Search Results
7/2/2025, 6:15:50 PM
>>24514530
The mechanism of mImetic desire is the thing we focus on not to see the subsequent scapegoating. Ironically, it acts as a a myth, that is, a structure of repression of the mimetic origin. When Girard says that there is no difference between the theory and the description of facts, he means it for these reasons.
>More than a tangled ball of string, the mimetic theory makes me think of those road maps so perfectly folded and refolded upon themselves that they fit into a tiny rectangle. To use them, you have to unfold them, and then fold them back again. Clumsy people like me never manage to follow the original folds, and very quickly the map tears. It’s those tears that allow skeptics to believe that there isn’t a single coherent map in my head, but merely fragments artificially assembled and glued together — the “Girard system” yet again, good only for amusing passersby for a brief moment before being tossed aside along with the postman Cheval...
Girard – When these things begin
He's facing the same problem Greimas (structural narrative theory) was facing:
>Jean Petitot-Cocorda goes further and concludes that “if (conversion) is insoluble within Greimasian theory, it is because the logical conception of the fundamental level implies the necessity of converting logical relations into syntactic events — and that is eidetically impossible.”\[31]
Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algirdas_Julien_Greimas#Critique_du_mod%C3%A8le
It's indecidable/uncomputable/incomplete. This is something Girard correctly identified, cf. Oedipus Unbound in particular. However he wasn't able to recognize that the description of the theory would always match the kind of facts it purports to describe.
The mechanism of mImetic desire is the thing we focus on not to see the subsequent scapegoating. Ironically, it acts as a a myth, that is, a structure of repression of the mimetic origin. When Girard says that there is no difference between the theory and the description of facts, he means it for these reasons.
>More than a tangled ball of string, the mimetic theory makes me think of those road maps so perfectly folded and refolded upon themselves that they fit into a tiny rectangle. To use them, you have to unfold them, and then fold them back again. Clumsy people like me never manage to follow the original folds, and very quickly the map tears. It’s those tears that allow skeptics to believe that there isn’t a single coherent map in my head, but merely fragments artificially assembled and glued together — the “Girard system” yet again, good only for amusing passersby for a brief moment before being tossed aside along with the postman Cheval...
Girard – When these things begin
He's facing the same problem Greimas (structural narrative theory) was facing:
>Jean Petitot-Cocorda goes further and concludes that “if (conversion) is insoluble within Greimasian theory, it is because the logical conception of the fundamental level implies the necessity of converting logical relations into syntactic events — and that is eidetically impossible.”\[31]
Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algirdas_Julien_Greimas#Critique_du_mod%C3%A8le
It's indecidable/uncomputable/incomplete. This is something Girard correctly identified, cf. Oedipus Unbound in particular. However he wasn't able to recognize that the description of the theory would always match the kind of facts it purports to describe.
Page 1