-
They both have the similarity of providing a critique of instrumental reason, only Bataille was more flamboyant about that.Bataille was very suspicious, although not altogether hostile, toward transcendence. To take that path seems to implicate you more in society’s mores, even as you seek to transcend them. Bataille’s views were let’s cut out the middle man, and transgress. We don’t need to transcend the DOXA (presuming this means the morality of mores) when we can just horizontally oppose this.A lot of Bataille’s attacks are on transcendence, instrumental reason and narrow empiricism.In effect, and listen closely to this, he seemed to want to destroy trust in these things – that is, to destroy the “I” – which was also an anti-rational conquest, to destroy the “eye” as an instrument of reason.I guess these were just ideas he had at the time.In place of the “I’” (the narrow, instrumental sense of selfhood), he wanted to put the pineal eye.The pineal eye is directly attuned to the sun, and thus is a primeval eye.You can see the pattern here: destroy the narrowed and overly civilised “ I” and recover the primeval basis for experience – not that one has to become narrowly primeval: this is a means of negation on the way to a negation of the commanding system of consciousness so that one may live without being commanded by one’s narrowly conditioned mind.But Bataille’s strained relationship with transcendence was also his attitude to the entire bourgeois order. There were some things to admire, but he didn’t want to play their game. He thoughtNietzsche played it as well as can be – and lost.One has to wonder, when one destroys the limitations imposed by the social order and incites an uprising of primeval sensations and reactions, what the consequences could be.But this is an overall picture of Bataille’s philosophy and the political agenda that underlies it.Heidegger seemed a bit superficial, then, in approving of Bataille so readily.0
Add a comment
-
Comments on “Anti-Oedipus: a feminist solution?” ‹ Nietzsche's hairs — WordPress
Are you familiar at all with the work of Melanie Klein or any of the object relations theorists? If so, are you aware that the work of Deleuze and Guattari works on the basis of heavily emphasizing a preference for an object relations state of mind, over viewing others as complete, free-standing persons?
If, then, males are viewed by human children (adults taking an infantile perspective) as the occasional whip-hand on their consciousness (just a hand) and women are taken, according to capricious emotional flooding, alternatively as a "good breast" (nice nurturing source of origin) and a "bad breast" (evil withholding object), I suppose fully grown women have nothing to fear from that????
I suppose if fully grown women are already assured of a job and protection of their intellectual and emotional integrity from the vagaries of the system and the psychical forces within it, fully grown women have nothing to fear from early childhood notions and perspectives dominating the public space.
BUt that is entirely a contradiction in terms. In fact, one has everything to fear from that, above all psychical disintegration and extreme material impoverishment. Even the capacity to be logical about this and to even SEE the contradiction I have outlined above will not be possible for people who simply immerse themselves in a field of objects and act in ways conditioned by their early childhood experiences.
0Add a comment
Add a comment