The body of Georges Bataille
by Yannick Haenel
Georges Bataille speaks slowly, his voice is soft, carefully pronouncing each sentence, with a meticulousness that bit distracted who knows the depths, and did not frighten her. The man in the face massive, impeccably dressed in a suit and tie, this man who, when speaking, do not agitated, keeps his hands folded, which refuses to charm as much as irony, which seems eager to convince her that seems so detached serenity itself borders on delusion.
Is it because God - or the absence of God - yells at him? None knows the bliss that opens the worst, worst known men, who accept or reject it. Havoc illuminates the life of Georges Bataille, he gives intolerable truths - what he calls the "torn regions." And yet here is a quiet man, precise, applied. God - Battle wrote - is a fool, a pig, a slut in rags, but it also absolute knowledge. Ecstasy who experienced incarnated here body discreet. It is precisely the discretion of courage: the courage is no doubt that there are now more untimely - more untimely. And courage of thought, this anti-spectacular heroism, has a name: Georges Bataille.
It is 1958, in "Reading for All", a television broadcast of Peter Dumayet. Georges Bataille is sixty-one years is a writer but sour confidential, he talks about his book Literature and evil. He quotes Baudelaire and Kafka. Literature, he says, illuminates the prospects humankind's most breathtaking - it puts them in. In this it is no different from eroticism. At the end of the show, Battle said coolly: "This man is playing the game the strength to overcome what the game leads to horror. "
Georges Bataille's face appears on the watch, as if fatigue coincided with a threat. He speaks of the transgression, anxiety, disobedience with the heaviness of a little frozen innocence facing conventions of the interview. Leiris saw the face of his friend battle a "curious teeth of wild beast." It is true that such a face does not need mask: what gives see is violence break - enlightenment. A saint does not need to be perilous to upset: his very nature is shocking.
Georges Bataille has trembled before no idea - that is to say to no power. If it is possible to completely annihilate itself the desire to cling to a value, a man has done, and that man is Bataille: "The world - he wrote - that is habitable provided that nothing is respected. "The power of denial requires that such a requirement means living by breaking the links:" I can not consider as a free be not having the desire to rule in his ties of language. "
one who would come to rule in his speech the links would not be a man without a tongue, it would not be silent nor diminished in any way. Instead, he would enjoy what is most secret in the heart of language: that flash which prohibits you the possibility of quitting. The radical challenge of language opens the possibility to its extreme: it is a delight. Through him, God calls something or lack thereof, involves humanity and inhumanity, and gives your body experience that delivers the hole.
The third sex by François Meyronnes
Man or woman - there has always been a great commotion around sexual identity. To admit frankly that I never boil talkative very interested. It even produces in me a huge annoyance.
I feel strange - just imagine - not belonging to any generality ; Be not only a departure from the genre but also in relation to this case.
This prejudice, my membership in the human race, I was never convinced, and the more I grow older, the less it satisfies me. So from a position as eccentric, to say that relations between men and women? - First look at some evidence.
The first, between men and women, there is a flaw. In fact the word "sex" means nothing other than separation. Of that human societies as they can arrange. Rather badly, in fact. There are crafts, patch me there overnight. Nothing too bright, and it is not conclusive, oh no!
On War sex, humans come all - on this point, I do not m'excepte lot. We have been generated in its pot, whatever anyone says. With some noise and some anger ...
Indeed, wherever there is male and the female there is a stumbling block. Hence the perpetual war, larded peace filled.
Let us recall the prologue of the Iliad. The epic begins with a domestic dispute on Olympus. Between Zeus and Hera, that bard! Hephaestus, the blacksmith god, knows something. His lameness comes from there - the hostility between his father and mother. In the divine couple, there is the draw - this is nothing new.
between the sexes, it hobbles badly: it often leaves very little of the war and lameness. Against this background calamitous the species breeds, limping. In short, men and women, and that it corpore chitchat - dragging the leg.
think love is in the West, from Plato. Well, there are cons-fires. Lucretius, for example. And before him, Epicurus. But Banquet Plato occupies a cardinal in the metaphysical definition of love.
Eros will be seen as deficient and lacking, as missing.
What happens between two bodies - Plato - Well, that's not it. Such a feeling of misfires is even giving notion that there is another plan in excess of the body plan. Botching sex is a bridge - which ensures the passage from the sensible to the supersensible. Like what philosophy, once it is sent, would be fundamentally hysterical.
Then they announced that God was dead, there is more than wring its neck to the supersensible. This is a true reversal. The overhang which covered the sensitive, suddenly it is put down. What then settled as universal domination, Nietzsche calls "nihilism." We're in full. The market premium on everything, there is nowhere in the top region. The donation of meaning ends in broth of chitterlings, and even master fools - say: the media - are visited by doubt.
But sexually, nothing improves. At this point, frustration takes the place of lack. And it's even worse. The pain increases, and distress. It overturned Platonism, which means we did the reverse. What was up, they have laid down - a point that's all.
The literature Houellebecq For example, take advantage of this mutation. What happens to the relations of men and women in the age of nihilism? - The answer is thrust forward with a minimum of precautions: a foirade unspeakable.
andTHE feeling of suffocation is all the harder we folded the body in love on the anatomical body - which, originally, is a dissected body. This unfortunate folding does not rise very high in the time exactly in the nineteenth century, as shown by Michel Foucault. From there, a "romantic mood", as said Aragon, is subject to the physiology animal, in the narrowest sense of the word.
since western man stuck in his anatomical bias. He makes the mistake of identifying with a meat that is dying, which is not very erogenous. The sexual beliefs - because it is a simple belief - based on this identification. Thus the influence of sex she hallucinated appearance. What is the most intimate of unquestionable factuality, is chiefly a mirage. It must be admitted that women believe a little less than men.
That literature shows Houellebecq, or, in America, one of Bret Easton Ellis?
Of niquedouilles that s'emmanchent background of failure. And with this failure, it works for publishing products that miss in the language by exhibiting the spleen in the beds. No, it's not happy - but it sells.
The individual with the pollock " enjoy great good," as Lacan would say. In other words, with the pleasure organ. In itself, not much - a little spasm. But together, the latter, a narcissistic gratification. Let's be precise. On side, this spasm. And the other, said converting spasm capital narcissistic. Obviously this conversion is a sham. Except that without it the organ pleasure fray - is inconsistent. This is - I do not teach anyone - a secret very stale, and even a secret.
When nihilism prevails in all areas, sexual belief comes dangerously close to a breakdown in illusion. An industry ad hoc trying to instigate the jokes. On the slopes feminine, sentimental compote. Debridement pornography on the male side. But the unease is growing. The more we bail out the mirage, and the less it operates. It tends to become its own simulacrum, a deception which the springs are reflected better and better.
What show Houellebecq and Bret Easton Ellis, is how the mirage withers - and how we move gradually to something more substantial: ie the sight of the killing of similar . The pornography industry, meanwhile, is no longer so much about sexual compulsion. It relies instead on the compulsion to murder. The strength of a Houellebecq or Ellis is to draw all the conclusions. Even though their literature is not very good, it remains an Apocalypse of desire - it shows what happens, the exhaustion of libido. And sexual liberation, heroic in the 60s and 70s of last century, she leads a sordid impasse. According to Houellebecq, there is no doubt that the liberation of sexuality lead to a blackout. It was, moreover, a farce - as illusory as the political enfranchisement had hallucinated the time of his parents. His diagnosis is simple. We are witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecy of Proust - " The two sexes shall die, each in turn."
Is it the extent of this disaster, psychoanalysis? - Frankly, nothing is less certain. Clearly, it slip. It becomes a relic: a pastry fare. Given this looming, there is no reason to rejoice. We return to the good old Anglo-Saxon standards, formatting psychic control of biopolitical body.
Compared to this depressing situation, I wonder if it is not time to tear the sexual beliefs. Because it operates like a spell, the ability to resist this spell is a measure of spiritual freedom of an individual.
With work, sex has become one of the major avatars of the grapple. The company uses it to extort the typical person in each - it is used as an operator of diminishment. Gendered bodies become much impasses, for lack of evidence in the implementation language. In a word, love is spoken more and more evil. How out of this trap? How not to end his days in a Houellebecq novel? I propose to revisit the basic error, which underlies the sexual beliefs - namely, the confusion of the anatomical body and the body in love. brings good news: this confusion is an illusion recent and quite dissipated. Because if everything is closed, with nihilism, can also support the contrary - it opens at all times. In a sense, the doldrums of the sexual beliefs, this region of opaque mist, it has never been so close to leave. We are perhaps already out, despite evidence otherwise.
Basically, the sexual act very well happen that we will believe. The belief does not endorse any, on the contrary, the parasite - it lives in its fangs. For the act is not a coupling between two fellows, or very superficially. It is more like what linguists call a "performative." It is to be the body that involves - it also brings. It follows that the body is in love with the act of making love (every word counts in this formula).
lover's body is different from that of the everyday. Only the act gives it to me, and being with whom I made. Thus does one not love the body of life-biological death. It must meet another body to the body in love arise. And it does not exist prior to this meeting.
The act draws the outlines of an event - a leaven that leavens the event.
