[FRA:] (no subject)

[walter a davis]

Todd,
    I have some problems with this essay.  Some because I think I don't
understand the argument. 
First, how is your position different from Zizek's
(2) Isn't violence being used in 2 radically diffeerent ways in pgh. 3.
(3) But my main problem comes in right after you quote Boothby.  First I
think this position has problems--any position that posits drives does for
me, since for me all rises out of interpersonal experience and thus the
death "drive"--which is also central to my thought, is very different from
this one.
(4) Butr my main problem is whith the rest of this pgh. and the beginning of
the next.  This is fascinating stuff and new I think.  But also this needs
development badly.  In fact a whole essay of its own.  As I see it you make
about 5 leaps of thought.  All fascinating.  But leaps nonetheless.  You
need to take us slowly through this --esp. if the audience is non-lacanian.
Chomsky certainly is.  In fact there is no psyche in chomsky. 
 
In the last pgh on p. 3 a word is missing  after "in paying attention" --the
word is "to"
(5) The word embrace in your last sentence is a very loaded word and I'm not
sure it's the one you want. 
 
Are you on a word limit for this essay.  If not I'd suggest a major
expansion of the stuff noted in 3 and 4 above.
best,
mac 
 
walter a. davis
Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University
www.walteradavis.com <http://www.walteradavis.com/>