Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Spoon

Edelman Neg?

Recommended Posts

Most undergrads get 18 weeks and 3 books to get Lacanian theory...i get 3 pages of forum posts. I'm clearly not very bright.

 

If you really are interested in refining your lacanian knowledge, try nosubject.com. It is highly reliable wiki that will explain all the jargon and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm clearly not very bright.

WOAH, NATHAN_DEBATE SAID SOMETHING INTELLIGENT AND CORRECT.

 

Brace for the apocalypse.

Edited by Enterprise
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Enterprise and Studly Dudly

 

I'm not really sure why you feel the need to name call...

instead of answering actual arguments.

 

You're stellar at the former....and goose egg on the later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey now, can't we all be friends, haha? I spent a week at camp reading post-lacanian literature, and since then have moved onto Edelman and then back to Lacan himself in my spare time... I'm no expert on this, and actually nosubject.com is where I double-checked my post on desire (its fairly obvious I haven't read the ecrits - I mean, they require more than the cursory glance debate often gives at philosphy).

 

Its not a matter of winning the argument, but refining my understanding of Lacan through butting heads with arguments against it (theorhetical or otherwise).

 

I'll save the winning for Debate rounds (where I can almost gurantee the discussion won't get this indepth). I just like the idea that if I get probed from any aspect I'll be able to look the judge in the face and do more than repeat the tags... discussions like these, i think, help me do that. Maybe not, but hey - they can't hurt in that respect, can they?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey now, can't we all be friends, haha? I spent a week at camp reading post-lacanian literature, and since then have moved onto Edelman and then back to Lacan himself in my spare time... I'm no expert on this, and actually nosubject.com is where I double-checked my post on desire (its fairly obvious I haven't read the ecrits - I mean, they require more than the cursory glance debate often gives at philosphy).

 

Its not a matter of winning the argument, but refining my understanding of Lacan through butting heads with arguments against it (theorhetical or otherwise).

 

I'll save the winning for Debate rounds (where I can almost gurantee the discussion won't get this indepth). I just like the idea that if I get probed from any aspect I'll be able to look the judge in the face and do more than repeat the tags... discussions like these, i think, help me do that. Maybe not, but hey - they can't hurt in that respect, can they?

 

Awesome. I like the way your brain works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Enterprise and Studly Dudly

 

I'm not really sure why you feel the need to name call...

instead of answering actual arguments.

 

You're stellar at the former....and goose egg on the later.

 

Disagree, both my posts explaining Lacanian notions of identity (and more specifically Edelman) were pretty true, and my interaction with Scu was mentally stimulating for me. Whereas what happens with you is you ask a couple of questions, Bigsham (who clearly has more patience than I do) responds with about a 2000 word post, in detail, answering your arguments. You then proceed to respond with 50 words and call this "an argument". It's not even close, nor do I consider what you are doing to be intellectually useful. You're being belligerent, I'm not going to respond to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Studly Dudly

 

To be honest, my response was more aimed at Enterprise who apparently has a thing against me because I'm not too keen on Nietzsche--or at least I take issue with certain components of Nietzsche. (And in response has lowered the level of discussion by resorting to 2nd grade name calling and intellectual terrorism--in a way that doesn't hear sarcasm)

 

That said: I offered short questions....because I had short questions. I wasn't taking issue with all of his speech--just part of it. (Besides I write in probably the most succinct paragraphs on Cross-x)

 

Also please realize, someone versed in a particular philosophy is far more likely to get the meta-components that answer particular arguments.

 

I'm sorry they appeared to overlap or be repetitive. So is the nature of communication on the interwebs with issues that are often quite dense and theoretical.

 

Besides, Big Sham said:

 

Its not a matter of winning the argument, but refining my understanding of Lacan through butting heads with arguments against it (theorhetical or otherwise).

 

Also, that we see this in different ways shouldn't surprise you given our subjectivities and perspectives with respect to those subjectivities. I'm not sure what standard you can apply here, which I have violated--given the (intrinsic) nature of the argument (Lacanian psychoanalysis).

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Studly Dudly

 

To be honest, my response was more aimed at Enterprise who apparently has a thing against me because I'm not too keen on Nietzsche--or at least I take issue with certain components of Nietzsche. (And in response has lowered the level of discussion by resorting to 2nd grade name calling and intellectual terrorism--in a way that doesn't hear sarcasm)

 

That said: I offered short questions....because I had short questions. I wasn't taking issue with all of his speech--just part of it. (Besides I write in probably the most succinct paragraphs on Cross-x)

 

Also please realize, someone versed in a particular philosophy is far more likely to get the meta-components that answer particular arguments.

