“ We need to make the things simple but not simpler.” Einstein
Dear Mojtaba: I read Amir Pouyan's article and had read pervious one on Luce Irigaray and the one in Sharghmagazine.
First time when I heard about Alan Socal’s trick was at the following address
http://think.iran-emrooz.de/more.php?id=955_0_12_0_M
Second time I read it in Martin Gardner’s book “ Did Adam and Eve Have Navels” In first article, Alan Socal had repeatedly admitted that he is not a competent person in certain subject such as psychoanalysis. This article was translated by Ali-Mohammd Taba tabaei which some of them does not make sense at all, for example according to this translation Alan Socal had said that: I do not understand the differences between “Jouissance “(a Lacanian term) and: differences” There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Taba tabei had made a big mistake--- as he usually does—because people may find hard to understand the differences between common English term “ pleasure “ and French term “ Jouissance “ and not between “ difference” and “ Jouissance” In dou term hatta ba yeh man serish be ham ne mi chasbeh
First :To best of my knowledge he wanted to make fun of certain media and their editors, and that does not mean that all so-called “ post modernists “ are that stupid. J. Bricmont is a physicist at Louvain University in Belgium and if they would have sent their book and article to its Lacanian psychoanalyst in the campus, they will got their sweet answer. After all Louvain have the best Lacanian psychoanalysts. People like Alphonse De Waelhens, Wilfred Ver Eecke, Paul Verhaeghe, Philippe Van Haute and other are giants that would swallow them up. Second putting Lacan and people like Luce Irigaray in the same basket and calling them both post modernists is totally wrong. Lacan first of all is a Freudian and his style looks more like Zen Buddhism and he is more look like a Zen master. His ideas have nothing in common with most of these days post modernist thinkers. He deals with structure of unconscious and according to him, it’s content is nothing but a linguistic discourse. The core of his theory is based on scientific linguistics of both de Saussure and Roman Jakobson. Alan Socal is a physicist and not a linguist and no wonder he does not understand Lacan. Unlike some postmodern thinkers, which in my opinion have nothing to say but playing word games and their ideas do not have too much application, Lacan’s four fundamental concepts, unconscious, repetition, the transference and the drive are the most apparent phenomenon in the science of mind. Lacan uses certain mathematical formula which he calls them “ matheme “---- by analogy with the term “ mytheme “ coined by Claude-Levi –Strauss. ---- To make them unchanged in translation. “They are constructed to resist any attempt to reduce them to one univocal signification and to prevent the reader from an intuitive or imaginary understand of psychoanalytic concepts: the mathemes are not to be understood but to be used.”
Lacan was very well aware that how some of key concepts of Freud were mistranslated and he gives the example of word “ Trieb “ which was translated by James Strachey as instinct and not as drive (pulsion) There is a big differences between drive and instinct. Instincts are pre wired fixed and biological and applies only to animals and drives applies to human. Lacan wanted certain concepts to be understood universally the way the mathematical and physical formula can be understood across the world, without confusion. He did these with the help of a mathematician friend and mostly was in topology and is around ten in total. Instead of writing signifier over the signified he designate them with “ S” and “ s” and writes their relation S/ s . What is wrong with this?
