Ktismatics

14 September 2007

Freiutrdian Slips

Filed under: Language, Psychology — ktismatics @ 8:51 am

I’ve been busy wirng a post about Tomasell’s latest book about language agquisitino. I’t’s a book I rjust got in the mail from Amazon. I’ve posted on tomasselo before, where he toaks more broadly about human cognitive development from a cross-species persopctive. This one is language-specific. At the same time in tehsame mailing I got Fin’s other book aout lacal which is entitle the Lacanian Subject: BEtween Language and Jouissance. I have a senst thtat a createive tension will emerge from cross-reading these two books. At the heart of hte matter is structuralism. For tomasello language is a tool and linguistic competence is a skill to be mastered. For Lacn language is a structure that shapes the indivusal, an that the emergence of subjectivity comes through circumventing intential use of language. So, following Freud, Lacan assert sthat thing slike misstatements, so -called Freudian slops, reveal placs wehre the subject is thrying to be hears d around the edges of language, or perhaps through language. as a slippage or hoele in the langue or where the nonlinguistic unconscious can make its presnece known.

So I’m typing my new post on Tomasello’s book, miking my usual typos and correcting them on the fly,whn I ralize: heck, typs are the same thing potentially as Freudian slips! I should’nt be correcting tehse mestakes; I should be letteng the ms peak themselfes. Then, when I’m done, I can go back and see what mistakes I made and see thought them where my unconscious is leading me.

Or perhaps the reader can is in a bettier position to analyse me thatn I am myself. In reviewing this errorized text can you see my ucnconscious peeking through? If so, what is ti trying to say? Or maybe it’s just saying hta i’m a shitty typisk.

Maybe you can give it a tryi on yourself. Type with someting without fixing your typos as you ogo along, then go back and read it , teread the errors in particular. Do you detect an y oinsights into your unconscious processes?

Tomorrow, Tomsasello.

About these ads

63 Comments »

  1. I couldn’t wait for my analysts to show up — I had to get started (and I am correcting my typos here). First line: instead of “writing” a post I typed that I’m “wirng” it. This looks like “wiring” — emphasizing the electronic-ness of the activity. It also emphasizes that I’m not just writing it, but that I’m transmitting it to others, putting my writing on public display. This public-private oscillation is something I’ve written about recently: for whom do I write posts, do they disappear into the archives without ever again being read, etc. But also, “wiring” my writing emphasizes the impersonal nature of my communique, its mechanistic property, its transmission into the electronic matrix without knowing who is on the receiving end. So, although I’m putting my writing (myself) on display, I don’t know who’s watching. Though I’m making myself visible I remain alienated from the viewer whom I do not see — like being in a porno video perhaps…

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 September 2007 @ 10:20 am

  2. Oh, and also, “wirng” is missing the “i” in the “-ing.” Which “i” is missing: the one who intended to type “writing” and failed, or the one who isn’t being expressed in the intentions of the “i” who was typing?

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 September 2007 @ 10:32 am

  3. It’s funny, but the human mind is able to make sense of even worse typos than this. I found that i could understand you word for word and quite automatically, perhaps because the context is usually clear enough to ‘fill in the blanks’ (or something). If the integrative process is fairly mechanical then why should the formative process be any less so?

    Comment by samlcarr — 14 September 2007 @ 3:01 pm

  4. I love this! I’ll tell you the ones that I saw right off…whether I have an interpretation or not.
    -toaks more…seems like croaks more which doesn’t sound like you’re keen on his writing…
    -persoptive…reminds me of solipsism…why?
    -indivusal…I just like it…
    -s a slippage or hoele in the langue…holy tongues!

    More later, perhaps.

    Meilleurs voeux!!

    Comment by blueVicar — 14 September 2007 @ 3:06 pm

  5. Oh yeah, I like this too…

    Freiutrdian Slips

    Sounds like the name of an article of clothing!

