Re: fort - da: an appropriation
craig king (ck31@ukc.ac.uk)
Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:09:34 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: <AntiUtopia@aol.com>
To: <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: fort - da: an appropriation
> In a message dated 10/18/99 9:58:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> marksheely@yahoo.com writes:
>
> << And I can already envision some smart-aleck ready to
> hit the reply button and write, "Sure, I'm bilingual;
> I speak American and Canadian."
>
> --Mark
> >>
>
> Dang it...
>
> Ok, since I Can't Say That, I'll say that maybe the only "different kinds
of
> thought" that exist are linguistic thought and non-linguistic thought.
From
> what I've heard the most recent research on the brain makes the idea of
the
> "subconscious" look like a fairy tale.
>
> But, of course, the fact that the field of science devoted to the study of
> the human mind abandoned psychoanalytic theory long ago doesn't keep our
> literary critics from keeping it well alive :)
>
> Jim
i know psychoanalysis always considered itself a science of sorts but now
that it has been satisfyingly abandoned i like to think of j.g.ballard's
comment that freud was one of the great novelists of our time. it may have
tried to convince everyone and his neighbour that they were beasts at heart
(or whichever organ you wish to choose) but in a weird way it did seem to
earth people's conceptions of themselves out of idealised Victorian
sentiment and into this odd century of ours. it just lasted too long. and
continues to. so there's an unintentional upside there. as for the critics,
where would the poor old dears be without their systems to dominate their
texts?
the librarian is at my window waving a gun and an overdue slip so i must go
hide under the bed,
craig