wynship - 03/12/02 14:59:06 EST
Sorry if I hit a nerve, Tom. Please answer the question.
Tom - 03/10/02 21:17:48 EST
wynship, email@example.com has been 'deactivated' by an organism calling itself the Microsoft Corporation due to lack of activity, and consequently I no longer have your e-mail address. You can reach me at
firstname.lastname@example.org if you desire.
wynship - 03/10/02 16:20:55 EST
hello lacanians. what say you of the charge that psychoanalysis - lacanian or otherwise - participates in the tyrrany of the signifier? Isn't its task to apply an interpretation, one that, like Freud's parapraxis, leaves no room for mistake, accident, or the absence of meaning?
FBC - 03/08/02 19:22:54 EST
It is difficult to speak of such things without being facetious given that we don't really know what we mean until after we say it.
I should say "assume one's mortality" which corresponds to Lacan's idea that a human is a being for death, that it is the limit set by death which gives significance to life. As to what this really means, I tend to think it has something to do with the conflict between what Lacan refers to, in Seminar XII, as the nirvana principle, the desire for the other cesation of existence itself with no regeneration from the rot of burned out organisms and the simple desire to normalize tension which is usually associated with the pleasure principle.
It is, I think, a pretty basic impulse to want to establish some final order, some terminal accomplishment which will not only end some particular project but all projects. Whether this is some afterlife (itself a contradiction of the nirvana principle) or a "shining city on a hill" which will represent the fullfillment of human potential in a state of perfect justice. What we want is to experience nirvana which we can not do, an impossible object of desire which, by the very Sisyphusian futility of it drives us into the more common mode of exhausting ourselves in a vein attempt to experience final perfection whether in love, law or some "beyond".
Our mortality lays between the extreems of nirvana and the useless fate of our poor flesh as food for useless worms who till the ground for useless flowers and so on. To assume our mortality, as I understand this enjoinder, is the challenge of acting to bring about what we know in advance to be impossible. This is what I meant when I said that we were doomed already.
As to the relationship between the afterlife and the Real, I'm not sure what Lacan would say about this but I suspect that the afterlife is what we imagine the real to be from within the horison of the symbolic.
Tom - 03/06/02 18:40:27 EST
Don't quite understand that, FBC. Isn't the afterlife the prime example of the Real (the burning son in the father's dream...)? Could you explain a bit more about what 'assuming our own death' means? I was being slightly facetious in that last post, didn't think Lacan genuinely believed that our extinction was something utterly inevitable - isn't there that quote about 'Fate will say if anything of the future is in the hands of those I have trained'?
FBC - 03/04/02 20:46:49 EST
We are in fact doomed and must "assume our own death" as Lacan says. How this can be done at the level of a society is difficult to say. What you are speaking of is decadance which is a typical sign of dicline in a culture. As far as a species goes, this might go a bit beyond my ability to speak about but I suspect that the species will always be in one form or another as a species of the forclosed Real. However, the possibility of human extinction might be a subject worth some speculation given that, like the "afterlife" this must be a species of the imaginary. What is the symbolic value of extinction within the horizon of the current social matrix? Does the significance of this possibility change from one culture to another?
Tom - 03/03/02 07:11:46 EST
We are doomed as a species when society starts regressing *more quickly* than the individual human being actually matures. In which case, how much longer does this board think we have left?
FBC - 03/02/02 20:41:22 EST
Well Tom here pointed out that Lacan believed that mass identification would be difficult to aboid in the age of mass media. One important implication of this observation is that through the media it would is easier to encourage uniformity/conformity within culture. Further, the portrayal of certain charactor types in media leads to a sharpening of the differentiation of a modern form of class. In America which is supposed to be somewhat "classless" social order is maintained by the production of typical images. For example, the "rebel". The outsider has a place in society as much as the banker, the politician and the cop. The role of the outsider can be manipulated in various ways so as to use this position as a kind of trope in the social aggragate. For example, the individualist who expresses his/her individuality by the kind of consumer goods he or she consumes (movies/music/clothing and even snack food and soft drinks. So along with images of family and community figures the child also has at his/her disposal a wide range of standardized types with whom to identify.
I would add to this the observation that motion pictures were, in their early developement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, largely a working class form of entertainment. This working class was comprised largely of immagrants, itilians, eastern european jews, irishmen and so on. Prior to the wide distribution of motion pictures these groups pased their leisure time in activities centering around the church, the saloon, the fraternal organization and other realitively insular groups wherein the identification was with others of their own kind. The motion picture industry created an instance of mass cultural identification which doubtless had a great deal to do with the production of the "typical american".
