This began riffing on Lacan's wonderings on the origin of speech, in humanity specifically. I say the nasal bulb. This began and then was lost to matter by signal drop.
Not simply did I want to say something about speech. I wanted to indicate something of Lacan, and I find only Soler truly is sober to this - Lacan doesn't want to go there, and it is not difficult to accept his distrust of science, yet it is difficult to accept how much - Ethics states quite plainly - Lacan deliberately allowed mystery if not was genuinely mystified.
Too much is allowed doxasticity in all, except maybe Soler, I read of from Lacanians. No wonder society is a mere taphonomy. This is especially true of where what is not said as an adherence to Freud is taken so. The same was with Lacan on Lacan, the subject even there is finding its own way, we can observe that and learn to do better.
That Oedipal - we could find another figure - I will need to see Cocteau's a'la Lang version. We could find another figure. Drop the not being as good as the form of woman at the male groin, the topology Dionysian. What can or not a body be made by the subject? From memory - this the Father, no more no less - jouissance can be halted. Additionally the commandment, the superego is feminine - that feminine is the otherside of this human history, this masculine attack on life? I don't know what genders are except the consequences of gendering which render claims of intersubjectivity ridiculous - it would never have happened. The Levi-Strauss whatever... never if the Social Bond is what is made to it by psychoanalysis. The gendering has nothing to do with artifices of its consequences. It just says that we are animals and know, only this works as life works it works in all I'm working here, that sapience (animals have that, sentience is what is stuffed like Bentham) is of one as individual and maybe that others have, potential, the same knowing.
Ok. If the autistic is copying the memory of others? Becoming, in their being, memory (or the Father, well yes, what the get of them the one in that role, no doubt) and they have no sense of death somehow maybe not of their own certainly of others (I don't know). That is the mythical Social Bond is, only ever was and will not change, of death. They do have it, yet they must hide from themselves?
If a certain amount of melancholics are so from absorbing a sibling in the womb then why not autists, a number, are a different response to same? Or even some endocrinal developmental event in the womb? This is if I am getting at the Social Bond anamorphis correctly.
It would be the autistic needs - by forgetting the Social Bond in the way we say it is without saying it is death - fresh anxieties, achievable by using simulcra of memories, to make memory a symptom, so double, tripling etc anxiety for jouissance to be achieved?
I want say everything. People can be unmade of stupid. We can't forget we are - the autist can? - and that's the point of two passes : a subject maybe our fullest capacity for thought; we have to think with analysand success as a fresh stupid?
Much of this - it is disappointing my first remarks were vanished - begs the question "Where if not vocabulary - because that really doesn't work whatever Lacan said about japanese taken into consideration - as Brenner climbs on is the surround that our holobiont endocrinal semioticised existence still gets troubles from?
It's not the State of Mirroring. Though it is of PROMISE? Religions hang around like ghosts and PROMISE
States or enterprises do the same - a Lacanian can promise nothing, we don't know - and the key matter is that need to believe. That doesn't need words, does it?
Rather than indulge in defining what I say with the word belief - it owes something to Davidson, you have noted my remarks or haven't - I, like Derrida, have wondered on death. I began, many years before I gave a thought to thought, curious as to where the expectations placed on the dead grew, the similarities and diversities.
That'll do for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment