They talk of an inner voice as a substantive thing, when pace Lacan there is no such thing as an inner voice, there is language out there, fascistic as ever, attempts to shake it off as an 'inner voice', is like the snake writhing around trying to shake of its skin.
They passively give this supposed thing 'the inner voice' a canonical status and to canonise something is a way of preserving its authority. There is an opacity to the inner voice, and it is opaque because it is a child of language, if you are seeking the locus of value in the inner voice look to the fetishism of the inner voice into libido ego id etc by Freud et al.
They passively give this supposed thing 'the inner voice' a canonical status and to canonise something is a way of preserving its authority. There is an opacity to the inner voice, and it is opaque because it is a child of language, if you are seeking the locus of value in the inner voice look to the fetishism of the inner voice into libido ego id etc by Freud et al.
No comments:
Post a Comment