Mass media then has the effect of creating standardized identifications and thus acts, intentionally or not, as a form of social control. It is a kind of amplifier for the symbolic order by prescribing the terms in which all social action is to be acted out including even the proper way to be a social deviant.
One thing more. This tendency probably constitutes a repression in the form of what looks like its opposite. This would explain, at least to some extent, the forms of extreem violence necessary to rupture the symbolic order.
Tom - 03/02/02 12:38:47 EST
The mirror of the Greeks was a disk of metal with a highly polished face; glass mirrors only date from the Middle Ages. What effects on the identification process in the early years of life is the use of the mirror (and now film and television) having?
FBC - 02/28/02 19:30:29 EST
The image is not fully assumed although it always seems to be, must so seem if the individual is to function as a whole but, I am always ahead of my image in the sense that the image, in the mirror, is an image from my past. Think of the time gap between when the light scatters from the surface of the body and when this scattered light is reassembled as the thing which I am. This gap is a kind of physical metaphor of what always happens between me and my ideal I. This I is constructed from that which I have already been, and at the same time, acts as a direction in which I try to tend, thus the constant repetition involved in trying to live myself out. The weaving between the image and that which it is the image of (that which I can only assume as image rather that "thing in itself" is where the matrix is and what it is woven from.
Hephest - 02/28/02 16:35:20 EST
I would be willing to speak with someone about Lacan at another time. I am an English major in Monroe, Louisiana. I find Lacan very interesting, and I am intent on learning as much as I can about his work.
Hephest - 02/28/02 16:32:25 EST
I know that the jubilant assumption comes after the child experiences a "wholeness" in the image, but how is this relevant to what he calls the "Ideal-I"?
Hephest - 02/28/02 16:27:24 EST
When Lacan mentions a "jubilant assumption" and compares it to the "symbolic matrix", what exactly does he mean?
FBC - 02/21/02 22:15:18 EST
Speaking of Joyce, does it not seem that the Ponelope chapter at the end of Ulyses, with its total lack of punctuation makes a play of the idea of Woman as the Real?
perfume - 02/21/02 20:03:27 EST
"Joyce avec Lacan" (ed. Jacques Aubert is in Lanain Ink 11 - the introduction.
mattpdx - 02/19/02 21:59:36 EST
Does anyone know of an English translation of "Joyce avec Lacan" (ed. Jacques Aubert)?
Tom - 02/15/02 12:04:57 EST
In other words, the imago emerges as a strictly contingent entity but, once some particular imago is established, the temporal dialecticization will follow a necessary path.
Hence Lacan's belief that the mass identification seen in fascist societies was something that it would be difficult to prevent in the age of the mass media?
FBC - 02/14/02 13:18:18 EST
The I-S-R structure is, I think, a potential model for the process by which the a historical "substance" of nature becomes historicised. The Real is, trans-historical, the imaginary acts as a kind of center, a "what" history happens to (this is where the "thing" which is rendered into classes can be inscribed). The symbolic the medium of historicization in the way that language is the medium of story-telling. Thus the symbolic order is historically neutral being simply the system of interchangable, interconnectable elements which, when arranged in a certain way, become the narrative of history.
How these elements are connected has a great deal to do with the condition of the Real at a given moment, the condition which creates moments. Put another way, the unconcious drives of the natural substance, whether the individual organism or a whole ecology of organisms, creates the structure of the symbolic by randomly alighting on some feature of the world (reality on the right of the triangle with the phi) and in so doing detemrmines the arrangement of the symbolic. In other words, the imago emerges as a strictly contingent entity but, once some particular imago is established, the temporal dialecticization will follow a necessary path.
Thus, a certain old metaphysical assumption is inverted, first comes the contingent which is contingency itself rather than some particular thing which could, but does not necessarily have to happen, what ever this contingency comes to be, so must follow certain things necessarily. Where the id was, the ego is obliged to be.
