Devemos ser lacônicos ou lacânicos?

Não, o texto a seguir não foi gerado pelo Postmodern Essay Generator, pois afinal é só ler devagar que você o entende perfeitamente. Em outro post defenderei minha tese de que o pessoal de Humanidades, devido a seu largo treino de leitura e discussão escrita e oral, desenvolve regiões específicas de seu cortex que ampliam sua memória de trabalho para leitura de frases longas na voz passiva intercaladas com sentenças nuançadas, condicionais e ambíguas, uma capacidade cerebral profissional similar a dos matemáticos quando usam expressões matemáticas longas. Ok, desculpem pela longa frase anterior, foi sem querer querendo.

Da Wikipedia: Although Lacan is often associated with it, he was not without his critics from within the major figures of what is broadly termed postmodernism. (Several writers, such as Slavoj Žižek, have argued specifically against considering Lacan a poststructuralist theorist.) Along these lines, Jacques Derrida (though Derrida did not endorse nor associate himself with postmodernism) made a considerable critique of Lacan's analytic writings, accusing him of taking a structuralist approach to psychoanalysis, but this is hardly surprising. In particular, Derrida criticises Lacanian theory for an inherited Freudian phallocentrism, exemplified primarily in his conception of the phallus as the "primary signifier" that determines the social order of signifiers. It could be said that much of Derrida's critique of Lacan stems from his relationship with Freud: for example, Derrida deconstructs the Freudian conception of "penis envy", upon which female subjectivity is determined as an absence, to show that the primacy of the male phallus entails a hierarchy between phallic presence and absence that ultimately implodes upon itself.

(...)

Critics from outside psychoanalysis, critical theory and the humanities have often dismissed Lacan and his work in a more or less wholesale fashion. François Roustang, in The Lacanian Delusion, called Lacan's output "extravagant" and an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish". Noam Chomsky described Lacan as "an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan". In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Lacan of "superficial erudition" and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand (e.g., confusing irrational and imaginary numbers). Defenders of Lacanian theories dispute the validity of such criticism on the basis of Sokal's misunderstanding of Lacan's texts. According to Lacanians, the dismissal by Sokal and his allies precludes any valid criticism of his theories, and is instead motivated by a desire to "police the boundaries" of what constitutes an appropriate use of scientific terminology.

Foto: Um esquema dos neurônios receptores da mucosa nasal mandando seus axônios para a camada glomerular do bulbo olfatório? Não. Da correspondência Jacques Lacan - Pierre Souri, legenda alemã traduzida pelo Babel Fish:

Generalized Borromaeer in the closer sense 6-3. Soury formed a generalized borromaeische chain according to our method in the case of six rings. It is necessary and sufficient to pull three rings out so that it dissolves. Its attached comment illuminates and confirms our interest in the reading of the Pascal' triangle.

Alguém pode me ajudar a melhorar a tradução desta legenda em alemão?

Continue a ler no SEMCIÊNCIA.

Um desafio redacional para o pessoal da Roda de Ciência: pegar a seção Lacan and his discontents do tópico da Wikipedia de onde foram tirados esses trechos e reescrevê-la de forma simples, jornalística, tentando extrair o cerne do que o autor coletivo quer dizer (ou das possíveis leituras que ele quer permitir).