Archive for the ‘Bataille巴岱伊’ Category

巴岱伊论尼采 21

May 30, 2011

Bataille 21

Bataille on Nietzsche
Summit and Decline

If I now bring in the notion of temptation (often independent of the idea of sin, since our resistance often is out of fear of unpleasant consequences), it’s in order to note that in the interplay of the flesh, individual existences are obviously asserted as movement.

Temptation locates sexual misconduct as a confrontation with boredom. We aren’t always prey to boredom, and life retains the possibility of numerous communications. But if that possibility fails, boredom then discloses the nothingness of self-enclosure. When separate existence stops communicating, it withers. It wastes away, (obscurely) feeling that by itself it doesn’t exist. Unproductive and unattractive, such inner nothingness repels us. It brings about a fall into restless boredom, and boredom transfers the restlessness from inner nothingness to outer nothingness–or anguish.

In states of temptation, this transfer–in anguish–dwells endlessly on the nothingness with which a desire to communicate confronts us. If I contemplate the nothingness of obscenity independently of desire and so to speak on its own behalf, I only note the sensible, graspable sign of a limit at which being is confronted with lack. But in temptation, the outer nothingness appears as a reply to a yearning for communication.


The meaning and reality of this reply are easy to determine. I only communicate outside of me by letting go or being pushed to this outside. Still, outside of me, I don’t exist. There’s no doubt in my mind that to let go of existence inside me and to look for it outside is to take a chance on ruining or annhilating precisely whatever it is without which the outer existence wouldn’t have appeared in the first place–the self–which is the precondition for there being a “mine.” With temptation, if I can put it this way, we’re crushed by twin pincers of nothingness. By not communicating, we’re annihilated into the emptiness of an isolated life. By communicating we likewise risk being destroyed.


Of course defilement is the real issue, and defilement isn’t death. Nonetheless, if under shameful conditions I give in–and so pay for a streetwalker–even if I don’t die, I’m still ruined and fallen in my own judgment. Crude obscenity gnaws away at my existence, its excremental nature rubbing off on me–this nothingness carried by filth, this nothingness I should have expelled, this nothingness I should have distanced myself from–and I’m left defenseless and vulnerable, opening myself to it in an exhausting wound.


Clearly, ongoing resistance to temptation will accentuate this aspect of a life of the flesh. But the same element enters into all sensuality. Even weak communication requires a risk. It only takes place if individuals, leaning out over themselves, risk themselves under the threat of decline. This is why even the purest souls aren’t unaware of the sinkholes of ordinary sensuality (Despite themselves, they can’t exclude a familiarity with this). The purity to which they’re attached signifies that even the tiniest, most negligible portion of ignominy is enough to catch hold of them. With extreme aversion, they guess what drains others. The long and the short of it is, we all get h——-or the same reasons.

* [Bataille’s euphemism, referring to “hard”


巴岱伊論尼采 20

May 29, 2011

Bataille 20

Bataille on Nietzsche

Summit and Decline
It would be terrible to still believe in sin; on the contrary everything we do, if we need to say this a thousand times, is innocent.
 1881-82

More often than the sacred object, desire has as its object the flesh; and in carnal desire, an interplay of “communication” appears in all its stringent complexity.


In the carnal act, we taint the limit of our being even while, in the process tainting ourselves, we cross it.


THE SOVEREIGN desire of beings is what is beyond being. Anguish is the feeling of danger related to this inexhaustible expectation.


In the realm of sensuality, a being of flesh is the object of desire. Although, in that being, what attracts isn’t immediate being but a wound, a break in the body’s integrity, the orifice of filth. This wound doesn’t precisely risk life–only life’s integrity and its purity.

It doesn’t kill, it sullies. What is disclosed in defilement doesn’t differ substantially from what is revealed in death–the dead body and excreted matter are both expressive of nothingness, while the dead body in addition participates in filth. Excrement is the dead part of me I have to get rid of, by making it disappear, finally annihilating it. In sensuality as in death, moreover, nothingness in itself isn’t what attracts us.



