Re: Structure of unconscious

Andrew wrote:

>Actually my original
>question was to do with the unconscious as a structure (albeit
>metaphysical)

Andrew, what's your working notion of metaphysical?  (Usually have no idea
what people are talking about when using this term, is it Heidegger, or
Kant, or . . . but I'm sure that these two are different notions than what
you would like. Yes?)

So, why then, would they use
>such a controversial construct as the unconscious and "deconstruct" and
>dispense with the bulk of the psychoanalytic take on it without questioning
>the utility/viability of the entire structure itself. It's as if they opened
>a black box and threw out some contents, and inserted some of their own
>ideas without seeing if the box itself were necessary.

My guess as to the importance of the unconconscious, is just that it is
un-conscious.  They (dag) are dealing with the unthought which allows
thought to be thought, or the unconscious conditions of the conscious.  As
to the need for some structure, transitory and changing as it is in
Deleuze, and Guattari, well that's the nature of consciousness to impose
some sort of form on things and the best we can do is to stay relatively
mobile, or nomadic. Or perhaps this is all off the (beaten) track.


hypatia



     ------------------