I feel hot to type tonight.

[mikebailey at speakeasy.net]

Glenn Scheper:

> Jameson Who?
>

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm
or, http://www.jameson.ie/  (-;

>
> So what do I hear? An humanist, a Cartesian doubter. Has no special gnostic
> insight into our concurrent and joy/awful structured world of God-Immanent.
> Reminds me of Isaiah: It shall be to them line upon line, precept upon precept
> .... that they might fall backward and be snared! That's so-called science.

wait, but you like Lacan, don't you?  a-and doesn't he
doubt Descartes -- "rejects the Cartesian I"

-- oh, but you must mean, by "Cartesian doubter", 
a "doubter after the manner of Descartes" 

Have had the time to read a few pages of
"Lacan and the Matter of Origins" mentioning
this rejection of the Cartesian "I" -- this separation
of the "I" which thinks from the rest of the world...

so far, so good -- but why does he feel the
need to follow Freud in pinning such huge
significance on the fear of castration?  I don't
remember ever having any concern on that score...
Was childrearing that different in his generation?
("clean your room and eat your porridge, little Jacques, 
or I am going to cut off your 'Pierre'")

Even if it is an important factor in consciousness 
(maybe I'm repressing) -- is it really more important
than those other factors - weaning and birth trauma,
which make a lot more sense imho - mentioned in his 1938 paper?
Or was he just sucking up to Freud and engaging in
infighting with Ferenczi and Melanie Klein?


Perhaps this is just something where one wants to
suspend disbelief, a pons asinorum to traverse before
getting to the good stuff: the seminars
where he sets to work on literary works and engages
in wordplay & so forth? 

But anyway, if Jameson doesn't set aside much 
consideration for "sacred" as opposed to "profane"
in his Marxist concern with social consciousness
(and consciousness as a social function) 
could it be said that the _lack_ of distinguishment
of sacrality is at least a bit compatible with 
an immanent creator?  ie, it's all sacred - or
at least, he's not saying it's not all sacred...


--- Glenn, there is always more in your posts than
I can comment on!  Rock on!