Of gods and vampires: an introduction to psychoanalysis

kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca
Wed Oct 6 06:40:09 PDT 1999


On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:57:06 -0500 Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> Are *you* serious? Where's all this complication you promised? I really


> have a hard time believing you think you've said something. "Thirteen
> Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" has much better metric. Come up
> with something quick. This is the first time since August I've read you
> and you're still disappointing.
>
> Carrol

First, you should have answered the question about the letter. How we see an object, with your name on it or Doug's is dreadfully important.

Second, here's a complication (I'm not familiar with 13 Blackbirds so... whatevA).

How we understand justice affects the kind of legal and political system we have. So what is it to be:

Equality. Equity. Merit. Need. Retribution. Retroactive compensation. Reciprocity. Divine right / Imperial Edict. Advantage. Distribution. Common Good. Impartiality. Censensus.

Just to name a few... so which is it? Justice is an abstract concept, and the ways that it is viewed are as many as there are perspectives to view it. And if one replies, "Justice is in the eye of the beholder" then justice does not exist at all. So, it is an imaginary category, part of a democratic ethos. And how we *relate* to this non-Real Thing (which is all too Real for those who actually believe) determines what we do. Is a democracy to be procedural or a spontaneous regime? Should a democratic society redistribute wealth? Should this redistribution be based on a universal standard or as between equals and unequals? The systemic structuring of a society isn't merely rhetorical... what is important also is the way in which we relate to the idea of justice itself. Do we identify with it, this imaginary Thing, or do we cynically lament its impossibility or incoherence. Your fantasies conduct your life. And these fantasies always express the desire of the Other.

It isn't mysticism. You like writing because you enjoy the smile it puts on the face of the Other (real or imagined). If typing didn't make the Other happy - you wouldn't do it. The Self is an Other.

ken, expecting to be dismissed (Carrol's imaginary expectations far exceed my capacities as a human being)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list