Tom - 02/11/02 11:48:43 EST
Yes, I think the Lacanian position would be that, prior to the original primal scene and the consequent imposition of the law/language, there was simply a complete identification with the primal father - the symbolic order only exists following his murder - and that the primal father had no unconscious in the sense we now understand it, presumably believing (as animals seem to) there to be no world outside of his own experience. The imaginary order of identifications is therefore present from birth onwards, whilst the real - the order of bodily sensations - is surely present from conception, which is why I think it would be interesting and fruitful to expand Lacanian theory to accommodate the work of Stanislav Grof.
The Lacanian subject is unquestionably classless in theory, although I'm not sure how well this would survive a sociological investigation of analysands' backgrounds.
Skytte - 02/09/02 19:12:52 EST
I have run into some critique of the lacanian subject and wondered if someone could help me out, either by clarifying some questions or referring me to other literature. Is the I-S-R-triad transhistorical or a social (and thus symbolic) construction? Im referring to a question of the connection between individuality as a result of a historical differentiation caused by emancipation from traditional bindings to society (Jürgen Habermas, Thomas Ziehe) and the above mentioned triad. What is a lacanian answer to this historical becoming of the subject? What was the subjects status prior to individuality? Was it pure identification with the imaginary? And finally, is the lacanian subject classless?
Tom - 02/04/02 17:05:56 EST
Tom - 02/04/02 17:04:21 EST
Writing is just our poor, over-sized heads bleeding.
FBC - 02/04/02 14:38:00 EST
OM doesn't stop not being written.
perfume - 02/03/02 08:06:11 EST
Terry 1 - thank you!
Terry1 - 02/02/02 10:58:52 EST
KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD Part 1
1. Let a man meditate on the syllable Om, called the udgitha; for the udgitha (a portion of the Sama-veda) is sung, beginning with Om.
The full account, however, of Om is this:-
2. The essence of all beings is the earth, the essence of the earth is water, the essence of water the plants, the essence of plants man, the essence of man speech, the essence of speech the Rig-veda, the essence of the Rig-veda the Sama-veda, the essence of the Sama-veda the udgitha (which is Om).
3. That udgitha (Om) is the best of all essences, the highest, deserving the highest place, the eighth.
4. What then is the Rik ? What is the Saman? What is the udgitha ? This is the question.
5. The Rik indeed is speech, Saman is breath, the udgitha is the syllable Om. Now speech and breath, or.Rik and Saman, form one couple.
6. And that couple is joined together in the syllable Om. When two people come together, they fulfil each other's desire.
7. Thus he who knowing this, meditates on the syllable (Om), the udgitha, becomes indeed a fulfiller of desires.
8. That syllable is a syllable of permission, for whenever we permit anything, we say Om, yes. Now permission is gratification. He who knowing this meditates on the syllable (Om), the udgitha, becomes indeed a gratifier of desires.
9. By that syllable does the threefold knowledge (the sacrifice, more particularly the Soma sacrifice, as founded on the three Vedas) proceed. When the Adhvaryu priest gives an order, he says Om. When the Hotri priest recites, he says Om. When the Udgatri priest sings, he says Om, -- all for the glory of that syllable. The threefold knowledge (the sacrifice) proceeds by the greatness of that syllable (the vital breaths), and by its essence (the ablations).
10. Now therefore it would seem to follow, that both he who knows this (the true meaning of the syllable Om), and he who does not, perform the same sacrifice. But this is not so, for knowledge and ignorance are different. The sacrifice which a man performs with knowledge, faith, and the Upanishad is more powerful. This is the full account of the syllable Om.
1. When the Devas and Asuras struggled together, both of the race of Pragapati, the Devas took the udgitha (Om), thinking they would vanquish the Asuras with it.
2. They meditated on the udgitha (Om) as the breath (scent) in the nose, but the Asuras pierced it (the breath) with evil. Therefore we smell by the breath in the nose both what is good smelling and what is bad-smelling. For the breath was pierced by evil.
Then they meditated on the udgitha (Om) as speech, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we speak both truth and falsehood. For speech is pierced by evil.
4. Then they meditated on the udgitha (Om) as the eye, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we see both what is sightly and unsightly. For the eye is pierced by evil.
5. Then they meditated on the udgitha (Om) as the ear, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we hear both what should be heard and what should not be heard. For the ear is pierced by evil.
6. Then they meditated on the udgitha (Om) as the mind, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we conceive both what should be conceived and what should not be conceived. For the mind is pierced by evil.
7. Then comes this breath (of life) in the mouth. They meditated on the udgitha (Om) as that. breath. When the Asuras came to it, they were scattered, as (a ball of earth) would be scattered when hitting a solid stone.
