Gene,
in general I don't think anything I've said conflicts with this... except
perhaps that there are (especially under a Deleuzian model) lots of outlets
for libido, lots of things babies are plugged into... toys, games, diapers,
rattles, cribs and playpens, strollers etc. I think I made it clear that the
family as a psychological phenomenon dovetailed with and necessitated and
vise vera the family as social phenomenon. Freud also makes a similar account
in 3C, sensation, cystolic rhythm, movement, being bounced on the knee,
riding a train, etc. And the attacks on Lacan, I think go beyond merely
attempting to ground his psychology in social practice... to the extent that
it is. I was also saying that the configuration of the psychic mechanims as
described by Freud, and their transfiguration by D&G may be complicated by
the fact that from a diagnostic perspective, after the fact of the family of
origin and its pathology, Freud was dealing with patients who had problems on
the level of this lack... in terms of symptoms it was really a matter of
lack. One asks if psychological pathology is possible to be overcome any way
except socially... that wasn't a role Freud was put in, or likely to have
thought himself in, he operated, for better or worse as a doctor. The later
work may border on speculative social theory, but only as he tried to apply
his insights and contribute to fields outside his profession as a doctor with
a specific set of experiences probably unshared by others. I think my post
was pretty clear to question why Freud didn't deal more with the world the
infant was born into, and suggested that this is where P-A would actually
meet politics... and this plane is initially beyond lack, but also includes
the social mechanisms which produce lack. I would certainly extend this to
say that this may well be the point at which philosophy, (lack-signification
as terminus=speculative philosophy) detaches itself from political
engangement as well.
------------------
in general I don't think anything I've said conflicts with this... except
perhaps that there are (especially under a Deleuzian model) lots of outlets
for libido, lots of things babies are plugged into... toys, games, diapers,
rattles, cribs and playpens, strollers etc. I think I made it clear that the
family as a psychological phenomenon dovetailed with and necessitated and
vise vera the family as social phenomenon. Freud also makes a similar account
in 3C, sensation, cystolic rhythm, movement, being bounced on the knee,
riding a train, etc. And the attacks on Lacan, I think go beyond merely
attempting to ground his psychology in social practice... to the extent that
it is. I was also saying that the configuration of the psychic mechanims as
described by Freud, and their transfiguration by D&G may be complicated by
the fact that from a diagnostic perspective, after the fact of the family of
origin and its pathology, Freud was dealing with patients who had problems on
the level of this lack... in terms of symptoms it was really a matter of
lack. One asks if psychological pathology is possible to be overcome any way
except socially... that wasn't a role Freud was put in, or likely to have
thought himself in, he operated, for better or worse as a doctor. The later
work may border on speculative social theory, but only as he tried to apply
his insights and contribute to fields outside his profession as a doctor with
a specific set of experiences probably unshared by others. I think my post
was pretty clear to question why Freud didn't deal more with the world the
infant was born into, and suggested that this is where P-A would actually
meet politics... and this plane is initially beyond lack, but also includes
the social mechanisms which produce lack. I would certainly extend this to
say that this may well be the point at which philosophy, (lack-signification
as terminus=speculative philosophy) detaches itself from political
engangement as well.
------------------