What captivates us about death, leaving us overwhelmed but silently possessed of a feeling of sacredness or voidness, isn’t the dead body as such. If we see (or see in our imaginations) the horror of death as an actuality–the cadaver plain and simple, and its decay— we experience only disgust. The high-minded respect, calmness, even the gentle reverence with which we offer tribute, is related to artificial aspects. Hence the apparent serenity of a dead person whose jaw a couple of hours earlier was wrapped shut.


It’s the same with sensuality–a transposition is required in order for us to be attracted to nothingness. We’re horrified by excretions, even insurmountably disgusted. We limit ourselves to being attracted to a condition wherein a transposition is possible–to being drawn to a nakedness that we can choose to see as immediately attractive for reasons of skin tone or formal purity.


The obscenity of bodies derives from a disgust with excretion, put aside out of shame, while at the same time we ignore the formal ugliness of the organs. Obscenity is a zone of nothingness we have to cross–without which beauty lacks the suspended, risked aspect that brings about our damnation. Attractive, voluptuous nakedness finally triumphs when defilement causes us to risk ourselves (though in other cases, nakedness fails because it remains ugliness wholly at the level of defilement).



Bataille 19

May 27, 2011

Bataille 19

Bataille on Nietzsche
Summit and Decline
. . . Humans are the cruelest animals. Participants in tragedies, bullfights, crucifixions–until the present they’ve been more at home on earth; when they invented hell, it was in fact their paradise. . .
—Zarathustra, “The Convalescent”

IT’S IMPORTANT to me to show that with “communication” or physical lovemaking, desire takes nothingness as its object.
It’s the same with any “sacrifice.”

Sacrifice generally, and not just the sacrifice of Jesus, seems to give the feeling of crime; sacrifice is on the side of evil, evil that is necessary for good.


Moreover, sacrifice is not intelligible if not regarded as the means by which humans once universally “communicated” among themselves and simultaneously “communicated” with the ghosts they understood as populating hell or heaven.


To clarify the links between “communication” and sin, between sacrifice and sin, I’ll suggest that as sovereign desire eats away at and feeds on our anguish, on principle this engages us in an attempt to go beyond ourselves.


The beyond of my being is first of all nothingness. This is the absence I discern in laceration and in painful feelings of lack: It reveals the presence of another person. Such a presence, however, is fully disclosed only when the other similarly leans over the edge of nothingness or falls into it (dies). “Communication” only takes place between two people who risk themselves, each lacerated and suspended, perched atop a common nothingness.


This way of understanding things gives a similar explanation to both sacrifice and the works of the flesh. In sacrifice, humans unite with a god by putting him to death: they put to death a divinity personified by a living existence, a human or animal victim (the means we have to unite with each other). Sacrifice itself and its participants are in some way identified with the victim. So, as the victim is being put to death, they lean over their own nothingness. At the same time they understand how their god is slipping into death. The victim’s surrender (in holocausts, the victim is burned for that reason) coincides with the blow striking the god. The gift partly frees up a “humanity” for us, and for a brief moment human beings are free to unite with the existence of their divinity, a divinity that at the same time death has brought into existence.



Bataille 18

May 26, 2011

Bataille 18

Bataille on Nietzsche
Summit and Decline
The crucified Christ is the most sublime of all symbols–even at present.
— 1885-86

I now want to contrast, not good and evil, but the “moral summit,” which is different from the good, and the “decline,” which has nothing to do with evil and whose necessity determines, on the contrary, modalities of the good.

The summit corresponds to excess, to an exuberance of forces. It brings about a maximum of tragic intensity. It relates to measureless expenditures of energy and is a violation of the integrity of individual beings. It is thus closer to evil than to good.

The decline–corresponding to moments of exhaustion and fatigue–gives all value to concerns for preserving and enriching the individual. From it come rules of morality.


To begin with, I will show how the summit of Christ on the cross is an extremely equivocal expression of evil.