With him, the event raises. How not to understand that the body is a body love event? The meeting stimulates the subtle body awakened. One double and redouble the physical body. Arises where the body in love? - Exactly at the intersection of the subtle body and physical body. Therefore, in all traditions, there is no erotic without initiation.
resume. Love the body does not exist prior to the meeting, or rather are there potentially in a subtle corporeality. It comes to light only in the presence of another body. It has nothing to do with the body that is saved, and washed, which is maintained, and not with one that is the subject of narcissism, which is much less subtle and imaginary, is only the support of an image. The body is pampered, which is the anodized frame, this is not the body in love.
One flesh that swirls around the halos of enjoyment dispersed boundaries, interrupts the continuity of the world.
Only one event gives the body - and this event, it would be wrong to equate to a fact. Copulation lies within the factuality, not act I'm talking about. In this respect, Lacan was right: "There is no sexual relation." No copulation is sufficient to establish such a relationship - no facts.
When you fuck with his meat, it does the organ pleasure, and that's what makes screen enjoyment. The latter, we can not circumscribe the coitus, much less lock him in the limits of anatomy. It occurs as a flash, with the extreme moment, but it should not be confused with a crisis. It has nothing sporadic. " Without enjoyment - Angelus said Silesius - nothing remains. "So there is a continuity secret interstitial enjoyment. Because it is the rib of time itself. Thus the best that can reach a note said " sex" would be to make himself available at this time of enlightenment by itself.
But the question of eroticism - between men and women - how to separate it completely from that of love? Under the thumb of nihilism, he is doing wrong. It looks like he is dying. Besides the spectacularization "sex" can obliterate love - be it in the confining corny sentimentality.
Here the good reception given to Houellebecq's novels is a symptom.
There's so little love, and this lack creates such disarray - so sad - that the picture of this sub-existence itself as the editorial product par excellence.
Yes, to blow this, I recommend spraying the sexual beliefs. That, in short, my contribution to the philosophy of the Enlightenment - for which I, moreover, a moderate inclination. I do not hesitate to question the sexual theory of Freud. It had its usefulness, in its time. It allowed Freud to block the influence of Jung - to stem what he called. black tide of occultism "But obviously, we're gone, the demonic can no longer contain as easily. It is therefore urgent to replace the theory by a sexual or erotic at the same time poetic. We must root out the body in love with a double right: the anatomy and of psychology. If a power, yet so fragile, almost faded to the point of being sought with a lantern, can accomplish this program, it is my opinion literature.
On this issue, that it is able to do something - not only to describe, but to act.
Provided, of course, does not fall into an ideology of love, a troubadour for illustrated magazines. Especially love that is indifferent to recovery; never ceases to exceed the overflow. Once we turn it into value, it takes the heels. It's kind of evasion And when we fixed it scoot. No more love into vulgarity.
Modulation of body love can fill a life, because it takes the form of a spiral perpetually open. The beloved, says Bataille, is that we can not wait. He's right. But it can also be the same person every time. What makes you love him that being raised as a singularity always arise, as expected. That happens rarely proves nothing against this hypothesis, however.
I spoke of a spiral. In the act, he that no voltage to the organ pleasure; it is a coil. "And this turn - Artaud said - was the importance of the most powerful thought. "
Oh, and if intercourse, thought it? One is left wondering. And yet ...
Love is only for very few people, even if it concerns everyone. This is not a democrat very satisfied. For a singularity, it may be an opportunity to coincide with what is deepest in it - to gain a different perception about his life as a slave. In an age entirely devoted to the calculation, the development of competitive people and things in the market, their equity, it opens a new form of nobility.
This nobility has nothing to do with the prevailing values, nor with what is in measurement.
"There no limit to the nobility "- this phrase has always served Valery Larbaud cue, but also appeal against the meanness activist backgrounds and environments.
I call a noble life that to which nothing and nobody do not extort the typical person.
nobility This occurs only if we leave a void in itself. Nobody is the author of his singularity - it should only be let. "I is another" - in the words of Rimbaud. The singularity occurs instead of the largest otherness, whence I infer his nobility, exactly. The individual folds in on itself, not the singularity. It is that generous. For it unfolds, it needs to be a void - and that this gap reveals me to myself as abroad.
I do not belong - I started with the stress. I do not recognize myself in any community, or in general any - I'm abroad, and as such, I have a proper name that expresses an infinite glory: God!
I reject any membership the human species, it would find my dignity outraged.
How can we accept a limitation as grotesque?
It's not solipsism - the singularity differs greatly from one individual ruler. It excludes the settlement on an ego-I. It subjectivity unravels.
The nobility of another singularity requires mine. I have no other entity, which made me a monster. But the monstrosity does not love. I think it gives full scope to the contrary.
love is experienced as a feeling. But this is just the beginning, it would be wrong to take the thing.
Love asks to be knighted.
Without nobility, it easily rotates to its opposite.
0 comments:
Post a Comment