Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:52:55 -0500 (EST)
From: walter a davis <davis.65-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Sublime


Reg,  One last notion.  When you speak of the aestheticization of terror I
assume you are aware that this was Walter Benjamin's definition of fascism
in his essay on art. (My point re. Kant--and again I'm collapsing here what
I take over 100 pages to demonstrate--is that in his thought on the sublime
he projects and denies the disorders of his psyche--that psyche being the
ratio in its desperate effort to realize its desires while calling them
something else.) walter 
At 04:15 PM 11/11/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Reg/Walter/Eric
>
>1) Whilst I disagree with Walters' hyperbole, simply because so much 
>philosophy has wilfully refused to understand the issues that are raised 
>by science - the clearest moment being the Darwin event. There is a 
>sound point in the below related to the comprehensive industrialisation 
>of the media, which derives its power from the comprehensive aesthetics 
>of terror, which can be understood through the invocation of the 
>'sublime' - Lyotard invokes the sublime in relation to the aesthetic not 
>to the social itself - in the sections of the inhuman where he addresses 
>the social he invokes the notion of 'development' which is a heavily 
>overcoded version of capital. But this is insufficient given that this 
>does not help in producing an analysis and understanding of the miseries 
>and slavery of a society that at present has extended its domination 
>over the whole planet - this is to re-state,  that this is the society 
>of the spectacle in which we all, the humans and animals on this planet 
>live.
>
>2) Because we live in the society of the spectacle, and let us remember 
>that the spectacle is 'the social relationship between people that is 
>mediated by images', images  that dominate and degrade any notion of the 
>sublime.  In effect it denies any possibility of the 'sublime' having 
>purchase in this society - for the space of the sublime has been, as 
>Lyotard hints in the inhuman, industrialised to the extent that 
>'judgements on the beautiful' seem absurdly out of place. (Lyotards much 
>loved Avant-Garde has become merely a traditional subset of the 
>industrialised spectacle). An inevitable beyond of the society of 
>spectacle is the rise of post or inhuman forms, a blurring of the lines 
>between humans and machines, which need to be understood as going well 
>beyond the current medical protheses. The InHuman argues for the 
>spectacular reassessment of the significance of the human and the 
>realignment of the relationship between the human/animal and technology 
>(which I approve of). This is what the late Lyotard, for all of his 
>anti-humanisn, was so terrified of and which he wrote against in his 
>later writing.... But to write against the relationship has to start 
>from the spectacle (Debord) and commodity fetishism (Marx), and not from 
>an approval of the fetishism of the avant-garde. What can be more 
>fetishistic than Lyotard writing on avant-garde painting where he argues 
>-that it enters into the sublime because of its concerns with form and 
>its revealing the invisible through its concerns with the visual? 
> Whereas the spectacle announces that these are primarily commodities - 
>possibly best understood through the falling rate of use value... The 
>avant-garde was a 19th and 20th C pre-post-modern concern - it does not 
>exist anymore...
>
>3) Perhaps then, for us, the sublime is simply the spectacle written 
>large across our, into our imaginaries - and nothing else.
>
>4) Eric - the point at issue with the Kantian and Hegelian differences 
>is that early 21st Century radical critiques of the European 
>Philosophical kind are all descended in some sense from the Hegelian 
>line... Lyotard's Lessons on 'the analytic of the sublime' - makes a 
>very poor improper weapon for the fugitive to pick up and insert hastily 
>inside their jacket - to usea rather wonderful image from Deleuze... 
>Whereas the Debord's texts make are rather wonderful weapons...
>
>5) Perhaps the return of the sublime as a useful liberatory concept can 
>never be achieved - what cannot be commodified? Were my responses to my 
>daughter's birth sublime or codified responses of capitals last 
>metamorphsis? The metamorphosis of capital has achieved the position of 
> completely eclipsing use-value and has managed to achieve the status of 
>absolute and irresponsible over all known life, having falisifed the 
>entirety of social production.
>
>6) The understanding of the 'aestheticisation of terror' has two 
>starting points - the first seems an adequate point for the impact of 
>Kant's sublime on literature and society  - the second is the point 
>where the radical critique and refusal of the sublime, of the 
>aestheticisation starts from - 1) the romantics  - with the fetishism of 
> the post-Kantian concept of philosophy  2) Marx and the chapter in 
>Capital on Commodity Fetishism. From the latter standpoint Hiroshima can 
>be instantiated as a sublime effect - just as Auschwitz is rendered as a 
>sublime effect by hollywood...
>
>regards
>steve
>
>Reg Mifflin wrote:
>
>>Walter,
>>
>>Are you jesting? If you are serious then I couldn't agree less.
>>The sublime is not terror, it is the aestheticisation of terror, there's a
>>big difference.
>>If actual terror/violence etc. is conflated with the sublime then we have
>>just lost a useful  idea in philosophy.
