On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 14:51:42 -0500 kelley <oudies at flash.net> wrote:
> from this perspective the entire edifice of the dominant arm of the glbt
movement with it's claims to biological necessity are "psychotic" -- ("It
wasn't me! It was my biological destiny. I was born that way!!")."
You don't think the abrogation of responsibility through reliance on a final determination of the Other (which does not exist!) is psychotic? It's basically material or biological determinism as a moral imperative. We've already gone through the "there is no sexual relationship" on Pulp and on Bad. You agreed with me some time ago that "sex" was not a tangible thing, but a political affiliation (esp. regarding virginity). So the biology is destiny thing doesn't wash - because - as you very well know and have argued before - all of this is mediated by the social. Sure, the birds are doing it, the bees are doing it, and rabbits are doing it, but they don't dress up in rubber! Biology may in fact have a powerful influence on our behaviour, but it doesn't avoid being implicated in the social world. I would argue that anyone who supports the attitude that "X made me do it, even though I didn't want to, I did it anyway and enjoyed it and now I'm not responsible because 'I' didn't do it" is psychotic. I wouldn't say that the debate surrounding "biology as destiny" is necessarily psychotic, since, as far as I can see, it is more paranoid than anything else (Is that it? I'm not sure! What do you think? I think something is up! But what? I don't know! Keep looking!!").
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 13:52:57 -0500 Miles Jackson <cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu> wrote:
> Just a note on this: nobody has "psychoses" anymore.
In one follows Lacan (or Freud), psychosis refers to a 'symptom' that bars access to the unconscious. In the words of Poe, "You can't talk to a psycho like a normal human being." Naturally, this shouldn't be taken unmetaphorically. The psychotic is the "subject who knows" - and with this knowledge, there is no doubt, no structure of belief - things just are (there is no ego-fuctioning in psychosis). The aim of analysis is to shake this up, basically, to encourage self-reflection - to target "the real."
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000 14:24:34 -0500 Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Miles Jackson wrote: Just a note on this: nobody has "psychoses" anymore.
It's not in the DSM-IV; it's considered an obsolete term by most practicing
clinicians nowadays (kinda like "melancholy" or "hysteria").
> This is fundamental. A person who speaks of psychoses is not an interesting
person to talk to. Psychiatrists do speak of "psychotic *symptoms*," and just
in the last few years some more promising "anti-psychotic" medications have
been developed.
That's partly my point. Psychoses bar access to the unconscious, in other words, that's why medication is necessary in many instances. "The talking cure" is only an option in cases of neurosis - in psychosis, the unconscious cannot be accessed - so the "talking cure" doesn't work. In short, "the real" must be altered. Ie. the point is not simply to interpret the world, the point is to change it.
> And also, just in the last year researchers have discovered a difference in
gross brain anatomy (difference in size in one small part of the brain) in
those suffering from schizophrenia. They do not know yet, however, whether it
is a cause or an effect of schizophrenia.
It was in Germany wasn't it? This completely coincides with Lacanian clinical analysis.
ken