[Fwd: RE: An Orientalist explanation from Zizek]

[Mark Jones]

Carrol, the problem I have with Lacan/Zizek is that they have the same
relation to science that Ptolemy did to astronomy, except that Ptolemy was
at least progenitive of real astronomy and the difficulty of his schemes
also gave the development of maths a boost. I HAVE been reading both these
guys recently. And I simply do not want to talk about them. Since the
purpose of the Z/L canon seems to be to undermine ratiocination (never mind
rationalism) as a process, but to do so precisely by employing vast and
baroque arsenals of rational(ising) sophistry, their project seems falsified
ab initio. Maybe Lacan's work has some therapeutic value; I know some people
ardently think so. But I do not. Show me a single case of clinically
diagnosed psychoneurosis, for instance, which was improved, mitigated or
anyway not actually made worse by psychotherapy _qua clincial modality_ (I'm
not talking about the undoubted benefits of group therapy, transactional
analysis or other 'complementary' stuff - but that's not the point when you
are claiming either scientificity or the critical liquidation of
rationality, both of which contradictory claims z/l both make in different
times/places). Unfortunately Freud never cured anyone.

I used to think that Freud's discovery of the unconcscious was epochal in
the same way that Marx's discovery of surplus-value was epochal; they put an
end to the self-deception at the heart of Victorian morality. but now I just
think that what both really required, in order to 'happen' was the degree of
monumental hypocrisy which the Victorians  were capable of. But
surplus-value does exist, even if the unconcscious does not. We know this
because otherwise there is no way of explaining profit, so even if it is
just 'saving the phenomena' as physicists say of trickery like Einstein's
cosmological constant, which prove necessary to make the rest of an
important theory stay up on its hind legs, we need surplus-value. You can
still be a 'marxist' but you can't honestly be a 'freudian' any more, a
fortiori a Lacanian or Zizekian. But perhaps no-one is claiming they are
anyway, I dunno.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
> Sent: 09 May 2000 17:50
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: An Orientalist explanation from Zizek]
>
>
>
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > This is a provocation, Carrol. I have no intention of
> discussing Zizek/Lacan
> > on this list, and just told Doug so.
>
> Good idea -- but the post, while in some part intended as a provocation,
> was not directed at you but at those who seem to have been driven by
> the exigencies of combat to believe that in order to defend psychology
> they must defend every crackpot who ever spoke in the name of
> Freud.
>
> Actually, incidentally, the books and articles one needs to read to
> understand Lacan/Zizek/etc are A.O. Lovejoy's early work,
> the early criticism of Ransom, Brooks, & Leavis, I.A. Richards
> Principles of Literary Criticism, his and Ogden's *Meaning of
> Meaning*, the philosophical works of A.J. Ayers, the works of
> Charles Morris (the semiotician),  Korzybski's *Science and
> Sanity* and a selection of the books it spawned. This is because
> Lacan & Zizek are only interesting as exemplifications of how "new
> paradigms" get (temporarily) established within a radically
> individualized culture.
>
> >From *within* such a culture one would look for the psychological
> sources of the desire to be "up with the latest." That would be
> superficial, however, since psychological states seem to be only
> manifestations of social and cultural necessities. So the interesting
> question is what about modern Euro-centered culture (from, say,
> 1660 on) *must* periodically generate new paradigms. Perhaps
> the reading of Freud that you and Nestor favor could be somehow
> incorporated in such an analysis. And then again this cultural
> pattern may only become intelligible from an antiquarian backward
> look from a culture which has escaped the pattern.
>
> Carrol
>
>
>