[John_Lit] Re:Johannine Christology again
- Joseph C Goodson wrote in response to somebody else:
>I was, and I am interested in turning my attention to your reading of John.Thanks for your posting. I'm still not clear on
>In "The Frame of Reference: Poe, Lacan, Derrida," Barbara Johnson becomes
>reader to the reading of Derrida's, which is of Lacan's, which is of Poe's
>_The Purloined Letter_(see endnote.) Lacan understands the letter in Poe's
>text as an *allegory of the signifier,* while Derrida emphasizes that such
>an allegory is itself
>a text within Lacan and as such subject to the same vicissitudes of
>language. Derrida reads Lacan's text which read both Poe *and* Lacan,
>inasmuch as the Lacan himself cannot completely sustain
>the "letter" as the signified (= allegory = the meaning of the text.)
>Where is the (christological) signified in your reading of Johannine
>christology? The problem of witness, as you have oft remarked (and revealed)
>in John is a problem and phenomenon of READING. Witness is not observation,
>less is it simply "presence." Like the letter read
>by Derrida and Lacan in Poe, the signifier is *not* materially or physically
>or sensibly perceived -- the signifier is itself an effect, part of the
>system of differences in which each part refers
>to the other in the system.
the relation of Lacan to the Christology of 4G.
I'd like to point out a book 'Impostures
intellectuelles' by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
(Editions Odile Jacob) published 1997 ISBN
2-7381-0503-3 which deals rather thoroughly with
Lacan's concept of 'signifier'.
Lacan, in 1971 'Subversion du sujet et
dialectique du desir dans l'inconsistent
freudien' found in 'Ecrits 2' Paris, Editions du
Seuil, pp181-185 writes concerning the square
root of -1.
On p 181 he presents the following equation:
S(signifiant)/s(signifie) = s(l'enonce)
avec S = -1 on a s = root(-1) .......
and his logical conclusion found on p 185
'C'est ainsi que l'organe erectile vient a
symboliser la place de la jouissance, non pas en
tant que lui-meme, ni meme en tant qu'image, mais
en tant que partie manquante a l'image desiree:
c'est pourquoi il e egalable au root(-1) de la
signification plus haut produite, de la
jouissance qu'il restitue par le coefficient de
son enonce a la fonction de manque de signifiant:
Bricmont and Sokal in their book p 32 comment:
'La, nous reconnaissons qu'il est preoccupant de
voir notre organe erectile identifie a root(-1).
Cela nous fait penser a Woody Allen qui, dans
Woody et les robots, s'oppose a une
transplantation cranienne: 'Vous ne pouvez pas
toucher a mon cerveau, c'est mon deuxieme organe
I'm not translating this!
With apologies to the moderators, this example
has, of course, nothing to do with Johannine
literature; I simply want to point out to the
uninformed lister what Lacan understands by the
term 'signifier', to elucidate the statement
> the signifier is *not* materially or physicallyor sensibly perceived -- the signifier is itself an effect.
All the best,
John M. Noble