--- by J. L. S.
------ for the GC.
My aunt is a psychoanalyst, if you believe that. And Lacanian to boot. But we never can discuss Grice. She don't trust me!
--- Now, this connects with Helm on Freud and Eliot. Surely McPherson is being naive when he notes that Helm must stick to the author's intention. Surely Helm can go beyond that. Reach, even:
Miller, James (1977). T. S. Eliot's Personal Waste Land. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271012374
!
--- "Herbert P. Grice" was thus named after his father (figure), Herbert Grice. His name appears in full in (c) of his 1989, "Studies in the Way of Words" but would avoid the explicitation of 'Hebert' like the rats. In England, it was always "H. P.". He became "H. Paul" in the USA, and Harvard managed to have him as "Paul Grice" simpliciter in the 1989 publication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
My aunt is a psychoanalyst, if you believe that. And Lacanian to boot.
ReplyDeleteLink?/ j-k.
Say Lacan, and some of us reach for a revolver. While I don't quite agree with Chomsky's breezy assessment (that Lacan was a charlatan), I am fairly convinced Lacan was a sort of stalinist Freudian, with odd semiotic aspects as well . Ad hoc. I read somewhere that he was anti-philosophy. That seems accurate. At times, I am tempted to agree with some psychoanalytical concepts (say, a pleasure principle, death instinct, etc), most of the time.... I'm not. Most of the hipsters who worship Lacan, Freud, or postmodernists don't really understand what's at stake when they insist that people are mostly unconscious, driven by instinct, desire, sadism, etc. That's more like psychoanalysts and professional psychologists themselves...what's more the psychology biz suits control freaks of about any stripe--whether corporate or socialist.
I still respect Popper for skewering Freud (and marxists)--that said, the late Freud changed his tune a bit, became a bit more "empirical"--Civ. and its Discontents reads nearly like social- anthropology--yet the essential message--ie humans are violent, territorial predators-- not too comforting or profound.
Yes. Recall the point had to do with this piece that Helm shared with the forum. This man, McPherson, was using New Criticism to argue:
ReplyDelete"If Eliot was a foot fetishist, if needn't transpire in the Waste Land"
I mean, what IS the limit? Helm is a liberal: he WILL bring any sort of brackground that will enrich (he thinks) his interpretation of "Waste Land".
---- In reseraching for this, I came a silly online thing on poems generated by computers. Surely a Freudian analysis is out of the question, since a computer is, ... metalic. But the author made the point that a poem generated by a computer still means. "Means-N", to be more precise!
At this point, Grice WAS confused about 'mean'. In English, you CAN say, "THOSE spots mean measles" -- and so if Freud is smoking a bit cigar it means he has a phallic fixation. This is '... is an indication of...': not that Freud purposively intends to communicate of his phallic fixation.
So, there is like a continuum of some of the cases of 'slips of the tongue', to innuendo, to double entendre, to malaprop, to IMPLICATURE!
What irritates me of Lacanians, or my aunt in particular, is that they go the whole hog to the id and ignore the ego. But see if I can have my aunt merely read the first page of Grice's "Personal Identity" ("British empiricist stuff -- they can't philosophise!" would be her open reply!).
naive Freudians make all sorts of claims (as with some cynics who said Freud's cigar was itself phallic). As do Lacanians, who tend (perhaps Auntie could correct me) to follow Freud's earlier ego psychology (with the semiotic jive). The writing of the later Freud seems different--not that I agree, but he's a bit anthropological. Philosophically CAID may not be much, but its a powerful piece of writing, given the time (between WWI and WWII). But I find psychoanalysis fundamentally anti-rational. I can't imagine continental philosophy types who respect say Kant or Hegel respecting Lacan or the rest..(they do apparently...Guru Zizek asserts somewhere that Lacan is Hegelian....quatsch)
ReplyDeleteI updated an older post on Freud and Civilization and its Discontents and Milgram you might find interesting (or boring)
Yes. My Auntie thinks (and says) that if you read Lacan, you´ve read them all: the servant-master dialectic, non-Euclidean geometries, and Bergson!
ReplyDeleteMy COUSIN, an archaeologist, loves Freud´s CAID. She believes in Tylor, and that culture is PRIMITIVE and thus that Freud is RIGHT, and taht civilisation, etc. --
On the other hand, my mother is a Jungian.
My father, an architect, is a Vitruvian.
No wonder I´m a Griceian. Will have a look at your update.