>>To call Hiroshima a sublime affect, apart from being plain wrong, says more
>>about the 'affected' person than the aesthetic term.
>>
>>Reg
>>
>>At 09:37 AM 11/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>>The issue is, indeed, the sublime and maybe after 9-11 we're finally ready
>>>to see that Kant on the sublime is really a call for the development and the
>>>use of the atomic bomb.  I know it sounds preposterous but so much was
>>>slumbering in the great acts of a priori rationality.  And thus we can begin
>>>to see the psyche hiding behind the ratio--in Kant and all who continue to
>>>draw on him both for their hyper-rational superstructures and the covert
>>>prosecution of their deepest desires.  Because yes, the horror of 9-11 was
>>>that at one register of the psyche it was experienced as a sublime image.
>>>And thus shocking the need of so many to moralistically deny this and attack
>>>all who want to understand it.  For the understand is perhaps this: a
>>>sublime affect can only be replaced by another sublime affect.  As on 8-6-45
>>>and 8-9-45 and on .....???
>>>When traumatic events happen historicity within the psyche turns on the
>>>sublime register.
>>>I have tried to discuss these matters---and Kant on the sublime at
>>>length--in Walter A. Davis, DERACINATION; HISTORICITY, HIROSHIMA, AND THE
>>>TRAGIC IMPERATIVE (Albany: SUNY P, 2001). 
>>>
>>>
>>>At 06:03 AM 11/10/01 -0600, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>All,
>>>>
>>>>I want to deal with some of these other issues in another post, when I
>>>>have a little more time.
>>>>
>>>>But, first of all, there is clearly a difference between interest and
>>>>the ethical, certainly within both the Aristotlean and the Kantian
>>>>traditions.  
>>>>
>>>>Kant clearly distinguishes between duty and interest and says that
>>>>ethics is only concerned with the former and not the latter.  I realize
>>>>the word duty is not a popular one today.  Put in its place something
>>>>like 'the right thing' or justice and what Kant says makes more sense.
>>>>
>>>>It is also interesting that Kant make a similar distinction between
>>>>interest and beauty, but I digress...
>>>>
>>>>Also, there is a clear concept of the sublime that can be described in
>>>>both Burke and Kant and it is something that is very different from the
>>>>ineffable. My next post will deal with sublime in greater detail. 
>>>>
>>>>I also think, contrary to Steve, that there is a Kantian side to Badiou
>>>>and not merely a Hegelian paternity.
>>>>
>>>>More later....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
><html>
><head>
></head>
><body>
>Reg/Walter/Eric<br>
><br>
>1) Whilst I disagree with Walters' hyperbole, simply because so much philosophy
>has wilfully refused to understand the issues that are raised by science
>- the clearest moment being the Darwin event. There is a sound point in the
>below related to the comprehensive industrialisation of the media, which
>derives its power from the comprehensive aesthetics of terror, which can
>be understood through the invocation of the 'sublime' - Lyotard invokes the
>sublime in relation to the aesthetic not to the social itself - in the sections
>of the inhuman where he addresses the social he invokes the notion of
'development'
>which is a heavily overcoded version of capital. But this is insufficient
>given that this does not help in producing an analysis and understanding
>of the miseries and slavery of a society that at present has extended its
>domination over the whole planet - this is to re-state,  that this is the
>society of the spectacle in which we all, the humans and animals on this
>planet live. <br>
><br>
>2) Because we live in the society of the spectacle, and let us remember that
>the spectacle is 'the social relationship between people that is mediated
>by images', images  that dominate and degrade any notion of the
sublime. 
>In effect it denies any possibility of the 'sublime' having purchase in this
>society - for the space of the sublime has been, as Lyotard hints in the
>inhuman, industrialised to the extent that 'judgements on the beautiful'
>seem absurdly out of place. (Lyotards much loved Avant-Garde has become merely
>a traditional subset of the industrialised spectacle). An inevitable beyond
>of the society of spectacle is the rise of post or inhuman forms, a blurring
>of the lines between humans and machines, which need to be understood as
>going well beyond the current medical protheses. The InHuman argues for the
>spectacular reassessment of the significance of the human and the realignment
>of the relationship between the human/animal and technology (which I approve
>of). This is what the late Lyotard, for all of his anti-humanisn, was so
>terrified of and which he wrote against in his later writing.... But to write
>against the relationship has to start from the spectacle (Debord) and commodity
>fetishism (Marx), and not from an approval of the fetishism of the avant-garde.
>What can be more fetishistic than Lyotard writing on avant-garde painting
>where he argues -that it enters into the sublime because of its concerns
>with form and its revealing the invisible through its concerns with the visual?
> Whereas the spectacle announces that these are primarily commodities
- possibly
>best understood through the falling rate of use value... The avant-garde
>was a 19th and 20th C pre-post-modern concern - it does not exist anymore...
