remarks to other voices Psychosis in a Cyberspace Age


to the foucault list-

I am sending a mail, I sent to Sheila Kunkle because it is foucault
her essay is

Psychosis in a Cyberspace Age

> Dear Sheila Kunkle, author of Psychosis in a Cyberspace Age
> I just got finished reading your essay and would like to say that
> enjoyed it very much. A few days ago I submitted an essay to Other
> Voices (
> ) and
> thought I should read and article and see what the style is like. It
> seemed to me that your essay was in part an exploration of mental
> illness in mass culture, a very fruitful area of discussion. In an
> essay of mine I was also trying to get at this idea of legitimization
> of hegemonies in mass discourse, in and our popular sciences as a
> whole. I must give in that I have not read Lacan as I have Nietzsche,
> Foucault, and Arendt, but
> I felt a certain privileging of Lacan´s psychoanalytic approach to
> hollywood texts or media events such as Timothy Leary and Heavens Gate
> people somewhat limited. Because just about all Hollywood screen
> writers play to some form of popular psychoanalysis, not
> necessarily Lacanian, writing very heavy psychological subtexts, so
> that we who are ´all in the know´ can properly interpret such and a
> drive, or a given pathological behavior or trait as if we were petty
> psychologists ourselves. In short what I am trying to say- - or the
> point I am trying to make is that using Lacanian psychoanalytic
> theory to interpret Hollywood texts, or scientology offshoots is in
> someway like trying to fill a mirror with context by holding an empty
> mirror up to it. And maybe this is the strength of Foucault´s argument
> in The Order of Things, although psychology- incidentally
> anthropology, are special science in that it allows a rethinking of
> the subconscious, it is still a humanist science serving an integral
> part in the modern configuration of knowledge. To come at your objects
> maybe we need some other approach, something out-side the modern
> knowledge configuration, , which could only be classical, renaissance,
> or the theorized post-modern episteme. i don´t mean to say that I did
> not find your essay well argued and compelling. rather I would like to
> convey a sense of how someone influenced by Foucault approaches your
> essay and perhaps in this way we can become clearer about the
> differences between Lacanian and Foucaultian theory.

Jeremiah Luna

Partial thread listing: