Premier Rock Forum

The following except from Dylan Evans 'An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis' seems interesting, if nothing else, in relation to this excellent thread.

The Oedipus Complex Lacan analyses the Oedipus complex in terms of a metaphor because it involves the crucial concept of substitution; in this case the substitution of the Name-of-the-Father for the desire of the mother. This fundamental metaphor, which founds the possibility of all other metaphors, is designated by Lacan as the Paternal Metaphor.

Repression and Neurotic Symptoms Lacan argues that repression (secondary repression) has the structure of a metaphor. The 'metonymic object' (the signifier which is elided) is repressed, but returns in the surplus meaning produced in the metaphor. The return of the repressed (the symptom) therefore also has the structure of a metaphor; indeed, Lacan asserts that 'the symptom is a metaphor'.

Love Love is structured like a metaphor since it involves the operation of substitution. 'It is insofar as the function of the erastes, of the lover, who is the subject of lack, comes in the place of, substitutes himself for, the function of the eromenos, the loved object, that the signification of love is produced'.

Cranius,

I saw Fitzcarraldo as a literal story and also as a sort of philosophical anecdote about a man overcoming the ultimate physical obstacle to achieve his dreams. I wouldn't consider this to be a metaphor as I understand it though.

I guess you could say Nosferatu is a metaphor for solitude and isolation but I see it as a direct representation of that (albeit via a fantastic story). Again I don't see these as metaphors because nothing is substituted.


Re: Woman of the Dunes. While I kinda got the point I spent a lot of time wondering what other aspects of the story meant. This is my problem with allegories. If the whole is meant to describe something else, are the individual aspects supposed to too?

Rotten Tanx wrote:Cranius,

I don't think we are talking at odds. We agree.

I saw Fitzcarraldo as a literal story and also as a sort of philosophical anecdote about a man overcoming the ultimate physical obstacle to achieve his dreams. I wouldn't consider this to be a metaphor as I understand it though.

It isn't metaphor. Yet there are several sets of reality occouring that overlap at times. There's the fictional story of a madman's attempt to build an opera house in the jungle. He's crazy. And Herzog's realisation of his dream to make a film about a madman who builds an opera house in the jungle. He's also, quite crazy.

[...dream just means desire/ambition/fantasy etc.]

Both are fantasists who realise their demented dream. That's their genius, too. Both overcome the physical limitations by doing the super-thing. Both bring about something joyful and positive.

Aguirre's dream however brings about something wholly negative: his own self-dissolution and the anihilation of everyone who follows him. His desire for the purity of gold produces death. Even though he is attempting the same super-thing.

Adolf Hitler was also a man with a crazy/beautiful dream like Aguirre . And whilst none of these films are about him, we can find happy analogy in them, without the movies strictly being metaphorical or representational. No symbolism (signification) is present, yet the allusion is still there.

I guess you could say Nosferatu is a metaphor for solitude and isolation but I see it as a direct representation of that (albeit via a fantastic story). Again I don't see these as metaphors because nothing is substituted.

Yeah. I'd say description over representation (the simple presentation of the story).

Essentially, it's okay for meaning to be totally loose.

Language itself is metaphorical. Granted, some metaphors can be heavy-handed, but as a device, it's definitely not crap, and I suspect that human communication might be impossible without it.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Language itself is metaphorical.

Yup.

...and I suspect that human communication might be impossible without it.

BUT... music (tone) and visual art (colour) communicate without language. Even poetry relies on certain asignifying qualities, such as, the sonority of a word, its musical qualities, rhythm and so forth.

The register of Minnie Ripperton's voice, for instance, could make you cry without you processing the words she's singing. It can operate beyond meaning.

So there's other possibilities of communication, although we still interpret things linguistically.

Cranius, would you say that all music has a semantic or semiotic system of significance?

Obviously it can, but does it always? Why do we listen?

I would argue that anything visual always will, but I'm unsure about music or performance in general.

enframed wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:Some allegories aren't crap.

true. some are.

true.

Cranius wrote:

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Language itself is metaphorical.

Yup.

...and I suspect that human communication might be impossible without it.

BUT... music (tone) and visual art (colour) communicate without language. Even poetry relies on certain asignifying qualities, such as, the sonority of a word, its musical qualities, rhythm and so forth.

I agree, Andrew, but there are such things as visual metaphors, too. Can't a non-representational canvas still be metaphorical in some sense?

The register of Minnie Ripperton's voice, for instance, could make you cry without you processing the words she's singing. It can operate beyond meaning.

So there's other possibilities of communication, although we still interpret things linguistically.

Is something necessarily devoid of "meaning" simply because we don't process it as language? I think there are other kinds of meaning and knowledge besides those that can be explicitly voiced via the intellect. When a guitar solo moves me, I know what the player "means" even if it's beyond my power to verbalize it. Ditto for Jackson Pollock.

simmo wrote: the influence of such information on our present and future thoughts and behaviour is of far lesser significance than has been claimed by Freud/post-Freudian psychology.

We were not discussing degrees of significance. We were discussing 'existence of subconscious: yes or no'. Cranius said flat out 'no'.

rick reuben wrote:Why would Man create God, if a God had no role in creating Man?

What led Man down that path to begin with?

Is it not possible that Man is obsessed with the origins of his creation because Man was programmed by his Creator to seek his creator?

If Man was created purely by atheistic science, then why would the majority not see science as their Creator? Instead, it's the opposite. The majority seek a Creator as their ancestor or designer, not an exploding rock.

According to atheistic bigot Cranius, anyone who seeks a Creator is retarded. Where did this retardation come from? Why did atheistic creation generate malfunctional creatures who pursue a Creator, which is, according to atheistic bigot Cranius, 'retarded'?

Why did evolution produce retarded creatures that chase silly supernatural Gods?

But if Man was designed, then the widespread belief in a designer is easier to understand. Babies recognize their parents from a very early age. Perhaps our subconscious is constantly picking up signals that our environment is designed all the time, signals that resonate with the design of our own brains, molding us into seekers of the Creator.

cranius wrote:Subconscious?

Is there any such thing?

rick reuben wrote:You don't believe that the human mind gathers and stores information ( and then later accesses it ) without the participation of the conscious mind?

Cranius refused to answer the question after it was asked twice.

Simmo, why don't you ask Cranius if he denies the existence of a subconscious?

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:

The register of Minnie Ripperton's voice, for instance, could make you cry without you processing the words she's singing. It can operate beyond meaning.

So there's other possibilities of communication, although we still interpret things linguistically.

Is something necessarily devoid of "meaning" simply because we don't process it as language?

No, and wordless sound can function as metaphor the same as anything else.

The influence of wordless sound, functioning as metaphor, is what makes music what it is.

The audio metaphors of rock music are distinguished in large part by timbral content. It is not distinguished as much by the melodic or chordal or lyrical content as we tend to assume it is. All that stuff is important, but it's less important in rock music than in any other kind of music.

Timbre is overwhelmingly crucial to rock music. A particular sound, with particular qualities, can function within rock music metaphorically and have far more power than anything anyone can write down.