><br>
><br>
>3) Perhaps then, for us, the sublime is simply the spectacle written large
>across our, into our imaginaries - and nothing else. <br>
><br>
>4) Eric - the point at issue with the Kantian and Hegelian differences is
>that early 21st Century radical critiques of the European Philosophical kind
>are all descended in some sense from the Hegelian line... Lyotard's Lessons
>on 'the analytic of the sublime' - makes a very poor improper weapon for
>the fugitive to pick up and insert hastily inside their jacket - to usea
>rather wonderful image from Deleuze... Whereas the Debord's texts make are
>rather wonderful weapons... <br>
><br>
>5) Perhaps the return of the sublime as a useful liberatory concept can never
>be achieved - what cannot be commodified? Were my responses to my daughter's
>birth sublime or codified responses of capitals last metamorphsis? The
metamorphosis
>of capital has achieved the position of  completely eclipsing
use-value and
>has managed to achieve the status of absolute and irresponsible over all
>known life, having falisifed the entirety of social production. <br>
><br>
>6) The understanding of the 'aestheticisation of terror' has two starting
>points - the first seems an adequate point for the impact of Kant's sublime
>on literature and society  - the second is the point where the radical
critique
>and refusal of the sublime, of the aestheticisation starts from - 1) the
>romantics  - with the fetishism of  the post-Kantian concept of
philosophy
> 2) Marx and the chapter in Capital on Commodity Fetishism. From the
latter
>standpoint Hiroshima can be instantiated as a sublime effect - just as
Auschwitz
>is rendered as a sublime effect by hollywood...<br>
><br>
>regards<br>
>steve<br>
><br>
>Reg Mifflin wrote:<br>
><blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3.0.5.32.20011111110553.0091d140-AT-mail.space.net.au">
>  <pre wrap="">Walter,<br><br>Are you jesting? If you are serious then I
couldn't agree less.<br>The sublime is not terror, it is the
aestheticisation of terror, there's a<br>big difference.<br>If actual
terror/violence etc. is conflated with the sublime then we have<br>just lost
a useful  idea in philosophy.<br>To call Hiroshima a sublime affect, apart
from being plain wrong, says more<br>about the 'affected' person than the
aesthetic term.<br><br>Reg<br><br>At 09:37 AM 11/10/01 -0500, you
wrote:<br></pre>
>  <blockquote type="cite">
>    <pre wrap="">The issue is, indeed, the sublime and maybe after 9-11
we're finally ready<br>to see that Kant on the sublime is really a call for
the development and the<br>use of the atomic bomb.  I know it sounds
preposterous but so much was<br>slumbering in the great acts of a priori
rationality.  And thus we can begin<br>to see the psyche hiding behind the
ratio--in Kant and all who continue to<br>draw on him both for their
hyper-rational superstructures and the covert<br>prosecution of their
deepest desires.  Because yes, the horror of 9-11 was<br>that at one
register of the psyche it was experienced as a sublime image.<br>And thus
shocking the need of so many to moralistically deny this and attack<br>all
who want to understand it.  For the understand is perhaps this: a<br>sublime
affect can only be replaced by another sublime affect.  As on 8-6-45<br>and
8-9-45 and on .....???<br>When traumatic events happen historicity within
the psyche turns on the<br>sublime regis
>ter.<br>I have tried to discuss these matters---and Kant on the sublime
at<br>length--in Walter A. Davis, DERACINATION; HISTORICITY, HIROSHIMA, AND
THE<br>TRAGIC IMPERATIVE (Albany: SUNY P, 2001). <br><br><br>At 06:03 AM
11/10/01 -0600, you wrote:<br></pre>
>    <blockquote type="cite">
>      <pre wrap="">All,<br><br>I want to deal with some of these other
issues in another post, when I<br>have a little more time.<br><br>But, first
of all, there is clearly a difference between interest and<br>the ethical,
certainly within both the Aristotlean and the Kantian<br>traditions.
<br><br>Kant clearly distinguishes between duty and interest and says
that<br>ethics is only concerned with the former and not the latter.  I
realize<br>the word duty is not a popular one today.  Put in its place
something<br>like 'the right thing' or justice and what Kant says makes more
sense.<br><br>It is also interesting that Kant make a similar distinction
between<br>interest and beauty, but I digress...<br><br>Also, there is a
clear concept of the sublime that can be described in<br>both Burke and Kant
and it is something that is very different from the<br>ineffable. My next
post will deal with sublime in greater detail. <br><br>I also think,
contrary to Steve, that there is a Kant
>ian side to Badiou<br>and not merely a Hegelian paternity.<br><br>More
later....<br><br><br>eric<br><br><br><br></pre>
>      </blockquote>
>      <pre wrap=""><br><br></pre>
>      </blockquote>
>      <pre wrap=""><!----><br><br></pre>
>      </blockquote>
>      <br>
>      </body>
>      </html>
>