    Meilleurs voeux!!

    Comment by blueVicar — 14 September 2007 @ 3:07 pm

  6. “I found that i could understand you word for word and quite automatically, perhaps because the context is usually clear enough to ‘fill in the blanks’ (or something).”

    It’s almost as if I don’t have to write the words, because you already know what I’m going to say. Our conscious minds are able to overlook the “mistakes” and convert idiosyncratic utterances into their normal form. As you say, the process is automatic — we have to pay closer attention if we’re going to distinguish the ways in which words differ from what we already know them to mean. These misplaced letters and spaces become tiny portals through which an Other voice can speak without drawing the attention, or the wrath, of the Big Other who controls consciously structured language. Or so it is contended. We “fill in the blanks” with socially accepted placeholders, instead of recognizing that the blanks really are there and that they mean something, that they refer to something that’s missing. Or so it is said.

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 September 2007 @ 3:26 pm

  7. “where he toaks more broadly…”

    Vic, you say this reminds you of “croaks” — does “croaks” remind you of frog noises or death rattles, I wonder? This sort of multivalent word is just the sort of thing to pry open the unconscious. Do I think Tomasello is croaking like a frog, incomprehensible? Do I think of him as a slimy cold-blooded sub-human? Or do I think of him as dead? Do I wish he was dead? And so on.

    On the other hand, for me “toaks” = “tokes,” which at least in my era referred to the act of smoking marijuana. So Tomasello tokes more broadly about human cognitive development — do I think he’s hallucinating? To “talk” is to exhale across the vocal chords; to “toke” is to inhale smoke. So do I think that Tomasello is sucking me in? And so on.

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 September 2007 @ 3:33 pm

  8. Sorry, but my experience with kids with perceptual difficulties makes me wonder if there is any need at all for there to be ‘something hiding’ in what are essentially just mechanical confusions. We often see dropouts, inversions, substitutions and what not oddities with kids that have dyslexic and dysgraphic tendencies. Why should it be any different for ‘more normal’ adults? I used to have trouble with writing ‘g’ for ‘d’. I still occasionally have trouble with that when using a keyboard!

    Comment by samlcarr — 14 September 2007 @ 3:52 pm

  9. I will reserve comment on your comment for now, Sam, except to make a brief interpretation of your ‘g’ for ‘d’ slippage. In English ‘D’ stands for ‘Dad’ and ‘G’ for ‘God.’ The word endings -ad and -od are almost identical. Could you imagine conflating these two authority figures?

    And also, are you intending either to rematerialize the Monk or to report on his covert surveillance at Sir Toby’s? I’m not sure where it’s headed, but my Freudian ruminations found another place to land there today. I do appreciate your tossing in a bit of strangeness to throw the Trappist off his mark.

    Comment by ktismatics — 14 September 2007 @ 4:13 pm

  10. I’m not sure what to do about the Sri Lankan monk! I may just throw in one more character and see what happens. Your Freudian musings should do the thread a lot of good, the Trappist may not be pleased tho!

    I remember this particular d-g confusion from my earliest days in school when one particular teacher used to rap my knuckles every time he caught me doing it! That’s pretty early for such a cognitive confusion. More probably I was mildly dyslexic, for i remember being taken to task for poor spelling and untidy handwriting too.

    Comment by samlcarr — 14 September 2007 @ 6:15 pm

  11. As a professional copy editor I couldn’t help but notice that there is a spelling error in the above post. I will go over it again just to make sure that there is nothing else that I missed on the first reading, and then I will report back.

    Comment by Erdman — 14 September 2007 @ 7:33 pm

  12. By the way, if typos and other such slip-ups are some sort of a look into the depth of one’s psyche, then is it possible that those who do not make any errors have no soul?

    One of my superiors has a sign on his desk (sometimes burried beneath layers upon layers of paper, or wedged between piles of paper-work) that reads, “A clean desk is a sign of a disturbed mind.”

