i'm wondering how language can exist in other realms of thought...from something as jovial as the smurfs to an extreme of snuff pornography...not really sure what i'm thinking here...just generating extremes...thoughts?
I guess I would have to question extremes in language when the entire system itself is a construct full of limits. Potentially one could create extremes in sound, but then again, an extreme is a subjective notion that is internalized and not necessarily realized. You would have to define the parameters or boundaries and then push the estremities within those bounds, which defeats the idea of extreme.
my two cents: a quote from Bataille (he is expounding on Michelet), "However little weight the elements which we want to eliminate from our life, but which the arts bring back to us, may have, they are nevertheless the signs of death. If we laugh or we cry it is because, as victims of a game or depositories of a secret, death momentarily appears light to us. That does not mean that it has lost its horror: it simply means that for an instant we have risen above it. The vital impulses provoked in this way no doubt lack practical consequences: they do not have that convincing power of impulses which stem from aversion and which remind us that work is necessary. Nevertheless they have a value. Laughter teaches us that when we flee wisely from the elements of death, we merely want to preserve life. When we enter the regions that wisdom tells us to avoid, on the other hand, we really live it. The folly of laughter is superficial. It burns as it comes into contact with death; from the symbols of the emptiness of death it draws a heightened consciousness of being. As it violently introduces something which we should have cast aside, it brings us out, for a time, from the impasse in which life is enclosed by those whose only concern is to preserve it.
I would like to go beyond my limited purpose of presenting the problem of Evil rationally and say that the being which we are is primarily a finite being (a mortal individual). His limitations are no doubt necessary to the being, but he cannot endure them. It is by going beyond these limitations which are necessary for his preservation that he asserts the nature of his being. We must admit that the finite character of the only beings which we know would be contrary to other characteristics of being, were it not alleviated by an extreme instability. No matter: all I must do is recall that those arts which sustain anguish and the recovery from anguish within us are the heirs to religion. Our tragedies and our comedies are the continuation of ancient sacrificial rites. Almost every people attributed the greatest importance to the ritual destruction of animals, men or vegetables. Some were immensely valuable, others were merely supposed to be valuable. Initially these acts of destruction were considered criminal, but the community was obliged to perform them."--from literature and evil..pg68...
4 comments:
snuff as in dip, chewin tobacco?
snuff as in smut, porn?
i'm wondering how language can exist in other realms of thought...from something as jovial as the smurfs to an extreme of snuff pornography...not really sure what i'm thinking here...just generating extremes...thoughts?
I guess I would have to question extremes in language when the entire system itself is a construct full of limits. Potentially one could create extremes in sound, but then again, an extreme is a subjective notion that is internalized and not necessarily realized. You would have to define the parameters or boundaries and then push the estremities within those bounds, which defeats the idea of extreme.
my two cents: a quote from Bataille (he is expounding on Michelet), "However little weight the elements which we want to eliminate from our life, but which the arts bring back to us, may have, they are nevertheless the signs of death. If we laugh or we cry it is because, as victims of a game or depositories of a secret, death momentarily appears light to us. That does not mean that it has lost its horror: it simply means that for an instant we have risen above it. The vital impulses provoked in this way no doubt lack practical consequences: they do not have that convincing power of impulses which stem from aversion and which remind us that work is necessary. Nevertheless they have a value. Laughter teaches us that when we flee wisely from the elements of death, we merely want to preserve life. When we enter the regions that wisdom tells us to avoid, on the other hand, we really live it. The folly of laughter is superficial. It burns as it comes into contact with death; from the symbols of the emptiness of death it draws a heightened consciousness of being. As it violently introduces something which we should have cast aside, it brings us out, for a time, from the impasse in which life is enclosed by those whose only concern is to preserve it.
I would like to go beyond my limited purpose of presenting the problem of Evil rationally and say that the being which we are is primarily a finite being (a mortal individual). His limitations are no doubt necessary to the being, but he cannot endure them. It is by going beyond these limitations which are necessary for his preservation that he asserts the nature of his being. We must admit that the finite character of the only beings which we know would be contrary to other characteristics of being, were it not alleviated by an extreme instability. No matter: all I must do is recall that those arts which sustain anguish and the recovery from anguish within us are the heirs to religion. Our tragedies and our comedies are the continuation of ancient sacrificial rites. Almost every people attributed the greatest importance to the ritual destruction of animals, men or vegetables. Some were immensely valuable, others were merely supposed to be valuable. Initially these acts of destruction were considered criminal, but the community was obliged to perform them."--from literature and evil..pg68...
Post a Comment