[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Thanks for this. I'm still don't think I get it.

I've got essays to write, and can't put my mind to this right now. I might come back to you with more questions later.

i'll attempt translation.

the first part means that we can't see ourselves as ourselves, but only through other people's eyes. in other words (jung said it before lacan i believe) the ego is not the self. but lacan doesn't talk in those terms-- lacan likes to be incomprehensible (i've tried reading the bastard-- headaches).

the second part i don't understand well, it's still abstruse, but i'll try: descartes proofs of existence crap out once we recognize that the "i" in "i think therefore i am" (that's descartes proof of existence) is not a real i but a representation of one so... *something something*

anyway, only the french still argued with descartes in the xx century. descartes supposedly denied empirical truths (empiricism) with his rationalism, so.... destroying his argument would bring back empirical truth. but only partially because....? i don't get. this somehow ends up feeding postructuralist notions.

fuck, i should post notes when i reedit shit, or maybe i should write on a separate thing & post when finished, but i'm posting this between emails & work calls-- sorry.

ok, no more edits to this post-- consider it finished, warts & all.