    Comment by Erdman — 14 September 2007 @ 7:36 pm

  13. And do you follow in his footsteps?

    Comment by samlcarr — 14 September 2007 @ 7:46 pm

  14. Ah ha! I go to France and you go on the prowl…I might be away but I can still see you. Especially when you announce your intentions…so let us know what you were up to. Perhaps I should call now at 3:36 a.m. there and make sure you got home okay?? Nahhh…I’ll read about your adventures here, I suppose.

    Meilleurs voeux!!

    Comment by blueVicar — 15 September 2007 @ 3:37 am

  15. Just curious but why is it the nonlinguistic unconscious?

    As far as the invisibility goes, my attempt at demythologising was probably ill timed. I seem to have muddled things up a bit too much and the alternative realities are turning into a mundane thriller, so with this I will desist!

    Comment by samlcarr — 15 September 2007 @ 7:29 am

  16. I may try to read Fink’s book about Lacan in parallel with Tomasello’s book on language acquisition. Today I’ll write about Tomasello’s first chapter, then I’ll follow up with Fink’s first chapter, where he introduces the nonlinguistic unconscious.

    Regarding Sir Toby’s, do you feel no sense of responsibility for extracting the proceedings from their present state of confusion? Perhaps I too shall desist!

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 8:20 am

  17. I wated to read those two books as well, so when you’re finished you could send them to me!

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 8:53 am

  18. That you offered no observation on my Freudian Slips post I regard as a conscious act of destitution. Here I had just sent you an email complimenting the verbiage you slung at Traxus, then invited you to read my latest online analytic praxis, intended as a titillating intro to my intended integration of Tomasello’s and Fink’s books, and what do I get from you?

    “I wated to read those two books as well, so when you’re finished you could send them to me!”

    …The implication being that you have no interest in whatever I have to say about these two books, that all you “wat” from me are the books themselves.

    So let’s revisit your Freudian typo. To type that you “wated” instead of “wanted” — is it possible that you disguise your wants, that what you claim to want isn’t really what you want at all? You don’t really want to read these books; you want to destitute me by refusing to acknowledge my work, thereby refusing to acknowledge me. Preying on my sense of insignificance, invisibility, impotence, you respond to my plea for recognition by telling me that my value to use is limited to sending you free books.

    “Wated” sounds like “waited” — “I waited to read those two books.” Dropping the “n” turns “want” to “wait” — a self-imposed delayed gratification and self-denial. Or perhaps by this waiting you intend to deny the authors of these books the satisfaction of your having read them, of having received them into yourself. You don’t want to read the books; you want the authors to wait for you to read them.

    Your brief remark and my insightful analysis make an excellent illustration of the Freudian slip in the comments to my post. However, I expect to hear nothing in response to this comment, thereby further denying me the recognition I have asked for and rightfully EARNED by my hard work on your behalf.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 9:07 am

  19. I guess the psychological motivation for my omission is that I am pissed because you keep demanding reciprocal love and attention, while I feel that especially in view of our transferrential relationship and all those nights I opened my flower up for you, and you being older, a kind of a father figure, I should receive unconditional love including free gifts.

    As for my typo, I suppose you expect me to invest inordinate attention to your Freudian slips and omissions stint as if it were the revelation of the century no less and not a product of your theoretical exhaustion and your constant indecision between the more humanist, client-oriented therapy model and the new Lacanian insights you have gained exclusively due to my generous efforts.

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 9:52 am

  20. A product of my theoretical exchaustion? Perhaps — I admit that I find myself adrift, looking for something to propel me forward. In this abysmal swamp I emit my weak SETI signals hoping to hear a reply, or at least an echo, suggesting that here, in this sector of the galaxy, I can reinvigorate my quest.

