Dear Dejan,
I'm afraid I can't easily off the top of my head but the point appears
to me that in the late Lacan the paternal function is not the guarantee
of 'normality' as it was and the symbolic is not secure as such. When
Lacan engages with the borromean ring the symbolic is first equalised
as one function alongside others (Imaginary and Symbolic). Then he
suggests that the three rings do not naturally link together, a fourth
link is need: the symptom/sinthome (making a 'false' borromean). The
paternal function is one symptom among others, and we can, as Joyce
did, make our way without the paternal function. We each make our
singular symptom/sinthome on the basis of a structural 'fault in the
world'. In terms of Bodies without Organs Zizek suggests the symbolic
is inconsistent, not-all, distinguishing this Lacanian 'structure' or
topology from theories of immanence and transcendence.
Ben
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|