originalghosthairdotaco-blog1 - Tumblr blog

[originalghosthairdotaco-blog1]

“_ diachronic stream of signifieds, brings to light a dynamic of reciprocal co-determination operative between the two “networks” of signifier and signified, between the synchronic and the diachronic. Lacan, on solidly Saussurian grounds, postulates that “the second network, that of the signified, is the diachronic set of concretely pronounced discourses, which historically affects the first network, just as the structure of the first governs the pathways of the second” (345, 3).”

[originalghosthairdotaco-blog1]

“Lacan then invokes J. V. Stalin’s last major theoretical pronouncements, those of 1950 gathered under the title Marxism and Problems of Linguistics. Therein, Stalin denounces his comrade linguist N. Y. Marr for the latter’s allegedly pseudo-Marxist hypothesis according to which human languages are features of social superstructures separate from and dependent upon economic infrastructures (Stalin, 1972). Lacan’s endorsement of this aspect of Stalinist materialism indicates that he is opposed to treating language as just a secondary outgrowth or by-product of an underlying pre/non-linguistic base presumably determining the true meaning of language.

Lacan explicitly names Saussure as providing the valid theory of language as an “order” with “laws” requisite for doing justice to Freud’s discovery of the unconscious.”

[originalghosthairdotaco-blog1]

“Lacan, in line with his thesis in “The Freudian Thing” that unconscious truth (i.e., Diana) is so (divinely) omnipotent it manages to shine in and through even falsifications and evasions of it, grants that non-Lacanian analysts, despite their unwitting, laughable follies, at least are wrestling with the mystery of the unconscious. Even if with “buffoonery” and “without understanding,” these analysts still, all the same, “act in this drama”

[originalghosthairdotaco-blog1]

“For Lacan, the Anglo-American sidelining and eclipsing of the topography in which the unconscious features by name with one in which it does not is symptomatic of a loss of contact with the unconscious itself qua proper object of psychoanalysis. That is to say, the ego psychologists’ and object-relations theorists’ misreadings of The Ego and the Id replace a focus on the unconscious with a privileging of one or more of the three “agencies” of the second topography/structural model. They incorrectly answer the question “Who is speaking?” with id, ego, and/or superego in response to the “I” of the unconscious truth that speaks of itself.”