    I think you expect me to heap scorn upon my own discovery, to dismiss, as do most people, the Freudian slip as a patently silly notion, to use the Freudian typo parodically, further exposing the silliness of the Freudian-Lacanian trajectory. And you may be right, because you are certainly right about my indecision. Typing is a skill like any other; why should errors reveal anything other than digital ineptitude, as Sam contended? And yet, looking intensely at the slips they seem to transform themselves into openings, burnholes in the silk, revealing patterns in the randomness, secrets behind the veil.

    “the new Lacanian insights you have gained exclusively due to my generous efforts”

    There is at least some truth in this assertion. That I would regard you, Parodycenter, as a source of insight exposes perhaps most glaringly my theoretical exhaustion and my desperation.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 10:37 am

  21. ? And yet, looking intensely at the slips they seem to transform themselves into openings, burnholes in the silk, revealing patterns in the randomness, secrets behind the veil.

    God even that metaphor isn’t original, you borrowed it from the burned lingerie in ”Inland Empire”, and I’m starting to wonder why this image obsesses you by the way, is it because you have a repressed proclivity for lingerie?

    That Freud’s slips of the tongue still work is only news to psychoanalytic converts like you who have spent a good deal of the previous century denying the Unconscious, assisting capitalism in mounting the cognitive-behavioral machine which is now servicing the neolib gangsters in the enslavement of all humanity.

    As for your insolent last comment, have you read or seen ”Death in Venice”? I am like that gorgeous sublime Lacanian boy on the Venetian beach whom you can only worship from a distance and whose beauty and vitality of spirit only remind you of your slow but certain decline.

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 11:13 am

  22. Even Inland Empire I remain ambivalent about. I was just discussing with a local Lutheran minister his strange homelitic strategem whereby he juxtaposes individual thought units of the weekly lectionary’s Old Testament reading with the thought units of the Epistle reading. He then scrutinizes each cell in this juxtopositary grid, and whichever ones resonate with his mystic contemplation he regards as “holes” in the text, “portals” to previously hidden spiritual realms. At this point I told him about IE and the hole in the silk. I think this minister too likes lingerie, by the way.

    I fear that you vastly overrate my role in assembling the universal enslavement machinery. Perhaps if I had wielded more influence there I might have been less susceptible to conversion.

    Apropos of your allusion to Death in Venice, my “slow but certain decline,” and your “beauty and vitality of spirit,” I offer this excerpt from The Stations, my brilliant and unpublished first novel:

    “Confronted by a monstrous inevitability, how many of us would dare try Ahab’s full-throttle assault, or even Jonah’s dodge? We’re more like the guy from Death in Venice: neither hiders nor seekers, all we want is a nice vacation at the seashore. We’re going to encounter our abyss not at the bottom of the sea but on a private beach, sitting under an umbrella sipping a Bellini. The Deep is going to reach up onto the shore, grab you by the ankle, and pull you under.”

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 11:49 am

  23. The Deep is going to reach up onto the shore, grab you by the ankle, and pull you under.”

    That is if it manages to pull your fat, decadent, comfortably ambivalent burgeois ass all the way from the shore!

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 1:28 pm

  24. A pleasant exchange. Scotch, anyone?

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 2:51 pm

  25. Ummph…I’m not sure I want to step here in-between this dialogue. It is possible for me to form the triangle and become the object of scorn for both of you…that is if either of you care enough to distract yourself from yourselves.

    At any rate, I just had an interesting word ambiguity in a comment on my site, and I was going to offer it up here…but it seems kind of dull now.

    Never mind…

    Meilleurs voeux!!

    Comment by blueVicar — 15 September 2007 @ 2:53 pm

  26. I think I’ve invested enough in this latest round of Freudian slippage. I don’t even feel the need to defend my ass against these scurrilous verbal assaults. I shall now proceed to your site, Vic, and see what’s up.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 3:15 pm

  27. I think I’ve invested enough in this latest round of Freudian slippage. I don’t even feel the need to defend my ass against these scurrilous verbal assaults. I shall now proceed to your site, Vic, and see what’s up.

