Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 19:41:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Ethics as a Figure of Nihilism




Glen
Eric is best suited to write on the sublime, when I think of the concept 
in the abstract I doubt its validity outside of the aesthetic. Since the 
initial arrival of romanticism (so well described in The Literary 
Absolute - Lacoue-Laberthe and Nancy, to the extent of discussing the 
aestheticision of contemporary politics, the roots of the society of the 
spectacle exist here) we have been living in the thrall of the 
aesthetics of  the sublime - to the extent that it infects modern and 
post-modern significations. In Lyotard's usage it always returns to the 
'aesthetics of the sublime' and I have a slight dislike of aestheticised 
poilitics - aka president tony blair...

Is the relation between the void and the sublime clear? I think they are 
opposing concepts - Lacan is distinctly Hegelian in his use of the 
dialectic, he uses the master/slave dialectic throughout his work 
extremely constructively for instance, whereas Lyotard is anti-hegelian 
and I surmise that the 'sublime' suffers when it comes up against either 
the idealism of the Hegelian dialectic or the Marxist materialist 
dialectic. The latter with its focus on production does place the 
sublime into a less singular relationship - perhaps with the latter we 
are enabled to interrogate the sublime... perhaps i should add that in 
psychoanalysis the imaginary, the ego always reigns supreme over the 
sublime.

"If no further significance attached to the inner world and to close our 
link with it through the world of appearance (that is the understanding) 
then nothing would be left but to stop at the world of appearance, to 
percieve something as true which we know is not true. Or, in order that 
there may yet be something in the void - which though it first cam about 
as devoid of objective things, must, however, as empty in itself, be 
taken as also void of all spiritual relationships and distinctintions of 
consciousness qua consciousness - in order, then, that in this complete 
void which is even the holiest of holies, there may be something, we 
must fill it up with reveries, appearences, produced by consciousness 
itself...' (Phenomenology of Spirit)

The sublime would then be considered as an attempt to fill the void.

Eric thoughts on the sublime?

regards

steve

Fuller wrote:

> 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.