>In other words under some linear transformation, Lacan's
group is nothing more than a subgroup of the above, just as
the first truth table is a subgroup!
Chuck,
Thanks for the detailed post. I'm not exactly sure what this accomplishes though (what are the implications for his non-mathemed work). I don't speak matheme's nor am I fluent in the most elementary concepts of mathematics (as much as I've tried to understand Russell and Godel). The post I'd posted was a summary of Bruce Fink's book on Lacan's notion of subjectivity. Apparently, Lacan went nuts in the last ten years of his life (scribbling like mad, numbers, charts, graphs, and cutting out paper figures) (almost like he was back in grad school) - and this is when he put to paper the bulk of his mathemes. As far as I can see - all it does is undercut almost everything else that he's written. Lacan doesn't have to be taken into structuralism (or whatever one wants to call it). On the contrary, his work can be taken in a hermeneutic / dialogical direction (which is exactly what Gadamer picks up on in his response to Habermas - something to the effect of, "Lacan, more than anyone else, has illustrated the hermeneutic character of psychoanalysis"). So I hope I'm not being too much of an asshole here. I read your post and tried to put as much of it together as I could. I think I have an intuitive grasp of the problem but I don't trust my intuition all that much, especially when it isn't based on coherent reasoning. Have you made any conclusions about Lacan based on this critique? I certainly sense a frustration with a good many people about Lacan - like, what's the point if you have to spend so much time figuring out what he said, isn't it easier to do something else? I'm sympathetic to this approach... which, I guess, is why I'm more interested in what social theorists are doing with Lacan (like Butler, Zizek, Salecl, Copjec, Zupancic, Castoriadis and so on). Again, I feel like a jerk just dismissed the whole problem by saying "Lacan was nuts" - and then adding "but critical hermeneutics is the way, the truth, and the light..." but unless there's an easy way for me to pick up another language really quick, I'm just not going to be able to muster an intelligible response (I'm also thinking back to my failed attempts to understand the gravity / physics / biology problem you mentioned in the summer past). And I've still got that Cassier guy on my reading list (just to remind you that I haven't forgotten).
You know, none of this would have happened if your car hadn't broken down.
world in fragments, ken