 

I'm sorry they appeared to overlap or be repetitive. So is the nature of communication on the interwebs with issues that are often quite dense and theoretical.

 

Besides, Big Sham said:

 

 

 

Also, that we see this in different ways shouldn't surprise you given our subjectivities and perspectives with respect to those subjectivities. I'm not sure what standard you can apply here, which I have violated--given the (intrinsic) nature of the argument (Lacanian psychoanalysis).

 

All that being said, just because I don't resent having my posts refuted by short questions, I don't necessarily agree with that type of argumentation - it flustrates me within a debate round and out-right angers me in the context of school/work/etc.

 

Just because I find value in it doesn't necessitate that it's a good practice. 'Good' being subjective, of course.

 

I could use this quarrel as a perfect example of how psychoanalysis works.

 

Studley_Dudley (from hence forth SD) has an abject concept of what constitutes 'winning', Nathan_Debate (for henth forth ND) has violated that. SD is angry and/or flustrated with ND because he has failed to meet this phantasmic standard constructed by SD. SD should ideally stop blaming ND for doing this and see his own standards as subjective.

 

That being said, ND should stop blaming psychoanalysis for his not understanding it, and begin blaming himself.

 

hahahah, a reinstantiation of fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Big Sham....

 

That being said, ND should stop blaming psychoanalysis for his not understanding it, and begin blaming himself.

 

Does psychoanalysis make any distinction between responsibility vs. blame?

 

How does theory (always) escape blame? (seems like a bit of a rigged game)

 

Is self-blame a psychologically constructive outlet?

 

Can't I blame language (or the interpretative process) too?

 

I don't necessarily agree with that type of argumentation - it flustrates me within a debate round and out-right angers me in the context of school/work/etc.

 

In debate its certainly abused--I think in this context its used to ask and probe (not so much to write dense prose a la a Malcomb Gladwell, JD Salinger, or Abraham Lincoln style essay)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's winning, I think it's counter-productive. You're teaching to someone who doesn't want to understand (not saying that you don't have interest, you just disagree with too much on a conceptual level to "want" to understand psychoanalysis). Much like I disagree with DnG, and only engage it insofar as what is necessary to understand why I believe psychoanalysis to be superior, that seems to be the extent of Nathan Debate, but at a much more superficial level. It's the superficiality that bugs me, not argumentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's winning, I think it's counter-productive. You're teaching to someone who doesn't want to understand (not saying that you don't have interest, you just disagree with too much on a conceptual level to "want" to understand psychoanalysis). Much like I disagree with DnG, and only engage it insofar as what is necessary to understand why I believe psychoanalysis to be superior, that seems to be the extent of Nathan Debate, but at a much more superficial level. It's the superficiality that bugs me, not argumentation.

 

Completely agreed - I just don't mind the superficiality of his style... this is how I'll get hit with it in a debate round by most anyone who doesn't already know lacan. Actually, if anything it proves Lacan correct on some level - in so far that we always figure ourselves as correct because to think we are wrong is to disavow ourselves and our world views as legitimate (or more accurately allows ourselves to see that we, and our understanding of the world, may be Lacking). Because another thing Lacan says, and is where alot of people get their arguments of tautology from, is that we always resist accepting the Lack on a psychological level.

 

However, I refrain from using that argument as much as I could because I believe, absent the theory to back it up, it IS a little tautological, but besides that...

 

Thanks Big Sham....

 

Does psychoanalysis make any distinction between responsibility vs. blame?

 

I'm not 100% on this, haha, but I think Lacanians would say responsibility, or the labeling of something you HAVE to do or SHOULD do, is only an instance of a subjective system of rules (here you could apply the lacanian criticism of Kant's conception of the Categorical Imperitive and/or deontology). The responsibility you speak of always is in fidelity to a Big Other. (promises we make to our parents, edicts from God, imposed by the system of Law, etc.).

 

Of course, I was only kidding with that last bit of my former post about you - haha.

 

As far as a difference between Blame and Acceptance? Sure - I've talked about that a lot. Think back to the Suzy and Betty scenario I gave you - Suzy was BLAMING Betty rather thn ACCEPTING her role in constructing a fantasy about Betty being jealous of her. It doesn't mean Suzy tells herself that it's her own fault for MAKING betty jealous, it means she Accepts the inevitability of never knowing Betty's true feelings and coping with the anxiety Suzy created over the situation (her neurosis).

