File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0111, message 37


From: "Fuller" <fuller-AT-bekkers.com.au>
Subject: Re: Ethics as a Figure of Nihilism
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 22:23:00 +0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Steve/All,

Steve wrote,
Badiou's relationship to 'difference' and the rejection of Kantian approaches,  perhaps even the refusal of the sublime begins from the materialist/marxist need for contradiction which is used in Hegal to 'resolve it, to interiorize it'... difference that is.

Something I have been trying to resolve in my thoughts is the relation between Badiou's (Lacanian) Void to the Sublime. Or rather the Sublime to the Void. My (mis)understanding (perhaps the trite brackets aren't needed!) is that the Void emcompasses the Sublime, or the Sublime is one type of product to an interaction with the Void (as an event). If not similar, then at least the Sublime could function in the same way. Or,maybe, the Void is what the Sublime 'touches'.

This is where I hand over to you, the more experienced... I am not even sure where I am getting my understanding of the Sublime from, I read and hear about it from many sources. I quickly turn to my Cambridge dictionary and it says, "sublime, a feeling brought about by objects that are infinitely large of vast (such as the heavens or the ocean) or overwhelmingly powerful (such as a raging torrent, huge mountains, or precipes)..." It goes onto to say that there is some initial displeasure but which turns into pleasure... This 'feeling' reads Badiou-ish in his (non)explanation of an event (at least in my reading). Is this an over-simplification?

Steve?

Glen.




HTML VERSION:

Steve/All,
 
Steve wrote,
Badiou's relationship to 'difference' and the rejection of Kantian approaches,  perhaps even the refusal of the sublime begins from the materialist/marxist need for contradiction which is used in Hegal to 'resolve it, to interiorize it'... difference that is.
Something I have been trying to resolve in my thoughts is the relation between Badiou's (Lacanian) Void to the Sublime. Or rather the Sublime to the Void. My (mis)understanding (perhaps the trite brackets aren't needed!) is that the Void emcompasses the Sublime, or the Sublime is one type of product to an interaction with the Void (as an event). If not similar, then at least the Sublime could function in the same way. Or,maybe, the Void is what the Sublime 'touches'.
 
This is where I hand over to you, the more experienced... I am not even sure where I am getting my understanding of the Sublime from, I read and hear about it from many sources. I quickly turn to my Cambridge dictionary and it says, "sublime, a feeling brought about by objects that are infinitely large of vast (such as the heavens or the ocean) or overwhelmingly powerful (such as a raging torrent, huge mountains, or precipes)..." It goes onto to say that there is some initial displeasure but which turns into pleasure... This 'feeling' reads Badiou-ish in his (non)explanation of an event (at least in my reading). Is this an over-simplification?
 
Steve?
 
Glen.
 
 
 

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005