Read other letters about this article

• Friday, May 16, 2008 01:10 PM

  @WT

  Yeah, I'm trying to tread carefully on the OT part of this; our momentary frolics are one thing, but all this meaty stuff that tends to swell as it goes along ... well, we ought to find a more suitable venue to take up that discussion.

  I'll say this, though:

  So yes, kinship wasn't something described in language, it was a language, and it could be read by those who lived it.

  I agree, and this is where Lacan would be beneficial, since the dynamic viewed within that framework tracks systems-of-meaning, of which kinship and social relations are constitutive, not the other way around ... i.e. the 'common sense' way we look at language as being something objective we merely spill out of our mouths. Mircea Eliade comes to mind, too. Others, natch. Ain't no royal road, as they say.

  But we're already on the edge of the tar pits here ...

  Underneath our language, remnants of it undoubtedly remain, and in my opinion, motivate -- if only we knew how -- much of the emotional confusion which crops up whenever we attempt to discuss or regulate it.

  Agree here, too ... though I would argue with you about how much of it is 'underneath' any language that is a thing separate from that-which-is-under, if we were to wade out into it. Having a more satisfying way of understanding the eruptions, either for practical reasons or just to understand, would be great.

  The 'how', to me, isn't so much a mystery as a case of overdetermination; we've got a fistful of explanations, many of which fit the bill for any particular eruption (such as this one) for a specific group of people, but since we're talking about human beings, we can't say for sure what's operating on which group, when.

  Maybe when they develop the 'phenomenological MRI' ... :>

  —quickstrategy Read quickstrategy's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel