Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[John_Lit] Re:Johannine Christology again

Expand Messages
  • John M. Noble
    ... Thanks for your posting. I m still not clear on the relation of Lacan to the Christology of 4G. I d like to point out a book Impostures intellectuelles
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 16, 2004
      Joseph C Goodson wrote in response to somebody else:

      >I was, and I am interested in turning my attention to your reading of John.
      >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.

      Thanks for your posting. I'm still not clear on
      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 physically
      or sensibly perceived -- the signifier is itself an effect.

      All the best,

      John M. Noble
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.