Scott...

thank you for your response to my somewhat pugnacious objections.  as regards
the label of pseudo-scientist as it pertains to Lacan, it doesn't seem to
follow that one can support such a claim by quoting a remark by Kristeva.  of
course anyone can write poetry; further, in the context of psychoanalysis a
la Lacan, everyone suffers loss, including the initial loss of oneself into
the alienated grip of the passion of the Other.  if you want to develop your
understanding of this theme, I recommend "The Mirror Stage" in Ecrits.  in my
own experience with Lacan, I have found him to be anything but vague in his
concepts; this theme dovetails into another discussion taking place on this
list, that of the distinction between difficult and obscure.  the poet Howard
Blake remarks, in his only volume of poetry, "The Island Self" that "It has
been remarked that an 'obscure' poem is the unsuccessful articulation of a
thought, a feeling, or both; and a difficult 'poem' is one which, after a
careful and intelligent reading, becomes sufficiently clear."  It's my
contention that the same holds true for psychological concepts, and that a
careful and intelligent reading of Lacan leads inevitably to a remarkable
clarity.  it's also useful to remember that psychoanalysis has an observable
object, that of the unconscious, and that all concepts are derived -- at
least in Lacan -- from observations of this object, and are, therefore,
subject to falsifiability.  of course, it's helpful if one has some
experience in analysis; otherwise one is left with a purely intellectual
framework to criticize.  from your admitted hostility to things Freudian (&
Lacan is certainly that) I assume that you have very little knowledge of, or
experience with, these matters.  I would happily be wrong about this
assumption.

it's true that you made some critical remarks regarding Kristeva, but only
after you slandered her with comparisons to phrenology and the like, hence my
observation that you were [mainly] interested in demeaning her position as
opposed to having an open and frank discussion.

jb...


In a message dated 07/13/2000 6:12:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<
 "Lacan is pseudo-scientist?  what authority do you
 claim to be able to make
 such a statement?"

 I guess we could come back to the hoary old idea of
 falsifiability. Kristeva claims, for instance, that
 one  must have experienced loss to write poetry. It
 would be very difficult to disprove this statement
 because, like so much of her stuff it is couched in
 concepts that are exceptionally vague. I think someone
 commented on this when he/she said :Hmm, you have to
 suffer loss...so that about cuts out 3 of us,
 right..." I guess I am saying that a very basic
 requirement (and I'm making this out to be simpler
 than it is)of a scientific statement is that it be
 falsifiable.

  "as a matter of courtesy, why don't you criticize the

 specifics of Kristeva's remarks,"

 I did, in the second half of my posting.

 " rather then just rain on cassie's parade"

 I'm not raining on it, I'm contributing to it.


 Cheers
 Scott

  >>


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%