SCREEN-L Archives

February 1994


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Dirk Eitzen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 1 Feb 1994 08:22:27 -0500
text/plain (26 lines)
>2)Why shoul any one believe that the message, the sender and the reciever
>are three indipendant beings? Why should we remain in an already vitiated
>communications paradigm?
You just being dramatic, Louis?  If not, your high horse is showing.
a) Who said anything about a message being a "being"?
b) You wish to deny that you and I (the receiver and sender of this
message) are separate beings?  Or are you one of those folks who insist
that you are no more than a product of your culture--a sign, if you will?
If so, what do you do about that bundle of cells you call a body?
>3)Its not only Fred Crews who thinks that psychoanalysis is not
>"testable," their are also us folks who think that it is not a positivism,
>that it takes place in the register of the experience rather than that of
>the experiment.
I don't think so.  Phenomenology and cognitive science are interested in
the register of experience.  For psychoanalysis, experience is not to be
taken at face value.  It is no more (or no less, if you wish) than the
symptom of unconscious (unexperienced and unexperiencable) forces.  It is
doubly removed from the realm of the empirical.
And who are you calling a positivist?  Are there any positivists on this
list?  I sort of doubt it.