On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Jim heartfield wrote:
> In message <Pine.GSO.4.02.9812010917030.1750-100000 at chuma.cas.usf.edu>,
> Frances Bolton (PHI) <fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> writes
> > I particularly like the
> >way Dawkins shows his complete ignorance of Lacan by talking about "erect
> >penises" instead of "the phallus."
>
> Yes, indeed, what utter ignorance to confuse the phallus with a penis.
> How gloriously naive. Ha ha ha. Amazingly, the Oxford English Dictionary
> makes the self-same error! Don't they know that words mean just what
> Lacan wants them to mean?
If this is meant to be a criticism of Lacan, I don't get it. Very often theorists will develop new definitions for old words (e.g., Einstein's concept of mass.) This is a sign of theoretical creativity, not sloppiness in and of itself. If all researchers and theorists had to use the meaning of terms as defined in the OED, no theoretical innovations would occur in the natural or social sciences.
That said, I think Lacan's work is obscure drivel. But let's be fair.
Miles Jackson cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu