View Single Post
Old 04-04-2004, 08:53 AM   #37 (permalink)
CSflim
Sky Piercer
 
CSflim's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
How would you define philosophy, gpws?
The exact opposite of this:

Quote:
Personally, I will begin with what is articulated in the sigla S(ø) by being first of all a signifier...
And since the battery of signifiers, as such, is by that very fact complete, this signifier can only be a line [trait] that is drawn from its circle without being able to be counted part of it. It can be symbolized by the inherence of a (-1) in the whole set of signifiers.
As such as it is inexpressible, but its operation is not inexpressible, for it is that which is produced whenever a proper noun is spoken. Its statement equals its signification.
Thus, by calculating that signification according to the algebraic method used here, namely:

S(signifier)/s(signified) = s(the statement)

with S=(-1), produces s = Sqrt(-1)

-Jacques Lacan
Quote:
No doubt Claude Levi-Strauss, in his commentary on Mauss, wished to recognize in it the effect of a zero symbol. But it seems to me that what we are dealing with here is rather the signifier of the lack of this zero symbol. That is why, at the risk of incurring a certain amount of opprobrium, I have indicated to what point I have pushed the distortion of the mathematical algorithm in my use of it: the symbol Sqrt(-1), which is still written as 'i' in the theory of complex numbers, is obviously justified only because it makes no claim to any automatism in its later use.

...

Thus the erectile organ comes to symbolize the place of jouissance, not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image: that is why it is equivalent to the Sqrt(-1) of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
-Jacques Lacan
The words "philosophy" and "speaking out of one's arse" are not actually synonymous, despite what some people seem to believe. Or maybe Lacan is actually be incredibly profound here, and I "just don't get it"

Check out the side-splittingly funny Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Alan Sokal (one of the authors of Intellectual Impostures/Fashionable Nonsense) which was published in all seriousness by the highly pretentious "philosophical" journal Social Text, for a wonderful paradoy of this sort of nonsense, absolutely full of completely genuine quotes from various "philosophers".
__________________

Last edited by CSflim; 04-04-2004 at 09:23 AM..
CSflim is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360