    People observe how this abusive ”shrink”, having already raped me once or twice while I was drugged up and suspended on the cross in his bedroom, now puts on lingerie and submissively seeks refuge behind the theological skirt. First he abandoned God, then he abandoned Carl Rogers, now he hates himself for liking Lacan, and finally he identifies himself with the burgeois protagonist from Thomas Mann. He has no character, really, and I wouldn’t be surprised either if he was a closet alcoholic, Hesiak!

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 3:53 pm

  28. He has no character, really, and I wouldn’t be surprised either if he was a closet alcoholic, Hesiak!

    Dejan, you’re great…but, sorry…I like both of you. I’m not taking sides. Maybe we should just all get drunk and sing some folk songs or something. Enough of all them high falutin thinkers and stuff. Maybe Guinness, instead of either Scotch or some sort of expensive wine, eh…

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:03 pm

  29. Anybody here know any old Viking folk songs?

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:08 pm

  30. I hear there are rivers of Guinness in Scotland. With travel rest stops along the way, which have conveniently placed tents with to-go thermoses to fill-up if necessary.

    And to note…if the “closet” alcoholic theory turns out to be correct, then maybe we have an alternative “portalic” explanation for the typos! Lol…just kidding…I couldn’t resist…

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:13 pm

  31. if the “closet” alcoholic theory turns out to be correct, then maybe we have an alternative “portalic” explanation for the typos!

    hesiak this line goes in for the upcoming December Parody Oscars!

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 4:15 pm

  32. Dejan, I’m greatly honored..but when you get around to telling the story please include the context…Lol…just kidding…I couldn’t resist…

    And BTW Parody Oscars In December seems to flow better…
    :)

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:21 pm

  33. And so you see, Jason, you HAVE chosen sides after all. Though Parodycenter promised to probe your psyche and (to my knowledge) failed to do so, still you humor his puerile closet alcoholic projections in hopes that he’ll be nice and STAY nice. But he offers fame in the form of the Parody Oscars, and who can resist this attractive lure? “I couldn’t resist” you say — well there’s no real need to comment on that remark, is there? So now it must be told that Guinness is an Irish beer, and that Doyle is an Irish name, and that Scotland pretends to look down on Ireland even though the Scottish culture is entirely derivative. And also Doyle in Gaelic means “dark stranger,” referring to the Vikings who invaded Ireland long ago, suggesting that I am a descendant of the Vikings. However I know no Viking folk songs.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 4:34 pm

  34. I had no idea I was up for an Oscar when I made the statement that I “couldn’t resist”, though Sir Doyle. And I see that my words from here will only serve to build my step ladder down into my grave, so I shush now.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:41 pm

  35. Too late.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 4:44 pm

  36. No, just kidding. However, I do hope you’ll remember this: Guinness is an IRISH beer.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 4:48 pm

  37. hesiak last year’s parody oscars went to my parody correspondent jonquille camembert, who said that whoever fucks with chabert and lenin (the two humanitarian marxists who are the CPC’s favorite target) sooner or later ends up wanting andrea dworking sex.

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 4:49 pm

  38. and that typo, dworking instead of dworkin, comes from ”wanking” doyle

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 4:49 pm

  39. Well Doyle sorry I offended your national sensibilities. Lol. But isn’t the Guinness factory in Scotland, though? I think I remember a friend’s visiting the factory in Scotland and being confused because I thought Guinness was Irish.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:50 pm

  40. Dejan, I have noticed that jonquille camembert is a frequent and witty commneter at CPC.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:56 pm

  41. Well I’m sure they sell Guinness in Scotland, for the same reason every self-respecting city in the world has an Irish pub: because everybody secretly wishes they were Irish, even the damn Scots and English. Make that especially the Scots and English.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 4:57 pm

