I skip the bottom of p. 39 and all of 39. That's because I have trouble
understanding what's going on there -- if anyone else would like to give
it a try, I'd be much obliged.
Selection #15: How is it possible to discover, under all these different
figures, that form of thought we carelessly call "the philosophy of
eroticism," but in which it is important to recognize (a less ambitious
goal, but also more central to our understanding) an essential experience
for our culture since Kant and Sade -- the experience of finitude and
being, of the limit and transgression? What natural space can this form of
thought possess and what language can it adopt? Undoubtedly, no form of
reflection yet developed, no established discourse, can supply its model,
its foundation, or even the riches of its vocabulary. Would it be of help,
in any case, to argue by analogy that we must find a language for the
transgressive which would be what dialectics was, in an earlier time, for
contradiction? Our efforts are undoubtedly better spent in trying to speak
of this experience and in making it speak from the depths where its
language fails, from precisely the place where words escape it, where the
subject who speaks has just vanished, where the spectacle topples over
before an upturned eye -- from where Bataille's death has recently placed
his language. We can only hope, now that his death has sent us to the pure
transgression of his texts, that they will protect those who seek a
language for the thought of the limit, that they will serve as a dwelling
place for what may already be a ruined project. (p. 40) [end Foucault]
Just to parse up the above a little:
Selection #15: How is it possible to discover, under all these different
figures, that form of thought we carelessly call "the philosophy of
eroticism," but in which it is important to recognize (a less ambitious
goal, but also more central to our understanding) an essential experience
for our culture since Kant and Sade -- the experience of finitude and
being, of the limit and transgression?
Foucault has just gotten done commenting on the pace of the
dialogue in Sade's texts. He is trying to turn us away, is he
not, from an overemphasis on Sade and the erotic? And he is
turning us in the direction of "a less ambitious goal, but one
more central to our understanding" -- namely, the experience
of limit and transgression, also known as finitude and being.
What natural space can this form of
thought possess and what language can it adopt? Undoubtedly, no form of
reflection yet developed, no established discourse, can supply its model,
its foundation, or even the riches of its vocabulary. Would it be of help,
in any case, to argue by analogy that we must find a language for the
transgressive which would be what dialectics was, in an earlier time, for
contradiction?
Dialectics was one way of justifying transgressive acts. It did
this by renaming them "contradictions" and fitting them into a
story of humanity's inevitable march into the promised land of
socialism. Foucault is gently suggesting that we would be
smarter to focus elsewhere. We should not try to subsume the
transgressive act to the erotic or the dialectic, nor to some
other, supposedly more appropriate language.
Our efforts are undoubtedly better spent in trying to speak
of this experience and in making it speak from the depths where its
language fails, from precisely the place where words escape it, where the
subject who speaks has just vanished, where the spectacle topples over
before an upturned eye
And why is this approach to transgression preferable? What do we
get that we wouldn't get otherwise by approaching transgressions
in the way F suggests? What can we hope to understand from an
experience that we make "speak from the depths where its language
fails"? What do we get to when we get to an experience and are
able to look at it when "the subject who speaks has just
vanished"?
-- from where Bataille's death has recently placed
his language. We can only hope, now that his death has sent us to the pure
transgression of his texts, that they will protect those who seek a
language for the thought of the limit, that they will serve as a dwelling
place for what may already be a ruined project. (p. 40) [end Foucault]
--John
understanding what's going on there -- if anyone else would like to give
it a try, I'd be much obliged.
Selection #15: How is it possible to discover, under all these different
figures, that form of thought we carelessly call "the philosophy of
eroticism," but in which it is important to recognize (a less ambitious
goal, but also more central to our understanding) an essential experience
for our culture since Kant and Sade -- the experience of finitude and
being, of the limit and transgression? What natural space can this form of
thought possess and what language can it adopt? Undoubtedly, no form of
reflection yet developed, no established discourse, can supply its model,
its foundation, or even the riches of its vocabulary. Would it be of help,
in any case, to argue by analogy that we must find a language for the
transgressive which would be what dialectics was, in an earlier time, for
contradiction? Our efforts are undoubtedly better spent in trying to speak
of this experience and in making it speak from the depths where its
language fails, from precisely the place where words escape it, where the
subject who speaks has just vanished, where the spectacle topples over
before an upturned eye -- from where Bataille's death has recently placed
his language. We can only hope, now that his death has sent us to the pure
transgression of his texts, that they will protect those who seek a
language for the thought of the limit, that they will serve as a dwelling
place for what may already be a ruined project. (p. 40) [end Foucault]
Just to parse up the above a little:
Selection #15: How is it possible to discover, under all these different
figures, that form of thought we carelessly call "the philosophy of
eroticism," but in which it is important to recognize (a less ambitious
goal, but also more central to our understanding) an essential experience
for our culture since Kant and Sade -- the experience of finitude and
being, of the limit and transgression?
Foucault has just gotten done commenting on the pace of the
dialogue in Sade's texts. He is trying to turn us away, is he
not, from an overemphasis on Sade and the erotic? And he is
turning us in the direction of "a less ambitious goal, but one
more central to our understanding" -- namely, the experience
of limit and transgression, also known as finitude and being.
What natural space can this form of
thought possess and what language can it adopt? Undoubtedly, no form of
reflection yet developed, no established discourse, can supply its model,
its foundation, or even the riches of its vocabulary. Would it be of help,
in any case, to argue by analogy that we must find a language for the
transgressive which would be what dialectics was, in an earlier time, for
contradiction?
Dialectics was one way of justifying transgressive acts. It did
this by renaming them "contradictions" and fitting them into a
story of humanity's inevitable march into the promised land of
socialism. Foucault is gently suggesting that we would be
smarter to focus elsewhere. We should not try to subsume the
transgressive act to the erotic or the dialectic, nor to some
other, supposedly more appropriate language.
Our efforts are undoubtedly better spent in trying to speak
of this experience and in making it speak from the depths where its
language fails, from precisely the place where words escape it, where the
subject who speaks has just vanished, where the spectacle topples over
before an upturned eye
And why is this approach to transgression preferable? What do we
get that we wouldn't get otherwise by approaching transgressions
in the way F suggests? What can we hope to understand from an
experience that we make "speak from the depths where its language
fails"? What do we get to when we get to an experience and are
able to look at it when "the subject who speaks has just
vanished"?
-- from where Bataille's death has recently placed
his language. We can only hope, now that his death has sent us to the pure
transgression of his texts, that they will protect those who seek a
language for the thought of the limit, that they will serve as a dwelling
place for what may already be a ruined project. (p. 40) [end Foucault]
--John