Myths aside -- I don't think that one can get at the reality by tracing back the myth, at least not directly -- aren't answers to what changed and what didn't change in the transition from pre-literate consciousness to our own the key to a lot of what we're discussing here?

WT, Lacan would say that the myth, or the structure of the myth, is exactly where you should go to get at the reality. Of course, were he alive, he would say it in a fairly cryptic way, in French, and would add at the end an insult wrapped around a pun that nobody would get.

In the interest of furthering this discussion … assuming there’s interest … I’d ask, what connections are you assuming/concluding between kinship and literacy and/or pre-literacy? Could you clarify?

I tried to read Levi-Strauss, but it just didn't work for me. Whenever anyone says anything is "structured like a language" my bullshit detector goes off. (even Lacan).

Rowan, the cure for that is more Lacan. :>

Seriously, Lacan is not a thinker you get much out of without a great deal of commitment, but if you’re willing to dig in and see what he’s about … really dig in … then there are tremendous rewards. Levi Strauss had a good bit of influence on Lacan so reading even the pre-digested (pun intended) version of LS’s key works is helpful, but since you aren’t aiming to become a Lacan scholar I’d say the more pleasurable route would be through more Barthes then to Julia Kristeva’s early books (Tales of Love would be a good choice, Strangers to Ourselves would be most relevant to your other interests, also Powers of Horror, probably most relevant to bridging the gap between Barthes and Lacan). Kristeva was a part of the Tel Quel group, a student of Jacobsen and then Barthes, and then finally did her analyst training with Lacan.

Lacan never took off in the US, partially because he demands too much attention (and we hate that shit … just dumb it down for me, wouldja? Got a PowerPoint for that?), partially because he was identified falsely with fellow travelers that weren;t very appealing, and partly because the available translations were poor. The latter has been resolved by new English trans by Bruce Fink, who has also produced some very good reading guides to go along.

Slavoj Zizek has also written a lot of clever and entertaining stuff about Lacan. Plus, he seems to put out a new book about every 20 minutes, so you have a lot of choices. My recommendation would be 'Looking Awry', especially if you're a Hitchcock fan.

mean, right now, I have a woman in the right hand column wearing very little except a grin and a pair of brightly coloured panties, on the left I have "learn biblical hebrew", and underneath I have something about "moments of guilt."

Barthes would have had a field day with that, wouldn’t he?

Great post by Glenn, column by Galloway, and subsequent thread. Since we've largely moved along, a couple quick notes:

1. I'm pretty sure Van Riper was retired in 2002, so no need to worry about retaliation. The guy was a professional pain the ass in the Marines, but very no-BS. The game organizers had to know what was coming when they invited him to 'blue'.

2. The ironic thing about this is that the gamers were pissed when Van Riper did exactly the kind of adaptive and flexible thing that the whole 'network-centric' force is supposed to be able to do, after all the billions. Never mind the enemy!

Good point. There's always more than one 'game' going on, isn't there ... all presented to us as one valiant, unified and purposeful war effort. The 'drivers' on our side are way out of synch with what they'd need to be to adapt, prevail, or even keep up ...

Gates has been making a tour where he says (from his institutional perspective, anyway) much the same thing. The other day, it was 'forget the future weapons systems and focus on now'; today, he builds on that to hammer the industrial side of the house:

http://tinyurl.com/44qnzt

David Brooks has a column today with an couple of interesting quotes from Obama:

“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”

Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html

Pedinska: It's the intensity of the interest in patriotic floss that matters, not its ... uhhh, breadth. Think you're okay on that ... uhhh, front. :>

For my part, I vote for lots of little flags hanging off, but only if you can arrange for wind.

Arne: Allow me to add my congratulations to the stack. We'll be looking forward to those fishpix! But wow, that was a cruel thing to do to a stressed bride-to-be ... at least she knows what she's getting into, right? :>

But you'll have to fight with Jebbie over who gets to pull my finger.

Jebbie, I think I owe you one, so you go ahead. No, really ... :>

Better not google "Theo Van Gogh", then ...

I'm also reminded of Austin Powers' father's memorable speech in 'Goldmember'-

"Two things in the world I can't stand: People who are insensitive to other people's cultures ... and the Dutch."

:>