Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 02:04:19
From: Alan Sondheim
Just a brief reply, having been replying and back from Kentucky this very evening not all that much earlier/later, it's near two.
I never did change my clocks back and forth and now they're healed, sutured, by legislation, as I expected.
On 3 Apr 1995, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
> > the point about quantification is not clear to me.i.e. "several ucs." as if enumerable
> But if there are different ucs's which work differently- then surely you may > not be able to use the same mode of analysis on each.Where would the difference appear? Aren't you reifying here - moving from your stipulation of difference to diffraction down to repression/inter- ference - and for me, the physical analogy ceases to hold (although Pribram in fact believed that thinking through long/short waves was held by diffraction patterns, way before Penrose on the same I think)
> The diffraction patterns produced by these workings may be of vast importance. > Maybe repression is similar to an interference pattern? > truly a gap produced by different systems.Just because there are different systems, there's an interference pattern? I'm not trying myself to be pedantic, but this would have to be spelled out in detail..
> >And for biological, > >yes, but I don't see where Freud is speaking about this after the initial > >1895 project (if there), and this is entirely different in any case > > different in what case? > > I'm being pedantic here as i don't think its relevant to the discussion, but > despite Lacan it seems to me that Freud retains his interest in the biology of > the psyche throughout his career.I think as a horizon towards which psych-a is preliminary, but not much more. I stand/lie to be corrected.
> Thus though there is the confusion in the translation between `instink' and > `trieb', i wonder if it is important. Given that the original translators knew > Freud and were bi-lingual.Well, Freud or not, the translation does specify a difference, and what do the words of the Master matter anyway? We're not debating what Freud thought, I think, or are we? Because I would bow to you on this; I'm not at all versed in "Freud" or even that concerned (i.e. about him).
> Also given Freud's penchant for hunting heresy it is supprising, if it is an > important distinction that he did not (as far as i know) write on article `on > the difference between Instink and Trieb'. It may also have prooved a good > club to hit Reich with.Again, biography here. You may be right, you may be wrong (paraphrasing John Lydon).
> >Well, but the memory re. Sartre etc. is also a construct. > > yes. I was thinking of those infamous experiments of stimulating part of the > brain and watching the meory arise. Do you know if anyone has done any > research on the `accuracy' of these memory products?No. I was thinking of his Psychology of Imagination, on the experiments done recounting the number of pillars in the Pantheon.
> There is very little in the way of cross cultural comparison done by anybody > since Levi-Strauss, and his works are not often considered favourably. > > (A large part of my thesis proposal concerned the reluctance of > anthropologists to face this problem) > > Maybe dobie can comment if he's reading? > > >> (what is a non-text?) > > >The real. > > Is the text part of the real?The real is part of the text as well, and I'd better bow out here as well before I begin sounding like Jabes (Alan, giggling)