  42. Maybe you’re a closet Nationalist there Sir Doyle!
    :)

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 4:58 pm

  43. No, I’m a universal soldier: half Irish, quarter Polish, quarter Bosnian. And Hesiak — Polish?

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 5:00 pm

  44. Polish indeed, Sir Doyle. We’re partial brothers.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 5:04 pm

  45. So this movie I went to last night: “Once,” an Irish musical I guess you’d call it. It’s about some Irish street musician who meets up with a Czech girl who plays the piano. Kind of sweet almost to the point of saccharine, but I was touched by it. The music was part of the story because it’s largely about playing and singing together, making a demo tape, etc., but the music is also kind of a commentary on what’s happening with the two main characters in the story. And it’s set in Dublin. So I suppose my Irish is up, as they say.

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 5:04 pm

  46. So far as I know I’m half Polish and half British. Although I really don’t like England, I’ll be honest.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 15 September 2007 @ 5:04 pm

  47. Ktismatics I suppose your visit to Le Chabert’s today is not to be seen as an instance of double agentry?

    Comment by parodycenter — 15 September 2007 @ 5:28 pm

  48. Parodycenter why must everything be so personal with you? The Colonel was engaged in a discussion about the rationale for slavery, whether it was racial or economic. I had read some Aristotle in this context in a prior discussion with a Cuban former Marxist turned Ayn Rand libertarian, and I thought it might add useful background to the discussion. By the way, how long will you restrain yourself?

    Comment by ktismatics — 15 September 2007 @ 5:36 pm

  49. The Colonel was engaged in a discussion about the rationale for slavery, whether it was racial or economic.

    Now please tell me what OTHER discussion could the Colonel be engaged in, other than racism and slavery?

    You;re not going to explain away your betrayal by calling me ”personal”. She already stole several friends and blog stars I created. I’ll get you for this when you’re not looking!

    Comment by parodycenter — 16 September 2007 @ 2:19 am

  50. If you get me for this you will ensure my stardom. And, though I acknowledge your sublimity, I also have come to expect treachery from you if it serves your interests. Fortunately I’m not interesting enough or visible enough to your blogging associates for you to waste much parodic time on.

    Comment by ktismatics — 16 September 2007 @ 6:14 am

  51. God what a vengeful bitch you really are; you are still regurgitating that time I shamed you at dr. Sinthome’s, even as I was utterly careful not to mention your name, so that it wasn’t even a proper embarrassment.

    Comment by parodycenter — 16 September 2007 @ 6:25 am

  52. Pleeease, Dejan, don’t hurt me any more. Oh by the way, yesterday was a big-hit day at Ktismatics, thanks almost entirely to you, though my big days pale in comparison to yours. I think the best place you can destitute me is right here at Ktismatics. You know my vulnerabilities, as I’m sure my other visitors do too. Although I suspect you could effectively intimidate me from commenting on other blogs through aggressive cross-examination, since I’m not nearly as self-confident as you are in public give-and-take. I tend to wade in cautiously, hoping no one will notice, but then when they don’t notice I take offense and moan angstily about my invisibility. These things you already know, and I’m sure more besides. Rest assured: you can hurt my feelings, inasmuch as they are easily hurt. I suspect you regard it as one of your missions in life to toughen up wusses like me, or at least precipitating a degree of self-awareness that separates the wusses from the real men. I suppose it’s a worthy cause — sort of like being a therapist.

    Comment by ktismatics — 16 September 2007 @ 6:43 am

  53. I thought about it a little more while reading your blog just now, including Jonquille’s astute observations about the online therapy you two provide. I believe the most destituting thing you can do to me is not to comment here any more, since what I fear and loathe the most are my own invisibiity and ineffectuality. Now while I may long unconsciously for self-destitution, perhaps I also wish that you would go away. On the other hand, I am vulnerable to your criticisms in this regard. So I guess I’m in a double bind — which is, I believe, the position you strive for.

