William James the Lacanian

From Psychology: The Briefer Course, chapter 2:

The first and foremost concrete fact which everyone will affirm to belong to his inner experience is the fact that consciousness of some sort goes on. “States of mind” succeed each other in him. If we could say in English “it thinks” as we say “it rains” or “it blows,” we should be stating the fact most simply and with the minimum of assumption.

About these ads

33 Responses to “William James the Lacanian”

  1. terenceblake Says:

    I think you mean LACAN:the bricoleur plagiarist. As not only James, but Nietzsche and Groddeck would concur.

  2. Adam Kotsko Says:

    I didn’t realize Lacan would’ve been reading William James.

  3. terenceblake Says:

    He read Bergson. And he read snippets of everything.

  4. terenceblake Says:

    When I first arrived in France in 1980 le MAGAZINE LITTERAIRE had a special number on Lacan. There was one article on the pseudo-scholarship and bricolage that composed his texts, i am just plagiarising from that. I think that the “It thinks” is a bad place to start if you want to attribute any originality to Lacan, or to consider it so “signed Lacan” that you are willing to consider retrospective inversions of influence..

  5. Adam Kotsko Says:

    You may be reading some intentions into this post that aren’t there. I’m reading a lot of Lacan this term because I’m conducting a tutorial over his work, and meanwhile, I’ve been teaching William James. The correspondence surprised me — perhaps naively, who knows. That’s all.

    It’s weird how the “it thinks” is simultaneously a very widespread idea and something that Lacan has maliciously ripped off. It doesn’t seem to me that both can be true at the same time.

  6. terenceblake Says:

    “Widespread” maybe not, but discussed by a certain group of thinkers that preceded Lacan yes. So non-originality of Lacan on this point, yes! everyone knows it. Did Lacan rip off James? It’s possible. Did he, like Freud certainly did, rip off Nietzsche? Very probably. The historical parallel is amusing, so why not post it? It all depends on why it is amusing, which involves your appreciation of Lacan’s role in thought. I follow the classic Deleuzian line that Lacan’s thought is a compromise formation between his monist predecessor Freud and various pluralist insights that he integrated to correct or to pluralise the system partially. So yes, like Freud, Lacan feeds on, without giving proper recognition to, the “other image of thought” that Deleuze explicitly links with the names of Nietzsche, Groddeck (a little), and William James. I do not speculate about your intentions, but I am surprised at your surprise at the resemblance.

  7. Stephen Says:

    Is ‘rip off’ really a word that anyone uses anymore? Maybe technology companies in patent court. Welcome to the continental tradition where people, you know, comment on other texts.

  8. Stephen Says:

    The previous is directed to Terence.

  9. Adam Kotsko Says:

    The similarity is amusing for cultural reasons: the archetypal American pragmatist holds a position on a hugely important issue that is in many respects identical to that of the very embodiment of baroque continental decadence. And since I tend to be on the continental “side” of this particular cultural divide, I entitled the post “James the Lacanian” instead of “Lacan the Jamesian.”

  10. terenceblake Says:

    I’m not sure why Stephen’s comment on “rip off” was “directed at Terence”. No Stephen, “rip off ” is not a word used by people, it is in fact two words. It was Adam’s expression, not mine. My poor terms were “bricoleur plagiarist” and “retrospective inversions of influence” (you know, like when Artaud claimed to have been plagiarised retrospectively by future generations” thus concretising what Bergson called the “retrograde movement of truth”). I am in the continental tradition of philosophy and i have staked my life on it, so welcome to hubris land where Stephen can correct me for a “fault” his teacher made and give me lessons in reading and cultural reference.

  11. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Good grief.

    In all fairness: A couple pages later, James discusses the stream of consciousness as being in constant flux — without citing Heraclitus!!!!!!!

  12. Adam Kotsko Says:

    I’m also not attributing retroactive causality to Lacan. The temporal impossibility of James being an actual “Lacanian” produces a jarring effect that, for many human beings, is associated with a thing called “humor.”

  13. Dominic Says:

    Stanley Cavell talks a lot about the Emersonian influence on Nietzsche, which is obviously a vector through which notions in one intellectual current might pass into another.

  14. Adam Kotsko Says:

    The problem with that theory, Dominic, is that it doesn’t put sufficient emphasis on Lacan’s total charlatanism.

  15. terenceblake Says:

    Well, as usual Adam, you have achieved your personal “jarring” effect in spades. It seems I jarred you back, which explains why I have no real reply.
    By the way i was not really attributing a belief in time travel to you, that was….

  16. Adam Kotsko Says:

    This comment thread has been an unmitigated failure. I assume my portion of the blame for that.

  17. ben Says:

    William James, follower of GC Lichtenberg.

  18. ben Says:

    I posted the above without having read the rather overheated comment thread.

    I do think that Lichtenberg is the originator of the “it thinks” thing, or at least functionally its originator for those who came after him. Presumably Daniel Lindquist will shortly drop in and point out that it was in earlier use by the Scholastics or something.

  19. terenceblake Says:

    Lichtenberg sounds fine to me, especially given Nietzsche’s (and Wittgenstein’s) enthusiasm for his aphorisms.To go back beyond the scholastics, maybe we should look at the Upanishads (tat tvam asi, thou art that) which seemed to influence Pyrrho the sceptic etc.

  20. Daniel Lindquist Says:

    I’ve not encountered “it thinks” (like “it rains”) before Lichtenberg, and would’ve thought it obvious that James was referencing him here. Impressed that this comment thread got so long before anyone mentioned him.

  21. Kieran Says:

    Recent deep-sky observations from the Hubble Telescope revealed the words “IT THINKS” inscribed on a globular supercluster, strongly suggesting the idea has been around since the period several hours after the Big Bang.

  22. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Hey, guys, I just thought of an idea! What if instead of saying “I think,” we said something like “it’s thinking” (cf. “it’s raining”)? Pretty original, huh?

  23. Kieran Says:

    I think you’ll find Kotsko has already blogged about that idea.

  24. terenceblake Says:

    Unfortunately Kieran’s last comment was rendered innocuous by a euphemistic misspelling. It should read: “I think you’ll find Kotsko has already bogged about that idea”.

  25. terenceblake Says:

    I think the funniest comment was Daniel Lindquist’s and he was being serious. Imagine if he had made a joke about Galactus, who comes from a time before the Big Bang. But he would never do that, it would look too much like juvenile oneupmanship.

  26. terenceblake Says:

    Impressed that this comment thread got so long before anyone mentioned DC.

  27. mathmos Says:

    I too feel victimized by others’ juvenile oneupmanship but I don’t complain about it.

  28. terenceblake Says:

    I could not have complained about your comment before it was made.

  29. bzfgt Says:

    If James can do it, why not you?

  30. terenceblake Says:

    You can find that comment and yours already in PoP, but not my non-existent complaint about them.

  31. WILLIAM JAMES AND THE PLURALIST TRADITION (2): Not all binaries are qualitatively equal | AGENT SWARM Says:

    [...] notion that any assemblage is one of desire. To make the link with Kotsko’s previous post, I understand this organology of “dumb responses” as an explicitation of the “It thinks”, [...]

  32. WILLIAM JAMES AND THE PLURALIST TRADITION (2): Not all binaries are qualitatively equal | AGENT SWARM Says:

    [...] notion that any assemblage is one of desire. To make the link with Kotsko’s previous post, I understand this organology of “dumb responses” as an explicitation of the “It thinks”, [...]


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,417 other followers