PRIMAL SIBLINGS:
A discussion related to the February 2010 In Print article:
Re: PRIMAL SIBLINGS:
by dagwead (02.26.10 03:06 am)
[N.B. Righteous affects have been outsourced to the L.E.S.]
The book cover doesn't seem to be in particularly good taste. There is obviously a lot to consider—the way the author seems to be using gender—wouldn't it be a form of binary splitting—an overidentification with "the maternal" as it's used in the discourse of psychoanalysis? This is a very general observation. Societally true—the masculine false binary, I think, is the real root of sexism.
Semiotic loci pronounced according to HISTORICAL societal dictates. Loci as territory would be problematic, based on Lacan's definition of pathology—the belief that those two doors, Ladies and Gentleman, are commensurate with reality. Derrida notes even Heidegger (i.e. the Nazi) does not raise sexual difference to the level of ontology (one speaks the statement in order to flesh out the discourse). Ricoeur goes to great pains explain that psychoanalysis is NECESSARILY HERMENEUTICAL, which wouldn't negate the notation of the problematic historical semiotic loci stated before. But, having stated this, having located the historical binary of masculinity, where is the analogous binary, in terms of feminine heterosexuality and homosexuality?
[Hortatory predilection follows] Since the author has taken such a courageous look at the implied pissed on face of a child, and whose implied reference to Greek statuary, where women look and men don't—are we talking academic and psychoanalytical MALPRACTICE on an enormous scale? Imagine casting a Jew and a Gentile in the same roles of these statuary figures, with a Nazi grave—no—an analogous reification of a Nazi grave on the cover of a Stanford University Press book. Why is the Jew covering his or her eyes? This would be a new notation of semiotic loci equally worthy of compassion, an equally worthy discourse relating to analogous historical trauma. Is this analogy any less fair than the Richter cover? Look at it rationally—IS it a fair question? The history is problematical. The work is problematical. I stil don't see how Nietzschean psychoanalysis can work for anyone. Kristeva notes psychoanalysis has to be a back and forth. We're talking art history, here, not psychotherapy. (Does that sound too "Jersey"?) Of course it's great thinking, it denotes modernity, but it might be safe to assume perhaps (Kristeva practiced therapy) that Kaja Silverman is the last person on earth a trauma victim, male or female, would want "on their side." But gender is a problem in abuse recovery generally speaking—not the authors fault. But looking "rationally" and "negatively" I would really just be denoting the overidentification with the maternal as the feminine, as previously stated. Fair enough, coming from someone who has been through that, dealt with that, and who is speaking "of" a University professor—an expert in her field—in order to provide some sense of real discourse, which is not blind to reality, and which is not an example of male cowardice?
The hortatory having been invoked, golden text ablative absolute aside, have I provided any sense of rationality, beyond the "negativity" of analysis, the assertion or utterance which leads toward actual emotions, a continuation of the discourse of psychoanalysis, a discourse that respects sexual difference but doesn't promote it to the level of an ontological identification?
Re: PRIMAL SIBLINGS:
by dagwead (02.27.10 01:38 am)
little yellow boy says
stop the war in iraq and afghanistan
he says "who shot Jr."
happens to many little boys on American streets by bullet too
many Americans heard that instantaneously
many Americans listen up
True American
PEACE
I feel bad about the internet
I'm home alone and working out some craziness
but beyond that should be my matters alone
not google
I did a lot of things facetiously
tongue in cheek
to deal with the craziness
of being watched
& new york is
crazy like that beyond choice so
please be careful
china is watching you too
as if america weren't bad
enough
love,
big brother