Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

A Dog's Life « Previous | |Next »
February 25, 2004

I know. I’ve been slack about writing for our web page, or blog or whatever it’s called. I guess everybody’s getting the drop on me this week. It’s not that I’m in a deep depression or anything like that. It’s just that – well, you know how it is. I have joined a Star Of Redemption reading group. The next meeting will be the fourth. The Star is so far from what we’re talking about that it is hard keeping both trains of thought going. I’m not ambidextrous. On top of that, I am writing a paper on Adorno for the conference. (See the entry for January 19. Perhaps Gary will put the words in red for me – make a link or whatever you call it. We’ve been meaning to get this up under the conference heading but so far there’s just some gobbly-goog there – at least, that’s what shows up on my computer.) I’ll tell you about this paper in due course. Is it all right to subvert the conversation to Adorno? Only, as I said, I’m not ambidextrous. Right! To work:

No, I didn’t know that Bellmer did the illustrations for the second edition of Story Of The Eye. I’d love to see a copy. I guess it would cost a fortune to buy, if you could find one. All that I know about Bellmer I’ve got from the Web. Gary, you seem to be ahead of me in this regard. Why don’t you write us a short biography? That would be great.

From what you’ve put up so far, if Bellmer is a visual Bataille then his work looks very surrealist. I think most people have a funny idea of what surrealism is. They see it as an historical event which was killed off by the Second World War – the Soviet guys called it the Great Patriotic War. That’s bullshit too. Let’s not beat around the bush. As a matter of historical fact, it was the Second Great Imperialist War. Indeed it represented imperialism at its most mature: it was the first Great Corporatist War. Anyone who thinks that a load of crap like that could kill off surrealism needs their head read.

Surrealism is an intellectual position. Benjamin called it ‘the last snapshot of the bourgeoisie’. The remark is ambiguous. Is it the last snapshot taken of the bourgeoisie or the last snapshot taken by the bourgeoisie? It’s both – that’s what I think. Surrealism needs to be seen in the context of a general attitude at the beginning of the twentieth century. The Star Of Redemption is a good example of this attitude. Franz Rosenzweig wrote the book in the context of a number of factors, including the first great imperialist war but also the assimilation of German Jewry during the nineteenth century, which Rosenzweig saw as a domination by enlightened rationalist thinking. Indeed, because it was the highest expression of systematic thinking in philosophy, Hegelian philosophy is Rosenzweig’s target. The drive behind surrealism is not dissimilar to Rosenzweig’s move – both are a reaction against the domination of systematic reason. Here is where the similarity ends, however. Rosenzweig takes the high road and opts for existentialism. The surrealists take the low road and opt for … what? Rosenzweig wanted to be like God. The surrealists wanted to be like Dog. Is there another path? Who knows? There are animal tracks shooting off in all directions. When you’re out in the bush they’re always worth following.

Here’s a question for you, Gary? This will test whether you’re reading my stuff or not. Anybody who is should look out for Gary’s reply. Anyway, back to the question. I got an email from Luke. He said that he and Wendy were having a dispute. Apparently, in his book Spurs Derrida says that Hegel wrote an ‘analysis of the passivity of clitoral pleasure’. Wendy’s position is that Hegel wrote no such thing. I don’t know my Hegel well enough. What do you think?

If he means by the passivity of clitoral pleasure that the ladies just lie there then I don’t think that is right. I believe that some ladies like to jump around a lot. If they didn’t in Hegel’s day then that probably means that the ladies in his particular social group were probably pretty repressed and mightn’t have got much pleasure out of sexual relations. They might have thought that the right thing to do was to lie still and breath gently but regularly. Something like Molly Bloom’s soliloquy might have been what went on in their heads while all this took place. And after all, the pleasure ultimately comes from rubbing sensitive skin. After a while it’s a bit difficult to get too excited about it. The rest depends on the social – but hey! we’re back to Bataille. Perhaps all this stuff does go together after all.

I said I’d say more about Balthus so here’s an anecdote. When quite young he once had dinner with Matisse and Bonnard, among others. Bonnard was a jovial laughing sort of man apparently. Well, anyway, at one point Matisse said to Bonnard, ‘Bonnard, do you realise that you and I are the greatest painters of our age,’ and with that Bonnard’s face dropped until he took on the look of deepest melancholy, and he replied, after thinking for a moment, ‘If you and I are the greatest painters of our age, Matisse, then I weep with sadness.’

| Posted by at 9:20 AM | | Comments (0)
Comments