Back-Door Platonism Raises Its Head Again Re: IP (was Re: Martin Mayer)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > (because I think human desire is potentially boundless, a point of
> > some controversy on this list a while back)
>
>Let's be accurate. The debate had nothing to do with the boundlessnes or
>boundedness of human desires or desire. It had to do with which noun
>(desire or desires) most accurately name reality. Some of us argued a
>nominalist position on this. One could speak of desire for X or desire
>for Y but *not* for desire in the abstract. There is simply no
>significant relationship between, say, my desire to have the desk space
>surrounding me in somewhat more orderly condition, my desire to own
>Edelman's *The Brain* (not in stock at the local Barnes & N), and my
>desire for the mosquito bite on my right forearm to stop itching.
>Probably it would be possible to establish a number (perhaps a very
>large number) of categories, each of which would indicate significant
>relationship among the indefinite number of particular desires it
>contained. But it is prima facie sheer nonsense to *start out* with any
>abstract conception, Desire, and expect there to be anything significant
>to say about it. There is simply no evidence, empirical or theoretical,
>for any such Platonic Form. Let me repeat. I do not say the evidence is
>insufficient, I say there is *no*evidence whatsoever that there exists a
>topic of rational conversation here.
>
>Carrol

I'd insert the following statements somewhere in the paragraph above: 
"Desire in the abstract is as real as commodity fetishism, & as 
compelling as accumulation for the sake of accumulation.  Only by 
historicizing the present (understanding the present as transition), 
by defamiliarizing the present through the knowledge of the alien 
past & the heuristic point of view from an emancipated future, can we 
grasp why Desire in the abstract is an oppressive abstraction that 
prevents us from enjoying concrete & various pleasures & desires for 
them."  Perhaps right before you go on to say, "But it is prima facie 
sheer nonsense to *start out* with any abstract conception, Desire, 
and expect there to be anything significant to say about it."  Lacan 
is for us what Ricardo was for Marx.

Yoshie