    Comment by ktismatics — 16 September 2007 @ 7:53 am

  54. did you erase my comment on linguistics?

    Comment by parodycenter — 16 September 2007 @ 9:34 am

  55. It’s there, along with a couple of responses from me. The comment counter seems to be malfunctioning.

    Comment by ktismatics — 16 September 2007 @ 9:42 am

  56. To be fair here, open and visible parodic attacks don’t necessarily indicate genuine self-respect a whole heckuva lot more than moaning over invisibility. But they also don’t necessarily NOT, I guess.

    :)

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 17 September 2007 @ 10:36 am

  57. Genuine self-respect, or genuine self-loathing for that matter, never even comes to mind when one is fully engaged. Moaning over invisibility tends to happen between engagements, when the music is over and the auditorium is empty. Open and visible parodic attacks I think are quite engaging for the performer, and can be also for the victim depending on the degree of self-distancing the victim is able to muster. I think also that being subjected to parodic destitution can have therapeutic benefits. Then again, I suppose getting raped can have therapeutic benefits too if you look at it the right way.

    Comment by ktismatics — 17 September 2007 @ 10:44 am

  58. Seems to me that the difference might come into play in the conversation you guys are having in the next post. “Use” seems in the moment to easily leave various daddy issues behind. Whereas Dejan seems to openly speak under the assumption that such familial structures are at play in the very “use” of language in the first place.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 17 September 2007 @ 11:25 am

  59. Good one. Is Dejan’s daddy-speak a spontaneous outflow, a “return of the repressed” in order to achieve mastery over something that has tortured him, an indicator that he is better able to give his unconscious a voice? Or has he acquired mastery of the Lacanian meaning and language system, using it as a tool to bring ordinary fellows like me into more self-awareness of the Abyss within? Being maladroit in using the other’s language system is always cause for self-consciousness, whether that other language is Serbian or Lacanian.

    Comment by ktismatics — 17 September 2007 @ 12:46 pm

  60. Is Dejan’s daddy-speak a spontaneous outflow, a “return of the repressed” in order to achieve mastery over something that has tortured him, an indicator that he is better able to give his unconscious a voice? Or has he acquired mastery of the Lacanian meaning and language system, using it as a tool to bring ordinary fellows like me into more self-awareness of the Abyss within?

    I not only intend to steer clear of this but don’t have even the beginnings of an answer anyway. Notably thought it could be a combination of both, I would think.

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 17 September 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  61. “I not only intend to steer clear of this”

    So you claim, although you’re the one who brought it up. “Steer clear” suggests a desire to control and to be free, and yet find that you’ve driven a course right into the middle.

    “Notably thought it could be a combination of both, I would think.”

    I can almost picture Parodycenter’s reply here, but instead I’ll agree with you. And I do observe a Freudian typo here: “thought” instead of “though.” Maybe your conscious thought is that it’s combination of both, the rational golden mean, but your unconscious might be alerting us that it has a different opinion…

    Comment by ktismatics — 17 September 2007 @ 2:33 pm

  62. So you claim, although you’re the one who brought it up. “Steer clear” suggests a desire to control and to be free, and yet find that you’ve driven a course right into the middle.

    Actually I didn’t bring up Dejan’s hypothetical daddy issues. I brought up his use of Lacanian language, which may or may not reflect his own daddy issues. I guess Lacan would say that it obviously does, but I really don’t know.

    Maybe your conscious thought is that it’s combination of both, the rational golden mean, but your unconscious might be alerting us that it has a different opinion…

    Maybe…but maybe not…:)

    Comment by Jason Hesiak — 17 September 2007 @ 3:43 pm

  63. You must learn to loosen up and LET THE UNCONSCIOUS SPEAK if you’re going to make any progress in your analysis, Dejan — oops, I mean Jason.

    Comment by ktismatics — 17 September 2007 @ 4:39 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The WordPress Classic Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers

%d bloggers like this: