>>But it doesn't follow that anything having to do with "mental
>>processes" should be off the table, I don't think.
>
>did someone say it was? i didn't.
Not you, but it was part of the larger conversation.
>you already know what my problem with the lack of reference to what
>was really radical about freud: the social psychological and
>historical context, as well as the insistence that what the deviant,
>extreme cases showed us was ourselves.
That's why we needed Lacan and now Zizek ; )