Subject: Re: The scandal of obligation
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:08:53 -0500 (EST)


Hi Eric,
> 
> Dear Ariosto,
> 
> In reference to your discussion of Bataille on sovereignity in connection to
> Lyotard, what do you make of section #202 in "The Differend"  where Lyotard
> seems very critical of Bataille's approach?  It might be helpful if you could
> address the differend that exists between them.  How do you read these
> comments on Bataille?
> 
Yes, I can say more in time. For now I want to point out that waht
Lyotard says is that Bataille practices "the ecstasy of sacrifice" as
if it were a Grand genre and basis of political hegemony and so he lacks
pagan homour in his own approach to Ereignis, in his own encounter with
events. Secondly, he is being governed by the feelings that come with
sacrifice. I want to eventually respond to these remarks but I still
have to look at Cashinahua Notice. The most wrong that he accuses
Bataille of is that as an intellectual and not a philospher he "forgets
differends". An answer on Bataille's behalf implies know-how of how
_not_ to forget differends and bring forth residue or "remnants" and
then seeing of Bataille's own practice does or does not help in such
remembrance or recollection. Nothing to approach in a few sentences or
even a years worth of posting! let 'us' be patient...


> Where is the essay or book where Lyotard discusses Cezanne?  This would be
> very interesting to read.
> 
there is probably an essay somewhere, someone more knowledgeable with
all the works could perhaps post a reference? I was thinking of some
remarks in _Perigrination_ with regards to Cezanne and sensibility. I
mean when Lyotard discusses aesthetics as being a sort of sensibility
to the subtlety of immediate phenomena, it seems to me, one can relate
much of this to Levinas and "the production of psychism," "ipseity,"
"interiority," in the chapter on "separation and discourse" in
_Totality and Infinity_ There is so much that could be said about
painting, sensibility, and this sense of a sort of dynamic abstract
line that he works or paints with. 

> With regard to your comments on Levinas, this might be a good topic to return
> to later, when we discuss in more detail the Levinas Notice.  I'm not sure,
> however, that Levinas is totally free from violence in connection with the
> scandal of obligation.  It seems that by focusing on the Other in terms of
> alterity rather than empathy,  the Other is always an intrusion and
> disruption of our Hegelian Being For-Itself.  Even though Narcissus covers
> his ears, he cannot silence Echo's voice.  The suffering of the Other
> disturbs our tranquility.   
> 

yes, and t/here it seems the whole discussion about anxiety from
Kierkeggard to Heiddeger to Freud, Lacan etc., emerges.


Ariosto 


--