=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
The weak forum project..
Log In to post a reply
48 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
stray
stray
2057 posts

Edited Jan 21, 2009, 03:19
Re: Self-indulgence par excellence. Sorry.
Jan 21, 2009, 03:13
Nice, I get it and yes its pretty much the perfect answer to the part of my post you quoted. I still do twitch a bit when you make a distinction between fact and truth. But thats a point of definition though I imagine, as in, the observations made of an individual or a group are, even subjectively interpreted, a 'truth'. Is that correct.

I'd have figured Spinozas concept of being leads more comfortably into psychoanalysis (specifically what he said about active and passive emotions) than Descartes less malleable form of dualism. *shrug* anyroad... yeah... I get the rationale behind your quote. Kind of. Ha, you can understand my struggle there I'm sure.

Do you reference any modern philosophy or modern metaphysics at all. Erm.. Now, I'm not suggesting D&G who have quite a scathing commentary on psychoanalysis (much like Lyotard who hates Freud quite specifically) favouring Guattaris own schizoanalysis. But I dunno, I think theres a lot you could like in some of Baudrillard, Foucalt or even Derrida (if you can make it through a paragraph of Derrida without dropping dead). Derrida, to an extent sortof(ish), they all deal with social & cultural forms and pressures quite a bit, whereas Derrida focuses more on the erm.. grammar of thought.

Actually while he's uppermost in my conciousness at the moment I think a lot of Paul Virilios stuff (not a philosopher, erm, a cultural theorist really) especially 'War and Cinema' and 'The Information Bomb'. I'd have thought that he specifically would be your -go to guy- outside of your field. Edit : go to guy as in he'd be a damn good source for meat to argue against as much as support.

But yeah, I know how thesis work, and I know jumping outside of your field for any kind of validation is more than a little tricksy and can essentially weaken your work considerably.

Bottom line. I've always seen modern philosophy and modern social sciences borrowing heavily from each other.

As my own personal opinion goes, admittedly not worth much, I do not like psychoanalysis when employed on an individual. However, I have a lot less issues, in fact I'm quite excited, by the possibility of it being employed on groups actually as groups. If that makes sense. Hope so.
In reply to:
Self-indulgence par excellence. Sorry. (grufty jim)		 Replies:
Re: Self-indulgence par excellence. Sorry. (grufty jim)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index