tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post7147076454087141495..comments2024-03-29T01:07:30.224-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Who Was Jacques Lacan?Stuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-10246553951952809092015-06-07T16:33:36.963-07:002015-06-07T16:33:36.963-07:00re: The leaders of today's international Lacan...re: The leaders of today's international Lacanian cult--which I have called the Wholly Freudian Church--tell their adherents what to think, when to think it and with whom they can discuss it.<br /><br />I also know nothing about Lacan outside of this blog. I am always curious about censorship, i.e. those who openly defend it. What is at risk?<br /><br />Of course Stuart himself has many-a-time something on the order of "saying what one things and feels" as a socially destructive indulgence. So there must be some reason for promoting commonality before tearing things down, unless you only want to tear everything down, which perhaps what Lacan's followers deserve?<br /><br />A while ago I came upon the history of Ben Franklin's "Janto club" and his interesting membership swearing in questions. Consider this was started when he was 22 years old, and a full 48 years before the revolutionary war.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto_(club)<br />-----------<br />The Junto was a club for mutual improvement established in 1727 by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia. <br /><br />Any person to be qualified as a member was to stand up, lay his hand upon his chest, over his heart, and be asked the following questions, viz.<br /><br />1.Have you any particular disrespect to any present members? <br /> Answer. I have not.<br /><br />2.Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? <br /> Answer. I do.<br /><br />3.Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? <br /> Answer. No.<br /><br />4.Do you love truth for truth's sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? <br /> Answer. Yes.<br />---------<br /><br />Might it be censorship to require these oaths from members? Was Franklin the first American "pluralist"? And freedom of speech, at least within the privacy of a self-selected group that won't use what you say against you outside the group.<br /><br />I suppose there's an idea of "freedom of speech" within a certain context. So maybe giving a sermon at a church to tell the flock that their religion is false is a bad idea, and you'll get run out of town.<br /><br />But if you offer to give a private speech among those willing to hear it, and follow with an open and honest reply to your charges within that private sphere, I'd hope any "progressive" religion would be very open to that, even if its not a real religion.<br /><br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-17435487369129795162015-06-07T13:07:08.639-07:002015-06-07T13:07:08.639-07:00"... [Wolters] goes on to say that we ought t..."... [Wolters] goes on to say that we ought to ignore the behavior of these people and concentrate on their ideas."<br /><br />Ideas have consequences. I'm uncomfortable separating people from their ideas if they advocate them regardless of consequences or, at very least, do not acknowledge the consequences and seek to reconcile them. If you are an intellectual, and you do not publicly denounce those who do harm using your ideas, I would say you're the worst kind of intellectual -- perhaps evil, as there is no moral standard for your work. Heidegger seems to fit the profile. Perhaps Lacan, too, but I must claim I know little about him. If his work is as impenetrable as I've been advised, I have a large stack of other reading and will dedicate my time to those pursuits. That, and in my experience, writers who are not clear usually have something to hide... or are too lazy to edit. In either case, there is usually contempt for the reader, and a similar contempt becomes a sort of birthright for the author's acolytes who spit on the rest of the human rabble who "don't get it." Self-reverentially elitist and cut off from the humanity they claim to float above.<br /><br />Creating a carte blanche exemption from consequence for the professed intellectual is dangerous. It's like someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and claiming he enjoys freedom of speech. With that kind of standard, people should also be given the liberty to beat the living piss out of him and leave him curbside. If there be no consequences for the yeller, there ought not be consequences for those aggrieved, shaken, injured or dead who seek vengeance for his actions. Some might say this is uncivilized, but civilization does not give people absolute right to do whatever the hell they want. Civilization is an order that brings order. It is the mind integrated with the body. It's not just theory (the mind) and not just physical impact (the body), it's both. Like "Caitlyn" Jenner, the mind that hates its body is deeply disturbed. <br /><br />C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle depict evil as a body separated from the mind, and I find this accurate. It certainly seems to be that way with Heidegger. Do we separate Goebbels from his propaganda work? His certainly had intellectual components that animated a philosophy to enable mass murder. Does he get a free ride? A self--administered cyanide capsule decided that, but you get my drift. Once again, a mind separated from the body.<br /><br />Stuart, your comments at the end about your invitation to speak on Lacan are instructive. If we want to evaluate ideas for their truth and utility, fine. That means we will be subject to defending those ideas. But sharing ideas while simultaneously demanding that no one contest them is dishonest. In fact, one could say such non-thinking is the foundation of mob psychology or mob rule. Philosophy is not religion or spirituality seeking to connect with the cosmological realm beyond and it's supernatural impact. If people are claiming the same protections of a man and his ideas, it is a cult. It is self-referential. It is one's mind separated from the body of humanity.<br /><br />This is philosophy, and philosophy is subject to questioning, as it certainly begins with questions. If the efficacy of these ideas is left wanting, the ideas naturally expire. But if their efficacy (in terms of consequence) is their stamp on the world, and it is positive, what is the need to conceal? Certainly one who makes himself vulnerable posits that he has nothing to defend. Yet hiding from questions as a strategy to thrive is to encourage ignorance in others, which philosophy seeks to combat. One cannot have it both ways unless one is a cult leader, deliberately seeking to insulate himself from challenge, which is sounds like Lacan was. Hardly a hero. A hero faces the dragon, even if it is himself. <br /><br />I have several colleagues who are quite enamored with Heidegger. Sad.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-87056654640561621812015-06-07T13:00:35.922-07:002015-06-07T13:00:35.922-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.com