I am somewhat confused about this discussion, for the following reason.
Does F actually advocate "transgression" somewhere, as a generally advisable
thing? If so, where? And what is the context and form of this advocacy?
As far as the _Preface_ goes, I don't read it as containing any claims about
the advisability of transgression as a mode of conduct; does anyone else?
To me, the question that is being divagated in _Preface_ seems to be something
like: Given that there is such a phenomenon as transgressive philosophical
writing, what is its role in philosophy? _Preface_, as has been said by
others, is a literary homage to Bataille; it seems to me to deal specifically
with the meaning of Bataille's writing, his place as a thinker. Where does
F discuss trangressive acts in general and what does he say about them?
-m
Does F actually advocate "transgression" somewhere, as a generally advisable
thing? If so, where? And what is the context and form of this advocacy?
As far as the _Preface_ goes, I don't read it as containing any claims about
the advisability of transgression as a mode of conduct; does anyone else?
To me, the question that is being divagated in _Preface_ seems to be something
like: Given that there is such a phenomenon as transgressive philosophical
writing, what is its role in philosophy? _Preface_, as has been said by
others, is a literary homage to Bataille; it seems to me to deal specifically
with the meaning of Bataille's writing, his place as a thinker. Where does
F discuss trangressive acts in general and what does he say about them?
-m