tpaine posted:
Beautiful little strawman there. But seriously, don't do it again.

aerdil posted:
its pretty cool that you call me stupid using an out of context quote in the same sentence that you contradict yourself, fuck face. how does my literally saying that there's an incredibly wide range of ways to unpack a text as opposed to the favored method of interpretation by the folks we were discussing imply a strict dichotomy?

i don't think that quote is out of context, i don't disagree that you advocate a wide range of forms of textual analysis. where we differ is that you assume that auteur theory holds a necessary position in this field of inquiry, out of the supposed murkiness of the semiotic field. i think a rejection of the auteur without assuming the only other place of analysis is an emotionally charged subaltern perspective. language is the collective product of social interaction, the meaning of a collection of signifiers is determined by collective social practice, you can't assert the individual subject as any kind of authority. you accept that the same is true of the materialist relations of production, why does this fall apart at the level of the superstructure?

babyfinland posted:

noavbazzer posted:
im glad tsargon and babyfinland showed me the light of islamo-fascism so i dont have to think about this stuff anymore

its so pretentious and silly isnt it

buddy remember that this guy thinks that all we need to do is read a bunch of books so we can come up with a magical new path to guide the oppressed masses to their freedom

futurewidow posted:
hey blinky, aerdil... chillax

yea okay.

blinkandwheeze posted:

babyfinland posted:

noavbazzer posted:
im glad tsargon and babyfinland showed me the light of islamo-fascism so i dont have to think about this stuff anymore

its so pretentious and silly isnt it

buddy remember that this guy thinks that all we need to do is read a bunch of books so we can come up with a magical new path to guide the oppressed masses to their freedom

yes hes an evangelical twit

aerdil posted:

(1) Who, then, was Freud, to have been able, simultaneously, to found analytic theory and to inaugurate, as Analyst No. 1, as the self-analyzed, primal father, the long line of practitioners who invoke him? (2) Who, then, are psychoanalysts to accept, simultaneously (and as naturally as can be), Freudian theory, the didactic tradition deriving from Freud, and the economic and social conditions (the social status of their "societies," which is closely tied to the status of the medical corporation or guild) in which they practice? To what extent do the historical origins and the socioeconomic conditions of the exercise of psychoanalysis reverberate through analytic technique and theory? To what extent, above all, since such is indeed the state of affairs, does the theoretical silence of psychoanalysts about these problems, the theoretical repression that these problems encounter in the analytic world, affect both analytic theory and analytic technique in their very content? Is not the eternal question of the "end of analysis," among other things, related to that repression, that is, to the failure to think those problems, which would be the stuff of an epistemological history of psychoanalysis and a social (and ideological) history of the analytic world?

Such are a number of genuine and truly open problems that henceforth constitute as many fields of research. It is not impossible that certain notions will emerge, in the near future, transformed by that ordeal.

That ordeal, at bottom, is the one to which Freud, in his own domain, submitted a certain traditional, juridical, moral, and philosophical (that is, in the last analysis, ideological) image of "man," of the human "subject." It was not in vain that Freud at times compared the critical repercussions of his discovery with the upheavals of the Copernican revolution. Since Copernicus, we have known that the earth is not the "center" of the universe. Since Marx, we have known that the human subject, the economic, political, or philosophical ego, is not the "center" of historywe have even known, against the philosophers of the Enlightenment and against Hegel, that history has no ''center" but possesses a structure that has a necessary "center" solely in ideological misprision. Freud in turn reveals to us that the real subject, the individual in his singular essence, does not have the form of a self centered in an "ego," "consciousness," or "existence"be it the existence of the for-itself, the body proper, or "behavior"that the human subject is decentered, constituted by a structure that, too, has a "center" solely in the imaginary misprision of the "ego," that is, in the ideological formations in which it "recognizes" itself.

Whereby, it will have been noted, there is opened to us one of the paths by which we will perhaps one day attain a better understanding of that structure of misprision which is of crucial interest to all investigations of ideology.

tpaine posted:

GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i just pissed myself

sup fellow pantspisser? assuming you're wearing pants. i for one am not. yet i am still a pantspisser.

did i say pants? its running down my legs and onto my chair. im not constrained by any sort of leggings

babyfinland posted:

tpaine posted:

GoldenLionTamarin posted:
i just pissed myself

sup fellow pantspisser? assuming you're wearing pants. i for one am not. yet i am still a pantspisser.

is it gross if you pee in the clothes washering machine before you start a cycle

No

babyfinland posted:
lol u just owned that lil kid with his own idol

i just fell out of my seat i was like DA-*bam*-DAMN SON

actually it's althusser but functionally the same yes

blinkandwheeze posted:

babyfinland posted:
lol u just owned that lil kid with his own idol

i just fell out of my seat i was like DA-*bam*-DAMN SON

actually it's althusser but functionally the same yes

fat idiot included it in his lacan essays thingy

getfiscal posted:
i've installed a garbage disposal in my shower because the only feeling of freedom better than a low tax rate is shitting standing up

getfiscal posted:
i've installed a garbage disposal in my shower because the only feeling of freedom better than a low tax rate is shitting standing up

im a fat idiot

blinkandwheeze posted:

aerdil posted:

(1) Who, then, was Freud, to have been able, simultaneously, to found analytic theory and to inaugurate, as Analyst No. 1, as the self-analyzed, primal father, the long line of practitioners who invoke him? (2) Who, then, are psychoanalysts to accept, simultaneously (and as naturally as can be), Freudian theory, the didactic tradition deriving from Freud, and the economic and social conditions (the social status of their "societies," which is closely tied to the status of the medical corporation or guild) in which they practice? To what extent do the historical origins and the socioeconomic conditions of the exercise of psychoanalysis reverberate through analytic technique and theory? To what extent, above all, since such is indeed the state of affairs, does the theoretical silence of psychoanalysts about these problems, the theoretical repression that these problems encounter in the analytic world, affect both analytic theory and analytic technique in their very content? Is not the eternal question of the "end of analysis," among other things, related to that repression, that is, to the failure to think those problems, which would be the stuff of an epistemological history of psychoanalysis and a social (and ideological) history of the analytic world?

Such are a number of genuine and truly open problems that henceforth constitute as many fields of research. It is not impossible that certain notions will emerge, in the near future, transformed by that ordeal.

That ordeal, at bottom, is the one to which Freud, in his own domain, submitted a certain traditional, juridical, moral, and philosophical (that is, in the last analysis, ideological) image of "man," of the human "subject." It was not in vain that Freud at times compared the critical repercussions of his discovery with the upheavals of the Copernican revolution. Since Copernicus, we have known that the earth is not the "center" of the universe. Since Marx, we have known that the human subject, the economic, political, or philosophical ego, is not the "center" of historywe have even known, against the philosophers of the Enlightenment and against Hegel, that history has no ''center" but possesses a structure that has a necessary "center" solely in ideological misprision. Freud in turn reveals to us that the real subject, the individual in his singular essence, does not have the form of a self centered in an "ego," "consciousness," or "existence"be it the existence of the for-itself, the body proper, or "behavior"that the human subject is decentered, constituted by a structure that, too, has a "center" solely in the imaginary misprision of the "ego," that is, in the ideological formations in which it "recognizes" itself.

Whereby, it will have been noted, there is opened to us one of the paths by which we will perhaps one day attain a better understanding of that structure of misprision which is of crucial interest to all investigations of ideology.

this literally doesnt contradict anything i've said if you actually bothered to understand me correctly (understand my intent correctly u might say). you're really struggling hard to find some facile critique with which to pour your weird and cretinous dislike of me into. it's really bizarre, you and babyfinland are creeps.