> >this seems like a very strange claim, for a number of reasons.
> >(1) practitioners, students, and advocates of psychonanalysis
> >hardly sit around agreeing with each other about much, so how
> >can you dismiss it as a unified and disembodied practice?
>
> No kidding. Schisms in the Freudian Church have been endless and may rival
> those in Christianity:
always glad to see that you have a long quote ready at hand, but it only supports i said. unless you're willing to claim that every single one of those groups (15 in france in 1985, + g?d knows how many more elsewhere, + myriad practitioners elsewhere) *all* addressed the social *only* by 'posit[ing] it as if it were an individual writ large.'
> But they are all still the technologies of the self (or the hermeneutics of
> the self), as Foucault said. Psychoanalysis is a "secular" heir to
<...>
> The purification of desire -- whose truth, according to Lacan, is lack --
> is the objective of both. Time to join a monastery?
always glad that you can cite a celebrity. but it seems as though your basic criteria are as ever-changing and fluffy as the style council's moods. one minute you cite freud's 'historical' works as an authoritative proof of your claim, the next you cite foucault, and the next you cite lacan, as though we should bow down at the feet of the masters and under the mounting burden of your TITANIC quotations whose primary utility is to do an arabesque little digression away from what i said.
cheers, t