Richard Dawkins have jumped to bandwagon to attack the things that he just does not understand. I admire Dawkins 1: for his enormous effort in popularizing science 2: His firm stand against anti male, anti science radical feminists 3: His stand in pushing back the creationist theory of evolution but I do not appreciate his dogmatism. Unlike the Sharghmagazine's article Richard Dawkins is not one of the best in biology field and as a matter of fact his ideas are all but dead. --- He is a Neo Darwinist and believes that evolution had happened by gene mutation. He opposes to professor Lynn Margulis--- in my opinion the best accurate scientific evolutionary theory of these days-- --- poetic and beautiful “ symbiosis” theory--- Symbiosis means prolonged physical association between two or more “ differently names” organisms, generally from two or more different specious. --- Lynn Margulis and other symbiosisist do not deny the fact that the single gene mutation had contributed to evolution but they do not consider it the main factor. According to Symbiosis theory the Eukaryotic cells, common in human and other high organized species --- have evolved by cell acquiring the entire sets of genes from totally different species, bacteria. For example they say that male sperm’s tail once was a free-living bacterium called spirochetes, which is fast swimming and propels itself. That make sense even in today’s manufacturing we see that for example Boeing does not make every part of its aircrafts, they buy pre made parts by other manufacturer – that are specialized at certain part—and put them together to make a Boeing 747. To best of my knowledge Richard Dawkins have not responded to this theory even once, also Lynn Margulis have written more than 7 books in the subject. Dawkins sustain his Neo Darwinism theory the way the doctors sustain a crack baby’s --- a baby borne to a crack addict mother--- life by attaching hundred of electrode into his body and monitoring it round the clock. I do not blame Dawkins, he is fanatic scientist, which have invested a lot into this field and cannot accept to file a bankruptcy.
His attack on anti scientists feminists such as Luce Irigaray and Sandra Harding and other mentally derailed radical feminist--- you read lesbians--- are wonderful. According Irigaray and Helen Cixous, the language in patriarchal culture originate with man, who locates himself a discursive subject and positive reference point of thought. According to these feminists science is also patriarchal and must be changed. While these morons are chasing wild goose and lecturing in worm, well paid universities, trying to” free women from male dominate societies “, every minute thousands of women join to stripe tease clubs, prostitution rings or call girl service.
Irigaray’ problem with Phallus and Dawkins problem with Unconscious:
In my opinion Irigaray is barking at wrong tree. She and others accuses Lacan to be a phallocentrist and male chauvinist. One after the other, Lacan had emphasized that Phallus is not the same as penis. According to Lacan phallus is a privileged master signifier and can only be defined in linguistic discourse and not as a male sex organ. Lacan says every body want to have the phallus but no body can have it. Irigaray think that the phallus is the column of the patriarchy and if she gets rid of it, she could demolish the patriarchal system. She is chasing a wild goose.
Richard Dawkins in other hand---most probably, as some of his colleagues--- does not believe in unconscious. He and some other scientists believe in solid evidence and for them unconscious do not make sense. I am not sure what will they say to a psychosis when he says he is hearing voices. Most probably they will try to look for a “ noisy gene” I call these people WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get), so if they cannot grasp unconscious it must not exist.
Professor Gerald Edelman, a Neuroscientist and Noble prizewinner in his book “ Bright Air, Brilliant Fire “ mentions a discussion with Jacques Monod, French molecular biologist and also a Noble prizewinner.
According to Edelman, Monod had said that Freud was unscientific and quite possible a charlatan. Monod had said, “ I am entirely aware of my motives and entirely responsible for my actions. They are all conscious.” In exasperation, I once said, “ Jacques let’s put it this way. Everything Freud said applies to me and none of it to you.” He replied “ Exactly my dear fellow.”
Jacques Monod a great scientist was sort of ignorant on the subject that was out of his own field.
Note 1: as usual there are some mistakes in this article in Sharghmagazine. For example it says Cambridge University wanted to grant an honorary degree to Derrida. It is not true. On 21 March 1992, senior members of the University of Cambridge gathered to decide its annual awards. Derrida’s name was in the list and four of the dons declared non placet (not contented) they were Dr. Henry Erskine, Ian Lack, David Hugh Mello and Raymond Ian Page. They saw Derrida’s thinking as deeply improper, offensive and subversive so Derrida was not granted the degree. Sharghmagazine unfortunately runs like a rabbit before
Note 2: Ali Mohammed Taba tabaei, himself does not believe in unconscious and always translates from those that share his ideas. Most of these people are ardent believers in free will and in USA mostly are right wing religious people.
