Moderator: felix dakat
omar wrote:So, I don't disagree that God is an established Other, but that Lacan and Others did not create the term in a theological spirit.
Not only are you off-topic,
but you're also misguidedly condescending.
I am no stranger to the publishing world, both academic and not. Actually, for my age, I'm really rather handsomely published. But that's irrelevant.
If you can't understand the post, then don't comment on it.
I'm sure there are a variety of posts on the Natural Sciences board that invoke terms, concepts---and, yes, styles of articulation---with which I'm unfamiliar. The difference is that I don't loudly justify my lack of comprehension in the form of a criticism, as if the fault lay outside of me. Ressentiment.
I imagine you might be trying to carry out some hilarious vendetta against me, a vendetta that was born the instant you understood the differences between us.
To rationalize the intellectual gap that separates us, you conceptualized me as one more arrogant youth to be given his lumps.
When you so utterly failed in your endeavour, you proceeded to vomit your frustration all over my threads.
And I'll concede a regrettable and sometimes infantile disposition to do the same, on occasion,
but there remains one pointed and unavoidable difference that separates what it is you're capable of from what it is that I am: I can write.
Now, please: go away.
anthropo-eccentricism wrote:omar wrote:So, I don't disagree that God is an established Other, but that Lacan and Others did not create the term in a theological spirit.
Indeed, for if they did, my post would amount to no more than a redundant exegesis. Shifting the terms of Lacan's discourse of the Other, including within it the Levinasian/Derridian Other---that is, the wholly transcendent, the impossibly Other---is what I sought to accomplish with this thread. If we take God to be the Other, in this respect, then we can make something rather novel of Lacan's refrain that desire is always desire for the Other.
turtle wrote:omar what does that mean to you?????
"the desire is not just god the other but god ourselves"---it doesnt sound like fantasy but something you are trying to say about omar....
Desire, at least sometimes, seems to be about getting to an experience. Sometimes it even happens. So desire is either about immanent things OR one can reach transcendant 'things', including the Other. Not non-knowledge, but a fullness of desire that transforms through some kind of intimacy. Desire not as the origin of dukka, or some kind of lack (non-knowledge or even non-expeciencing now) but a kind of life-fullness that can lead to another full state, that of satisfaction.anthropo-eccentricism wrote:Lacan: "desire is always desire for the Other." The wholly, impossibly transcendent Other, pace Derrida and Levinas, is God. Desire is a response to a certain non-knowledge of the desire of the Other. This non-knowledge is Lacan's objet a, the cause of the object of desire..
Users browsing this forum: V-OutOfTheWilderness