reminiscence 3

reminiscence 3
Histeria and Paranoia II
Earl Jackson, Jr.
Spring 1997


Reminiscences

[This student, Argos here, had planned to write a senior thesis on Jack Kerouac, but was not getting anywhere with it, and was seeming „stuck“ in the seminar as well. He responded to the Harvey Forman posting immediately.]

Date: Sun, May 7, 1995 6:02 PM PDT
From: Argos@cats.ucsc.edu (Argos Metonyn)
Subj: idea ego
To: Earl JACKSON JR.

Although I haven’t read very much Derrida or Lacan, Harvey Forman’s discussion of both, along with the attached literary interpretation(was the book cited JACOBS ROOM by Virginia Woolf?)please don’t answer) made me hark back to Laplanche’s description and delineation between the METYNOMICAL and METAPHORICAL conceptions of the ego and the necessity for an integration or awareness of the two as being parts; what I am trying to say is there are consequences in moying from the metynomical model of the ego to the metaphorical and that the eventual structure of Laplanche’s description of the ego in Ch.3 of LIFE AND DEATH IN PSYCHOANALYSIS seems to hold components similar to the information Harvey posited and that I am subsequently pilfering in order to do my homework and disseminate an opinion I can only say is mine on the keyboard at this moment(which moment?).

Laplanche’s metynomical model of the ego is an effort to describe the ego in terms of ‚economic‘ continuity in de-sexualized drives. the ego establishes its energy as self preservation, this is a propping similar to the ‚propping‘ of sexual drives on the SP drives, but instead of desire, the ego libido is intinct and concerned with inhibiting processes. It seems like Lacan, when he speaks of „I“ and it’s relation to the person who wrote it or said it is describing the propping of the ego unto SP constructions, but thats the problem with the METYNOMICAL model and the one which Lacan seemed to have to deal with: if the ego libido functions and acts like the SP functions how can anyone tell the difference?

In other words, where are the grounds for the discussion? Lacan, it seemed from what harvey said, grounds his „I“ by turning it away from the depths of instinct and says that instead of trying to find some „I“ that can always represent the „I“ expressed, the „I“ expressed can stay strictly a specific „I“ linked to all the other „I“’s by methods of IDENTIFICATION.

The move from this to a METAPHORICAL ego by Laplanche is where I think Derrida comes in because, although Lacan produces the means to look at the „I“ not as a whole but as many component time/spacial relations, there still lacks the means to address unity through identification and the whole as made up of differences. Harvey brings in religion to illustrate a ground to discuss this, and does a similar thing with the literary citation. The FUNCTION and the IDEA are separable and both need to be addressed, while taking into account their inseparability, to do this the term ‚experience’offers a possible node of intersection, but only if it is viewed as an interpretation of an event that is ripe and forever ripe to be re-interpreted(the real fruit of know/ledge(fell of with a carmel apple in my hand))

The Woolf quote demonstrated this because first it showed the divorce of the „I“ as „voices“ and then the means in which the novel allowed these „I“s or „voices“ to gain a ground for signification outside the characters speaking the word(s)(in the sounds of the novel), but most importantly, this new ground for the voices leaves room for new meanings for the characters as well as the reader(buried six feet under).

This is the IDEA in the metaphorical ego of Harvey’s (our) text it’s function is to give a concrete example within the text which makes it’s FUNCTION a FUNCTION and this brings it all back to that circular pattern similar to the simple METYNOMIC ego, but since i have now done a little nodal surfing over the event of the text myself, I can say that a study on the Paranoiac structures in Burroughs‘ NOVA EXPRESS could be lined up in a similar manner; implications of deconstruction by keeping the function infused with multiple ideas Woolf’s „sound“ is Burroughs’sublime CHAOS what happens when instead of re-grounding or re-associating that possibilty is foreclosed, what are the other productions of meaning available? feeling warm and happy inside but going to go eat dinner, see ya,


Argos.


Date: Sun, May 7, 1995 6:25 PM PDT
From: EarlJac

Subj: Re: idea ego
To: Argos@cats.ucsc.edu

God, Argos – u are really cooking with gas now! this is quite the ticket I think. Have decided officially to go with Burroughs instead of Kerouac, or mix and match, etc.? If Burroughs, u may want to look at Junkie and/or my personal favorite (although that’s more about me than u) – Wild Boys and in particular the chapter called *The Frisco Kid* -. talk to u soon. earl


NEXT!