/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20020732]

Somebody explain George Bataille's mysticism to me

[Anonymous No.20020737]

>>20020732
So Acephale?

[Anonymous No.20020945]

Bump

[Anonymous No.20020948]

>>20020732
stop posting these antifa lovers

[Anonymous No.20020964]

Have you considered... reading a book?

[Anonymous No.20021131]

>>20020732
Unbounded negativity or a sovereign form of Hegelian negation without synthesis. Bataille seeks the irrational, sacrificial, a-teleological, nothingness that he deems sacred. Imo he was btfo by Derrida and Deleuze and his fanboys are mostly aesthetes.

[Anonymous No.20021172]

>>20021131
>Unbounded negativity or a sovereign form of Hegelian negation without synthesis.
Nigga what does this mean

[Anonymous No.20021212]

>>20021172
Negation not subordinated to an end or totalizing synthesis. Think of sacrifice or potlatch, this is also where he is connected to surrealism with Beeton's idea of unbounded negations without resolution. Bataille structures his thought in firm relation with Hegel, you need to understand the unhappy consciousness and kojeves interpretations. Bataille is rebelling against reason because he sees it as a shackle, always demanding a further condition, reason, telos, necessity. He pits an irrational mysticism against this, limit experience is the effort to annul reason and enter sovereignty (for-itself) through a series of limitless negations without resolution. The extreme form of this is self annihilation and transgression or the murder of the super ego. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bataille's thought is the step he didn't take. He tried to dismantle the dialectic from within, instead of awaiting Absolute Knowledge and then negating this in a sacrificial ecstacy. It would both negate the absolute totality and the negative transgression against the father given that it would subsume this movement right back into the system. Hegel is never actually overcome, because his circle is far too tight. Read Hegel's critiques od Sense certainty and Derrida's Hegelian critique of Foucault if you want to know why Bataille's enterprise is ultimately a tragic one.

[Anonymous No.20021269]

>>20020737
Ass et phall(us)

[Anonymous No.20021392]

>>20020737

>dude let's pretend to decapitate guys but not actually REALLY do it lmao

[Anonymous No.20021572]

>>20021212
>Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Bataille's thought is the step he didn't take. He tried to dismantle the dialectic from within, instead of awaiting Absolute Knowledge and then negating this in a sacrificial ecstacy
so you mean to say the latter is the step forward Bataille didn't take?
>Read Hegel's critiques of Sense certainty
you mean at the beginning of the phenomenology or else where?

[Anonymous No.20021576]

>>20021572
>>20021212
>so you mean to say the latter is the step forward Bataille didn't take?
well thats sort of obvious but could you say a bit more about this? Is Bataille falling short or am I reading a value judgement into what you're trying to say

[Anonymous No.20021608]

>>20021572
>>20021576
Bataille's praxis is to unleash the negative from within the dialectical process, since he rightly sees that negating a synthesis is merely another step in the totalizing process. I personally think that this philosophy (of pure negativity) is taken to the true limit when it negates the totality, which is to say negates from the outside. Then again there are a lot of problems with this as well, since like i said it falters in the same spots as Bataille and just gets recuperated into the dialectic (Derrida's problem with all of the petty french rebellions against Hegel).

You can find the Sense Certainty critique in the PoS.

[Anonymous No.20021931]

Cooming is God. That's literally it.
>>20021572
Dilate

[Anonymous No.20022298]

>>20021392
When I first heard about the secret society it sounded really cool. Turns out they’re all just a bunch of pussies and none of them had the stones to be the beheader. Kinda reminds me of how different Nietzsche was in life to the type of man he ennobled in his writing. Both are pitifully hilarious

[Anonymous No.20023013]

>>20021131
>Imo he was btfo by Derrida and Deleuze
how? where?
>and his fanboys are mostly aesthetes.
aesthetes are cool

[Anonymous No.20023726]

bump

[Anonymous No.20024030]

>>20023013
Derrida's critique is that Bataille's entire project just get subsumed back into the dialectic he revolts against. He cannot speak, because as soon as he does he is once again a moment within the Idea, this is essentially the Hegelian sense certainty critique you can't have a philosophy of unreason because it just gets re-integrated and becomes an aspect of an even greater reason.

Deleuze outright detests the use of negativity within difference and has a strong critique of Hegelian negativity and by extension Bataille's use of it. Deleuze wants to free difference from the not-X while Bataille drives that very negativity to it's extreme (polar opposite of Deleuzian empiricism but they do find common ground in the a-representational transcendental empiricism of Jedan Wahl and Fondane).

[Anonymous No.20024042]

The Impossible.

[Anonymous No.20024562]

>>20024030
Yet Bataillean negativity – ‘unemployed’, that is – becomes also a kind of pure affirmation, as Blanchot writes in ‘The Limit-Experience’.

[Anonymous No.20025630]

>>20024562
Deleuze will argue that negation can never be affirmative, only affirmation can become negative insofar as it partakes in a qualitative typology (this and not not-that). Bataille is an interesting thinker but his entire philosophy was already contained in PoS and he never overcomes Hegel's system.

[Anonymous No.20026195]

>>20025630
Is that pretty unradical of Deleuze? that - will never be +, that all negativity *will not return*, that it is transmuted only insofar as it is annihilated…
Blanchot anyway takes something of the negative negativity of Bataille and the affirmation of affirmation of Deleuze, but is ultimately concerned with the neuter, which is outside dialectics in either a synthetic or an interrupted form.

