Content deleted Content added
m →Mathematics in psychoanalysis: typos |
|||
Line 279:
Sokal and Bricmont find Lacan to be "fond" of [[topology]], in which, though, they see Lacan committing serious errors. He uses technical terms erroneously, e.g. "[[Topological space|space]]", "[[Bounded set (topological vector space)|bounded]]", "[[Closed set|closed]]", and even "topology" itself, and posits claims about a literal and not just symbolic or even [[metaphor]]ical relation of topological mathematics with [[neurosis]].{{efn|E.g. Lacan states: "[The] [[torus]] really exists and it is exactly the structure of the [[Neurosis|neurotic]]. It is not an [[analogy|analogon]]; it is not even an [[abstraction]], because an abstraction is some sort of diminution of reality, and I think [the torus] is reality itself." Lacan (1970)}}{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=18-21}}<ref name=>{{cite book |last=Lacan |first=Jacques |date= 1 May 1970 |editor-last1= Macksey|editor-first1=Richard |editor-last2= Donato |editor-first2=Eugenio |title=The Languages of Criticism & the Sciences of Man: the Structuralist Controversy|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University]] Press|pages=186–200 |chapter=Of structure as an inmixing of an otherwise prerequisite to any subject whatsoever|isbn=978-0801810473}}</ref>
In the book's preface, the authors state they shall not enter into the debate over the purely psychoanalytic part of Lacan's work.{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=17}} Nonetheless, after presenting their case, they comment that "Lacan never explains the relevance of his mathematical concepts for psychoanalysis," stating that "the link with psychoanalysis is not supported by any argument." Equally meaningless they find his "famous formulae of sexuation" offered in support for the maxim "There are no sexual relations." Considering the "cryptic writings," the "play on words" and "fractured syntax", as well as the "reverent exegesis" accorded to Lacan's work by "disciples", they point out a similarity to religiosity.{{efn|They end posing the rhetorical question whether we are "dealing with a new religion."}}{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=31-37}}
===Incomprehensibility===
| |||