Doug mewled:
>> Thus, Lacan is
>> busted for "confus[ing] irrational numbers with imaginary numbers,
>> while claiming to be 'precise.'" Golly, doesn't that prove that Lacan
>> is a worthless faker!
>Bill responded:
>I pondered this question and came up with the following answer:
>Yes.
>This is a trivial distinction and anyone failing to grasp it can't have
>anything interesting to say about mathematics. Anyone who does fail to
>grasp it and then says something about mathematics under guise of
>authority is a worthless faker. QED.
Hear, hear! What he said. And pretty goddamn obvious, too--Doug, far as I'm concerned, to wax this way (what, fey and catty?) regarding lacan's charlatanry with math when one of his supposed achievements is to have laid a legitimately "scientific" basis for Freudianism is just too typical of pomo arrogance, which is unaccustomed to being challenged since so few of its premises are susceptible to *any* kind of falsification.