Subject
Re: VN vs. Freud (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: "Timothy C. Richardson" <trichardson@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU>
That the discussion of Nabokov and Freud has become heated isn't surprising.
And that certain members of the group might feel compelled to be more
forceful than may be appropriate is also not surprising. I have invested a
great deal in studying Lacan, etc. and would not like to think that my time
and energy have been wasted. Regardless, I'll admit the possibility. But
to attack Freud and the rest on scientific grounds seems a little pointless,
since science itself has some major problems. It is, after all, founded on
some belief in God (the "therefor" in the cogito) and the argument has been
made that psychoanalysis is the only atheistic discourse (David Metzger's
LOST CAUSE OF RHETORIC, if memory hasn't failed, is one place in many). And
that some French theorists seem to concentrate on apparently minor points
shouldn't offend anyone here, since N. was certainly fond of stressing
details over any grand idea. Admittedly, the concerns are different. But
to dismiss and entire mode of thinking and talking about the world seems a
little silly. I find Lacan very precise and rigorous and read his lectures
with as much joy as when I read Nabokov. But they do different things for
me; Lacan was never a novelist (though poet is another question).
Tim Richardson
Eastern Michigan University
That the discussion of Nabokov and Freud has become heated isn't surprising.
And that certain members of the group might feel compelled to be more
forceful than may be appropriate is also not surprising. I have invested a
great deal in studying Lacan, etc. and would not like to think that my time
and energy have been wasted. Regardless, I'll admit the possibility. But
to attack Freud and the rest on scientific grounds seems a little pointless,
since science itself has some major problems. It is, after all, founded on
some belief in God (the "therefor" in the cogito) and the argument has been
made that psychoanalysis is the only atheistic discourse (David Metzger's
LOST CAUSE OF RHETORIC, if memory hasn't failed, is one place in many). And
that some French theorists seem to concentrate on apparently minor points
shouldn't offend anyone here, since N. was certainly fond of stressing
details over any grand idea. Admittedly, the concerns are different. But
to dismiss and entire mode of thinking and talking about the world seems a
little silly. I find Lacan very precise and rigorous and read his lectures
with as much joy as when I read Nabokov. But they do different things for
me; Lacan was never a novelist (though poet is another question).
Tim Richardson
Eastern Michigan University