8. Thus, as a ball of earth is scattered when hitting on a solid stone, will he be scattered who wishes evil to one who knows this, or who persecutes him; for he is a solid stone.
9. By it (the breath in the mouth) he distinguishes neither what is good nor what is bad-smelling, for that breath is free from evil. What we eat and drink with it supports the other vital breaths (i.e. the senses, such as smell, &c.) When at the time of death he does not find that breath (in the mouth, through which he eats and drinks and lives), then he departs. He opens the mouth at the time of death (as if wishing to eat).
10. Angiras meditated on the udgitha (Om) as that breath, and people hold it to be Angiras, i.e. the essence of the members (anginam rasah);
11. Therefore Brihaspati meditated on udgitha (Om) as that breath, and people hold it to be Brihaspati, for speech is brihati, and he (that breath) is the lord (pati) of speech;
12. Therefore Ayisya meditated on the udgitha (Om) as that breath, and people hold it to be Ayasya, because it comes (ayati) from the mouth (.Asya) ;
13. Therefore Vaka Dalbhya knew it. He was the Udgatri (singer) of the Naimishiya-sacrificers, and by singing he obtained for them their wishes.
14. He who knows this, and meditates on the syllable Om (the imperishable udgitha) as the breath of life in the mouth, he obtains all wishes by singing. So much for the udgitha (Om) as meditated on with reference to the body.
1. Now follows the meditation on the udgitha with reference to the gods. Let a man meditate on the udgitha (Om) as he who sends warmth (the sun in the sky). When the sun rises it sings as Udgatri for the sake of all creatures. When it rises it destroys the fear of darkness. He who knows this, is able to destroy the fear of darkness (ignorance).
2. This (the breath in the mouth) and that (the sun) are the same. This is hot and that is hot. This they call svara (sound), and that they call pratyasvara (reflected sound). Therefore let a man meditate on the udgitha (Om) as this and that (as breath and as sun).
3. Then let a man meditate on the udgitha (Om) as vyana indeed. If we breathe up, that is prana, the up-breathing. If we breathe down, that is apana, the down-breathing. The combination of prana and apana is vyana, back-breathing or holding in of the breath. This vyana is speech. Therefore when we utter speech, we neither breathe up nor down.
4. Speech is Rik, and therefore when a man utters a Rik verse he neither breathes up nor down.
Rik is Saman, and therefore when a man utters a Saman verse he neither breathes up nor down.
Saman is udgitha, and therefore when a man sings (the udgitha, Om) he neither breathes up nor down.
5. And other works also which require strength, such as the production of fire by rubbing, running a race, stringing a strong bow, are performed without breathing up or down. Therefore let a man meditate on the udgitha (Om) as vyana.
6. Let a man meditate on the syllables of the udgitha, i.e. of the word udgitha. Ut is breath (prana), for by means of breath a man rises (uttishthati). Gi is speech, for speeches are called girah. Tha is food, for by means of food all subsists (sthita).
7. Ut is heaven, gi the sky, tha the earth. Ut is the sun, gi the air, tha the fire. Ut is the Sama-veda, gi the Yagur-veda, tha the Rig-veda. Speech yields the milk, which is the milk of speech itself, to him who thus knowing meditates on those syllables of the name of udgitha, he becomes rich in food and able to eat food.
8. Next follows the fulfilment of prayers. Let a man thus meditate on the Upasaranas, i. e. the objects which have to be approached by meditation: Let him (the Udgatri) quickly reflect on the Saman with which he is going to praise;
9. Let him quickly reflect on the Rik in which that Saman occurs; on the Rishi (poet) by whom it was seen or composed; on the Devata (object) which he is going to praise;
10. On the metre in which he is going to praise; on the tune with which he is going to sing for himself;
11. On the quarter of the world which he is going to praise. Lastly, having approached himself (his name, family, &c.) by meditation, let him sing the hymn of praise, reflecting on his desire, and avoiding all mistakes in pronunciation, &c. Quickly I will the desire be then fulfilled to him, for the sake of which he may have offered his hymn of praise, yea, for which he may have offered his hymn of praise.
1. Let a man meditate on the syllable Om, for the udgitha is sung beginning with Om. And this is the full account of the syllable Om:-
2. The Devas, being afraid of death, entered upon (the performance of the sacrifice prescribed in) the threefold knowledge (the three Vedas). They covered themselves with the metrical hymns. Because they covered (khad) themselves with the hymns, therefore the hymns are called khandas.
3. Then, as a fisherman might observe a fish in the water, Death observed the Devas in the Rik, Yagus, and Saman-(sacrifices). And the Devas seeing this, rose from the Rik, Yagus, and Saman-sacrifices, and entered the Svara, i.e. the Om (they meditated on the Om).
4. When a man has mastered the Rig-veda, he says quite loud Om; the same, when he has mastered the Saman and the Yagus. This Svara is the imperishable (syllable), the immortal, free from fear. Because the Devas entered it, therefore they became immortal, and free from fear.
5. He who knowing this loudly pronounces (pranauti) that syllable, enters the Same (imperishable) syllable, the Svara, the immortal, free from fear, and having entered it, becomes immortal, as the Devas are immortal.
FBC - 01/30/02 18:20:17 EST This doesn't come directly from the Upanashads but it is in the same cannon with these. The story, one story, told about the origen of the world is that it arises as a lotus which grows from the navel of Vishnu. What is really interesting about this however is that what stimulates his "dreaming" (the lotus world) is that his consort, (I believe her name is Indrani but I could be wrong) is tickling his leg as he sleeps. Loads of reading to be done here. Any one up for this one?
Tom - 01/30/02 08:39:13 EST
If language is the law, in whose name do computer languages such as Java operate? And might this not relate to the decline of the paternal imago...
Zeus Dionisio - 01/30/02 01:22:43 EST
aqui sólo se habla inglés?......eu falou um pouco portugueis et un petit francais......what about the languaje? and wjat about Java languaje?.......
the culture order the natures, society order the relatioships between humans...but languaje constitutes all these.....
Me gustaría recibir respuesta en español.....
- 01/29/02 21:44:17 EST
Terry1, thank you.
It's already very nice to read you people talking after the work I do on here...
Terry1 - 01/28/02 16:57:50 EST
Perfume doesn't get enough credit for her work on here.......We shouid have a Perfume day?
email@example.com - 01/22/02 07:11:39 EST
i need cybernetic diagrams. working links of 0 and 1 configurations pleeeeeeeeeeeeease?
to cross with freuds diagram of psyche, de.certeau's diagram's of metis (art of memory), psychogeography of zeros and ones
The Upanishads - 01/20/02 13:10:46 EST
Tat twam asi.
Terry1 - 01/20/02 06:27:26 EST
Can more be said on the Upanishads?
Tom - 01/16/02 21:35:31 EST
Technology is that which destroys the very thing it simultaneously offers us as a substitute. Isn't the supposedly liberating play of the Internet in reality an unsettling - even grotesque - distortion of the dramas of human life? And if even *writing itself* is an acting-out (as Lacan seems to be implying in his later work) what implications does this have for all the words floating on the web?
Scott - 01/15/02 17:40:49 EST
can i invite some people over to my ezine?
wynship - 01/15/02 16:15:02 EST
What do you want us to do with that email address, Tom?
Tom - 01/15/02 15:18:51 EST
the voice from outside - 01/15/02 09:29:23 EST
(it is not lost on the voice that Joseph A. bears some resemblance to Josephina A.)
schreber - 01/15/02 09:28:11 EST
yes, I know exactly what you mean. Divine rays above all have the power of influencing the human being in this manner; by this means God has always been able to infuse dreams into a sleeping human being.
FBC - 01/14/02 20:47:17 EST
God/(the Real?) gets pleasure by hurting, dismembering itself, we enjoy this and try to return the favor by hurting ourselves, discharging the tension of our enjoyment in the pleasure of self=mutilation. God enjoys our the pleasure we derive from tearing ourselves apart but the idea to do this is ours, the impossibility of acting like God, of returning the favor of God.
wynship - 01/14/02 19:57:45 EST
Sadistic deities? Tom I haven't known you to be so morbid.
Tom - 01/13/02 18:48:10 EST
Perhaps the gods achieve their jouissance through hurting us.
