Full and Empty Speech by a layperson
Please kindly remember that I (sujbective) am a layperson and just trying to keep these theories straight as I (:-))learn them..
So "empty speech", in my humblest of understandings, is the "moi" of I, the ego that speaks but says little to nothing. It is when a patient is in a psychoanalysts office and talks incessantly about himself, as he sees his ideal self, but without the introspection.
This relates in my mind thusly, the Three Stooges "Who's on first?" skit.
The players involved (larry, moe, curly) are having a conversation in which the question is asked, "Who's on first?" This alludes to a baseball game and who is on the position of first base. However, the comedy comes in because the players name sounds like who's (whose). So though the question is answered a comedy of misunderstandings occurs. The players are all involved in the conversation but without common language they are unable to understand each other. They are not concerned with understanding each other apparently because noone asks for clarification. The "moi" or ego allows each to continue saying what they want but not hearing the other. I believe the common language is the language of negotiation between "moi" and "je". The miscommunication occurs because there is no meaning when there is no common language. The speech therefore says nothing.
Full speech then would be the speech of the "je" or the subject I. The association of "I" with language then becomes the common language because it is a "shifter" So if the players, at any point said. I am refering to..... then the epiphany needed to conclude the conversation would have been provided. So in the psychoanalytic discussion of full speech it is the speech of the patient who gets down to business with the psychoanalyst in reaching the problem which brings them together. It is both introspective and understanding of its relational position.
So Moi and Je.....
Two distinctions on the English word I. Moi or me represents the ego and the Je or I represents the subject (the person in relationship to the other)
PLEASE CRITIQUE OR ADD CLARIFICATIONS.
much love from her Freudian, Lacanian, fog.
So "empty speech", in my humblest of understandings, is the "moi" of I, the ego that speaks but says little to nothing. It is when a patient is in a psychoanalysts office and talks incessantly about himself, as he sees his ideal self, but without the introspection.
This relates in my mind thusly, the Three Stooges "Who's on first?" skit.
The players involved (larry, moe, curly) are having a conversation in which the question is asked, "Who's on first?" This alludes to a baseball game and who is on the position of first base. However, the comedy comes in because the players name sounds like who's (whose). So though the question is answered a comedy of misunderstandings occurs. The players are all involved in the conversation but without common language they are unable to understand each other. They are not concerned with understanding each other apparently because noone asks for clarification. The "moi" or ego allows each to continue saying what they want but not hearing the other. I believe the common language is the language of negotiation between "moi" and "je". The miscommunication occurs because there is no meaning when there is no common language. The speech therefore says nothing.
Full speech then would be the speech of the "je" or the subject I. The association of "I" with language then becomes the common language because it is a "shifter" So if the players, at any point said. I am refering to..... then the epiphany needed to conclude the conversation would have been provided. So in the psychoanalytic discussion of full speech it is the speech of the patient who gets down to business with the psychoanalyst in reaching the problem which brings them together. It is both introspective and understanding of its relational position.
So Moi and Je.....
Two distinctions on the English word I. Moi or me represents the ego and the Je or I represents the subject (the person in relationship to the other)
PLEASE CRITIQUE OR ADD CLARIFICATIONS.
much love from her Freudian, Lacanian, fog.
posted by Krys @ 2:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home