 

How does theory (always) escape blame? (seems like a bit of a rigged game)

 

Is self-blame a psychologically constructive outlet?

 

Can't I blame language (or the interpretative process) too?

 

I think your putting too much emphasis on BLAME so much as acceptance. You shouldn't BLAME yourself for constructing fantasy - we all do it, there's nothing necessarily WRONG with it. It's only in the blaming of OTHERS for disrupting our fantasy that psychoanalysis takes issue with.

 

In a sense, Lacan 'blames' language, but ultimately concludes that it is his own inability to 'fully utilize' language that is the problem (if it even could be SAID to be a problem) - from there its just acceptance of the Lack, in so far as its unacceptable, and to not impose your phantasmic view of reality on others in a destructive way (as defined by the reinstantiation of fantasy after treatment - which btw Lacan says is more or less inevitable).

 

In debate its certainly abused--I think in this context its used to ask and probe (not so much to write dense prose a la a Malcomb Gladwell, JD Salinger, or Abraham Lincoln style essay)

 

We always justify our actions to ourselves by either coping or externalizing - it's irrelevant how a style is used because I'll never know honestly. I can guess you just have a prior theoretical reason against it or maybe you have a grudge against me personally, or maybe you like to just waste peoples time, or maybe you really want to understand the theory but its just not 'clicking' with you, or maybe you don't have as much time as I do to spend answering my answers, or maybe you dont even READ my answers... it just doesn't matter (and to clarify I don't think any of these...), I could go on until infinity.... I will only construct a fantasy inwhich its somehow 'valuable' and continue to engage with that fantasy, which I've already done.

 

I accept my role and fantasy and rather than 'crush you' through means of name calling or hunting you down and physically harming you (which you'd be surprised how often arguments NOT on the internet lead to anger and agression amongst us humans...) I accept your input as important and continue my analysis.

 

That's a Lacanian perspective (if there can truly be said that one exists), I'm sure I could criticize my own statements from an even MORE lacanian perspective - but that simply proves the Lack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I never got around to responding to people's concerns/corrections/etc.

 

But I wanted to suggest an article to the Edelmen debater. "Queer Apocal(o)ptic/ism: the Death Drive and the Human" by Noreen Giffney in the edited collection, Queering the non/human.

 

The book itself is absurdly expensive, so if any of you get your hands on it from an academic institution, you could be a great person and scan the article/book in for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I never got around to responding to people's concerns/corrections/etc.

 

But I wanted to suggest an article to the Edelmen debater. "Queer Apocal(o)ptic/ism: the Death Drive and the Human" by Noreen Giffney in the edited collection, Queering the non/human.

 

The book itself is absurdly expensive, so if any of you get your hands on it from an academic institution, you could be a great person and scan the article/book in for everyone else.

http://fcaw.library.umass.edu:8991/F/K8FHAPARGH213SK6TC86CSIC3DFIYGV8UQXCV1XGSEY8H5QHUY-00105?func=full-set-set&set_number=148660&set_entry=000001&format=999

Scu, is this what you meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's the book. A friend of mine had it, and I got a chance to read most of the article I suggested. But sadly I wasn't able to scan in the chapter before I had to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the book. A friend of mine had it, and I got a chance to read most of the article I suggested. But sadly I wasn't able to scan in the chapter before I had to leave.

If I wasn't trying to deal with the bureaucracy in getting a trip planned for your tournament, incidentally, along with normal school work and 1-2 files being cut, I'd totally scan it for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I wasn't trying to deal with the bureaucracy in getting a trip planned for your tournament, incidentally, along with normal school work and 1-2 files being cut, I'd totally scan it for ya.

 

sorry about bureaucracy. And have fun at Binghamton. I doubt I will be there.

 

I don't need it, I just thought people interested in Edelmen would like it. I kinda do want to the whole book, damn ashgate prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who said they didn't want the credit sent me this pm, so enjoy the links.

 

I saw your post in the thread on Edelman and started searching around. I found an complete copy of the book Queering the Non/Human on scribd, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24009496/Queering-the-Non-Human

 

I've mirrored the pdf here: http://www.mediafire.com/?wtt4nhdcmwz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone who said they didn't want the credit sent me this pm, so enjoy the links.

 

I saw your post in the thread on Edelman and started searching around. I found an complete copy of the book Queering the Non/Human on scribd, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24009496/Queering-the-Non-Human

 

I've mirrored the pdf here: http://www.mediafire.com/?wtt4nhdcmwz

In your 1st quote, why is there a comma after the "Now"?

 

j/w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...