Tom - 01/13/02 05:17:58 EST
Bit more information needed to answer that, wyn. Bit of context.
wynship - 01/12/02 23:27:26 EST
do you think I get jouissance in hurting other people?
the voice from outside - 01/04/02 13:50:29 EST
Hi Joseph. Well, I asked this question of Josephina many years ago, and she suggested, among other things, that I read "3 essays on the theory of sexuality" and "The Ego and the Id", but that was in the context of my already having read "Introductory Lectures," "Psychopathology of Everyday life", etc. Which book is best for you to read next? Well, it depends on what your interest is. I would recommend "Introductory Lectures" to anyone for the obvious reason. If you really want to get a grip on Lacan, then, pace Josephina, I would recommend Freud's first three books next: "Interpretation of Dreams", "Psychopathology of Everyday Life", and "Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious." If your interest is philosophical, I'd suggest "Beyond the Pleasure Principle." If it is religous, I'd say "Totem and Taboo" and the book on Moses, as well as the illusion book (haven't read it). If you're interested in schizophrenia and Lacan's theory of forclosure, read the discussion of Schreber in "Three Case Histories" <-- the other histories are also discussed extensively in _Ecrits_, which is where you will probably start with Lacan, so add that to the "Lacan prep" sequence. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, if you are interested in social and political psychology, then read the book on psychology of the masses, Civ and Disc again, and Totem and Taboo again. And you should read various essays that aren't published outside of the very expensive Standard Edition. You should read the one on "The Uncanny" just because it's weird. I'll shut up now.>
JosephA334@aol.com - 01/04/02 09:58:21 EST
I've a budding interest in learning more about the field of analytic psychology. I'm currently midway in reading Freud's "Civilization and its's Discontents". My questions to anyone kind enough to advise me, is 1) Which is the next best book of Freud's to read? 2) Please explain the significance of Lacanian thought, as it somehow seems important to the study of contemporary analytic psychology. Also, keep in mind that I'm a pleab in this arena.
FBC - 01/03/02 20:53:06 EST
Sorry I forgot to sign that folks, TY FBC
- 01/03/02 20:52:10 EST
There is the story of the God in the form of a person who, realizing that he is (I am [which is the "primary assertion of Dasein"]) is first frightened. Realizing that there is no one else there, no one to fear, he desires that there ought to be someone there. And she appears, he feels desire for her and they merge, become one. She then wonders how he could come to merge with her, after all she thinks, we are the same substance. So she becomes a cow, he a bull, she a jenny ass, he a jack ass and on and on down through the whole zoology.
The one why is all only knows itself by splitting, such splitting releives desire by providing the absent object which would be something to be afraid of if only there were such a thing. See how, lacking something to fear, he desires that there ought to be something. When this something appears (as a result of the God splitting himself (his dearest counterpart) comes into being. Remember she appears to appease the desire he felt on realizint that there is nothing which one could fear. Fear is the cause of desire in this story.
Then he, the God, like Narcisis, "merges" with her. She isn't convinced that he has wondering how one can merge with what one always-already is. This is a Lacanian field day. Fourth book of the Brihad Aranyaka Upanashad (I think I have spelled this right). Let more be said here
Terry1 - 01/02/02 17:38:56 EST
'In your heart is a little house and in that house is a little room and in that room there is all you will ever know, and all you will ever want to know.
The Upanishads - 01/02/02 17:36:51 EST
'In your heart is a little house and in that house is a little room and in that room there is all you will ever know, and all you will want to know'
Can you say more on the Upanishads
FBC - 01/02/02 15:18:26 EST
Further down and still Terry"
"When we practice Tantrics can two become one?"
To which Tom answers:
"Two can only become one by dividing it by itself."
So it takes two to make one, biology as well as all sort of subjective phenomena can be inscribed here, S1 implies or demands the emergence of S2. The two Ss are one by being not all.
Deep contemplation of the precise relation between the three subcatagories in Kant's designation of the trancendent a priori of quantity serves to shed further light on the issue. I think to some extent the bar of the s is the reflective surface in which S1 casts its reflection as S2 (the other is or speaks S2 to my S1 and to this other I am the other, at least in my fantasy, the fantasy of the other subject.
Also see the fourth book of the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad for more edifying and informative insight into these questions.
FBC - 01/02/02 15:06:15 EST
Perhaps they (tantrics) best show how the drive can not be fully shown. I mean, either they denote the relation thea does not stop not being written or the "ink well" where in the quill is dipped which later writes.
Terry1 - 01/02/02 11:10:22 EST
Has anybody any thoughts on tantrics and the drive?..........Does tantrics slow the drive?
wynship - 01/01/02 10:37:36 EST
things sound pretty rough in Buenos Aires, perfume. I hope whomever you have down there is not suffering a great deal.