Erik wrote:
> the problem i have with these 'politically correct' campustalk examples is the
> subject doesn't change by the transgression. it simply does what it thinks it
> has to do, carrying out its political ideals and remaining the same to itself
> and others troughout the transgression.
But if we are talking about the concept of "transgression" as it is discussed
in _Preface_, to what extent is the question of the subject changing relevant?
Does the Bataillean or Sadean type of transgression -- the production of these
transgressive texts, these transgresive symbolic acts -- induce any change
in the subject? F says that (this kind of) transgression illuminates
the limit, affirms limited being. One can of course say that the subject
is changed from one who has not transgressed into one who has, but I suspect
that's not what you have in mind.
> for me a simple and good example of a transgression is that of someone who
> conscioussly eats meat after having been a vegetarian for ten years or more.
> this transgression changes the selfimage of the subject radically and there is
> no going back.
Hmm, I don't quite see that. The vegetarianism here is a self-imposed limit
whose crossability seems to me to be inherent in the very fact of its being
conciously self-imposed. The subject originally was not a vegetarian,
and could clearly become a non-vegetarian again; it has always, from the start,
been a matter of individual choice. Or am I reading it wrongly?
To me, a more convincing example of transgression would be that of a
normally tradition-observing Jew eating pork. I don't mean a Jew deciding
to stop observing the tradition, but eating pork, once, as a conscious
transgressive act. I don't know whether this changes the subject;
I think not. It affirms the limit in the sense that it both shows that it
can be crossed, and that this crossing is only symbolically communicative
if it remains a transgression, a violation, an excess. It is (I think
characteristically) an act that would be blasphemous if there was a God,
and whose meaning derives precisely from this relationship to the sacred.
If it simply marks the person's break with traditional dietary laws,
then (I think) it stops being a transgression in the sense of _Preface_.
> may i suggest another recent example of multiple transgression: the british
> rock group 'rock bitch'? they are i think four women and one man. the man is
> the drummer and doesnot take part in the act. the women are practically nude
> and have several sexual orgasms each while they're making their music, induced
> by themselves, each other and some invited members of the audience, in all
> possible ways.
In my view, this is a perfect example of _Preface_'s type of transgression.
So here are the features that seem significant to me. The act takes place
in a theatre (of sorts) as part of a rock concert. It thus partakes of
the tradition of theatre as a sacred space, a space of religious offering
and religious blasphemy. (Similarly, Bataille and de Sade operate in the
space of "philosophy".) The show is an orgiastic event reminiscent of
Bacchanalia. It is an act circumscribed both in time and in space; it
is not meant to lead to an abandonment of the limits it transgresses.
And, I would submit to you, it does not change the subject. Or does it?
> i think some interesting questions would be:
> - how regular can transgression be, can you repeat a transgression?
Well, this rock show, for example, gets repeated over and over; and
a de Sade text can get read again and again. Are these real repetitions,
or is it one and the same transgression, and the repetition is just part
of the mode through which this one transgression is disseminated?
Or is a trangressive act always an incipient ritual, and thus takes place
in some kind of circular time?
> - can transgression become routine, predictable?
It seems to me that then it would no longer have the power to illuminate
the limit, but maybe I am wrong. But this, to some extent, seems to me
one reason why pornography is _not_ "trangression"; recuperated transgression
is no longer transgression.
> - is every transgression a contribution to personal growth, or are there
> transgressions which are damaging it?
Well, my proposal is that trangression (in the sense of _Preface_ and of
your rock-orgy example) does not have much to do with personal growth.
> - what is the relation between transgression and religion and/or drugs?
I think there is an umbilical cord linking it to religion; it requires
some kind of sacred space to play itself out.
-m
> the problem i have with these 'politically correct' campustalk examples is the
> subject doesn't change by the transgression. it simply does what it thinks it
> has to do, carrying out its political ideals and remaining the same to itself
> and others troughout the transgression.
But if we are talking about the concept of "transgression" as it is discussed
in _Preface_, to what extent is the question of the subject changing relevant?
Does the Bataillean or Sadean type of transgression -- the production of these
transgressive texts, these transgresive symbolic acts -- induce any change
in the subject? F says that (this kind of) transgression illuminates
the limit, affirms limited being. One can of course say that the subject
is changed from one who has not transgressed into one who has, but I suspect
that's not what you have in mind.
> for me a simple and good example of a transgression is that of someone who
> conscioussly eats meat after having been a vegetarian for ten years or more.
> this transgression changes the selfimage of the subject radically and there is
> no going back.
Hmm, I don't quite see that. The vegetarianism here is a self-imposed limit
whose crossability seems to me to be inherent in the very fact of its being
conciously self-imposed. The subject originally was not a vegetarian,
and could clearly become a non-vegetarian again; it has always, from the start,
been a matter of individual choice. Or am I reading it wrongly?
To me, a more convincing example of transgression would be that of a
normally tradition-observing Jew eating pork. I don't mean a Jew deciding
to stop observing the tradition, but eating pork, once, as a conscious
transgressive act. I don't know whether this changes the subject;
I think not. It affirms the limit in the sense that it both shows that it
can be crossed, and that this crossing is only symbolically communicative
if it remains a transgression, a violation, an excess. It is (I think
characteristically) an act that would be blasphemous if there was a God,
and whose meaning derives precisely from this relationship to the sacred.
If it simply marks the person's break with traditional dietary laws,
then (I think) it stops being a transgression in the sense of _Preface_.
> may i suggest another recent example of multiple transgression: the british
> rock group 'rock bitch'? they are i think four women and one man. the man is
> the drummer and doesnot take part in the act. the women are practically nude
> and have several sexual orgasms each while they're making their music, induced
> by themselves, each other and some invited members of the audience, in all
> possible ways.
In my view, this is a perfect example of _Preface_'s type of transgression.
So here are the features that seem significant to me. The act takes place
in a theatre (of sorts) as part of a rock concert. It thus partakes of
the tradition of theatre as a sacred space, a space of religious offering
and religious blasphemy. (Similarly, Bataille and de Sade operate in the
space of "philosophy".) The show is an orgiastic event reminiscent of
Bacchanalia. It is an act circumscribed both in time and in space; it
is not meant to lead to an abandonment of the limits it transgresses.
And, I would submit to you, it does not change the subject. Or does it?
> i think some interesting questions would be:
> - how regular can transgression be, can you repeat a transgression?
Well, this rock show, for example, gets repeated over and over; and
a de Sade text can get read again and again. Are these real repetitions,
or is it one and the same transgression, and the repetition is just part
of the mode through which this one transgression is disseminated?
Or is a trangressive act always an incipient ritual, and thus takes place
in some kind of circular time?
> - can transgression become routine, predictable?
It seems to me that then it would no longer have the power to illuminate
the limit, but maybe I am wrong. But this, to some extent, seems to me
one reason why pornography is _not_ "trangression"; recuperated transgression
is no longer transgression.
> - is every transgression a contribution to personal growth, or are there
> transgressions which are damaging it?
Well, my proposal is that trangression (in the sense of _Preface_ and of
your rock-orgy example) does not have much to do with personal growth.
> - what is the relation between transgression and religion and/or drugs?
I think there is an umbilical cord linking it to religion; it requires
some kind of sacred space to play itself out.
-m