? 'following foucault'?
That's what I said, yep.
>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'.)
The only place this really departs from Freud and Lacan is here: "phallic
separation isn't necessary for individuation, as some would
think...castration is not a 'necessary evil'.)"
>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...
That's consistent with Artaud's idea, I think.
>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)
Right. So are we still talking about "castration" when we metaphoize it.
perhaps only if Freud was right. But not if Freud was wrong. If Freud was
right, literal castration is the *archetype* (for want of a better word),
oh, here's one - numenos (of all that can be metahphrozed as castration).
Weird, because literal castration is ubiquitously unconscious (and hence
already metaphorical, thankslacan & JD). If Freud is wrong then literal
castration is just one phenomena of abuse among many. That's the point I've
been trying to make again.
Cool -
>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.
Thanks Bobo!
Have not read that bit, but it does make some kind of sense, in a way that I
have not yet been able to map. And in what seem to be historically
contingent ways, which vary greatly, but the basic idea behind "castration"
qua Freud does seem to fit the herdsman's rationale?
:) Chris
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com