[Anonymous No.20026233]

>>20026195
You are confusing Deleuze, he is operating (or at least he takes himself to be) on a completely non-dialectical plane. The Real has been transmuted into the pure Event which is necessarily processual and differential, the pure immanence which has no logic. This is a radicalization of Hume, a higher empiricism where identity is no longer a question and as a result negation is disintegrated. It's always the differential event and never the dialectical interplay of differánce. I've not read Blanchot, so I can't comment on him, but I don't think that you can really have a neuter externality to the dialectical field since it would ultimately collapse back into some totality. Deleuze proposes a crossroads for modern philosophy, either the rhizomatic image of thought or the dialectical image, a question of one's acceptance of representationalism and denial of subjectivism (which is about as radical as western philosophy can get)

[Anonymous No.20026250]

>>20021608
Where does Derrida critique this?

[Anonymous No.20026322]

Quality thread - keep extrapolating your points, I'm taking notes.

[Anonymous No.20026439]

>>20026250
Check out Derrida's essay on Foucault's Madness and Civilization (Cogito and the History of Madness) which serves as a generalized critique of anti-Hegelian french thinkers from the early 20th century. He is using Hegel's argument in the Sense-Certainty chapter of PoS to critique the idea of the ineffable or a-representational conceived of as a not-reason or the other of reason. This critique extends to Bataille insofar as he operates with the same general schema as Foucault does in trying to unbind negativity from it's ends, the problem being that this is recuperated into the dialectical process since it never combats the essential movement of consciousness. Thus, for Derrida madness simply ends up being an expanded region of reason, it never actually escapes reason and this applies to the irrational in Bataille as well. Derrida grants that you could theoretically have this non-reason, this pure immanence but it could (by definition) never be conscious and so 'speaking' about it abolishes it. Problem is that for Derrida language is much more than a medium of consciousness so the limit it (and writing) pose to the ineffable is a genuine problem with no solution. One can never access this dark region because access would destroy it in the same sense that you can never truly see a pure darkness, reason is a sort of black hole, with consciousness as the event horizon and neither Bataille nor Wahl ever escape it.

[Anonymous No.20026505]

>>20020948
>stop posting these antifa lovers

[Anonymous No.20027374]

>>20024030
>this is essentially the Hegelian sense certainty critique you can't have a philosophy of unreason because it just gets re-integrated and becomes an aspect of an even greater reason.
Stirner already had a way out of this with the Creative Nothing. I wonder if Bataille read Stirner.

[Anonymous No.20027806]

>>20026233
where to start with Deleuze anon?
I had bought AO in the past but not touched it yet and I guess I need to read much more of Deleuze before it

[Anonymous No.20028065]

>>20027374
He did.

[Anonymous No.20028339]

What is your recommended reading for a Bataille X Hegel study?

[Anonymous No.20028368]

>>20028339
Kojeve
>>20027806
Start with his monographs. Either on Spinoza or Bergson. Both are relatively straightforward. Then his Nietzsche. Then Difference & Repetition. Then whatever else.

[Anonymous No.20028723]

>>20028065
Proof?

[Anonymous No.20028778]

>>20028723
Volume 1 of The Accursed Share

[Anonymous No.20028795]

Quality thread ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.20028847]

>>20028339
Koyre, Delbos, Fondane, Breton, Wahl, Kojeve and Hyppolite would provide good background

[Anonymous No.20028866]

>>20027806
Start with Nietzsche and Philosophy it's the first book in which he explicitly sets out his alternative route to the dominating Hegelianism and Phenomenology of the academies, after that read his early lecture course called What Is Grounding and his short essay How Do We Recognize Structuralism; those three should serve as a good intro. You should also read his works on Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Bergson and his lectures on Kant, Rousseau, Spinoza and Bergson. Of his main works start with Logic of Sense, then Difference and Repetition (this is the most important), then Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. Other works after that are The Fold, Cinema I/II, Masochism, What Is Philosophy, Dialogues, Desert Islands, Immanence, etc...
Also be sure to supplement the readings with the matching lecture courses, they can be found on Purdue.

[Anonymous No.20028868]

>>20028339
Maybe Blanchot too

[Anonymous No.20028880]

>>20028866
Is the Francis Bacon book a good introduction to Logic of Sense?

[Anonymous No.20028909]

>>20028880
No. I haven't read the Bacon book but to my knowledge the two are not related. Logic of Sense is more of a precursor to Anti-Oedipus, it's where Deleuze develops the concept of Body Workout Organs and the chaotic depths of pure intensities that act as apparatuses for the production of meaning or Sense.

[Anonymous No.20028914]

>>20028909
Body Without Organs*** sorry I'm phone posting from bed rn

[Anonymous No.20029159]

>>20028866
>>20028909
I haven't read it yet, but LoS is where Deleuze proves his ontology of difference from D&R is at play in language, yes? LoS is a response to the criticism that since he used language to prove the ontology of difference it is nessecary to show that language comes from difference in itself. Is there a reason you put LoS before D&R in your reading order?

[Anonymous No.20029410]

>>20028723
He makes a few mentions of him here and there iirc, and he checked out L’unique et sa propriété a few times from the National Library in the thirties (all his library loans are collected in his Complete Works)

[Anonymous No.20029617]

>>20029159
LoS is simply a more beginner friendly exposition of Deleuzian ontology than DnR. The book is about the production of Sense out of the field of differentiated non-sense. It's an application of the empirical methodology laid out in his previous monographs like Nietzsche etc la Philosophie and Bergsonism. Difference and Repetition is just a lot harder to grasp, though it would make sense to read it first from the standpoint of conceptual development since it precedes LoS and LoS precedes AO. It depends on the reader, if you feel like you can tackle DnR first then you should do that.

[Anonymous No.20030429]

>>20029617
Oh okay thank you. I had been holding off on reading it since I was under the impression that LoS was harder than D&R. I read AO > D&R > Nietzche and Philosophy and can attest to that being a poor order.