THE KILLING of Jesus Christ is held by Christians as a group to be evil.
It is the greatest sin ever committed.
It even possesses an unlimited nature. Criminals are not the only actors in this drama, since the fault devolves on all humans. Insofar as someone does evil (every one of us being required to do evil), that person puts Christ on the cross.
Pilate’s executioners crucified Jesus, though the God they nailed to the cross was put to death as a sacrifice. Crime is the agent of this sacrifice, a crime that sinners since Adam have infinitely committed. The loathesomeness concealed in human life (everything tainted and impossible carried in its secret places, with its evil condensed in its stench) has so successfully violated good that nothing close to it can be imagined.


The killing of Christ injures the being of God.
It looks as if creatures couldn’t communicate with their Creator except through a wound that lacerates integrity.
The wound is intended and desired by God.
The humans who did this are not less guilty.


On the other hand–and this is not the least strange–the guilt is a wound lacerating the integrity of every guilty being.


In this way God (wounded by human guilt) and human beings (wounded by their own guilt with respect to God), find, if painfully, a unity that seems to be their purpose.


If human beings had kept their own integrity and hadn’t sinned, God on one hand and human beings on the other would have persevered in their respective isolation. A night of death wherein Creator and creatures bled together and lacerated each other and on all sides, were challenged at the extreme limits of shame: that is what was required for their communion.
Thus “communication,” without which nothing exists for us, is guaranteed by crime. “Communication” is love, and love taints those whom it unites.


In the elevation upon a cross, humankind attains a summit of evil. But it’s exactly from having attained it that humanity ceases being separate from God. So clearly the “communication” of human beings is guaranteed by evil. Without evil, human existence would turn in upon itself, would be enclosed as a zone of independence: And indeed an absence of “communication”–empty loneliness–would certainly be the greater evil.


The position of human beings evokes sympathy.
They’re driven to “communicate” (with both indefinite existence and themselves): the absence of “communication” (an egotistic folding back into self) clearly evokes the greatest condemnation. But since “communication” can’t take place without wounding or tainting our humanity, “communication” itself is guilty. However the good is construed, it’s the good of individuals–but by wanting to attain it (at night and through evil) we are impelled to question the very individuals in relation to whom we had sought it.


A fundamental principle is expressed as follows:
“Communication” cannot proceed from one full and intact individual to another. It requires individuals whose separate existence in themselves is risked, placed at the limit of death and nothingness; the moral summit is the moment of risk taking, it is a being suspended in the beyond of oneself, at the limit of nothingness.



Bataille 17

May 25, 2011

Bataille 17

Bataille on Nietzsche
Summit and Decline

Here, no one will slip in and follow you. Your steps have of themselves blotted out the path behind you, and above your path is inscribed–Impossible!
— Zarathustra, “The Traveler”

—紮拉哲斯特拉 「旅者」

THE QUESTIONS that I want to raise deal with good and evil in reference to being, or beings.
Good is given first as the good of the individual. Evil seems to be a bias that obviously acts against this or that given individual. Possibly, good is respect for individuals and evil their violation. If these judgments make sense, I can derive them from my feelings.
On the contrary, good relates to having contempt for the interest of beings in themselves. According to this secondary conception (secondary, though remaining part of the totality of emotions) evil would be the existence of individuals–insofar as this implies their separation.

Reconciliation between these conflicting forms seems simple: good would be the interest of others.

So there is the possibility that all morality might rest on equivocation and derives from shifts.

But before coming to the questions this raises, I will look at the opposition from another angle.



Bataille 15

May 23, 2011

Bataille 15

Bataille on Nietzsche
Part I
Mr. Nietzsche
Nothing speaks as vividly to our hearts as these sprightly melodies with their absolute sadness.
“YOU BLAME this sovereign spirit, a spirit that for the present suffices unto itself, you blame it for being well protected, for being fortified against sudden attack. You blame it for the walls surrounding it, for the mysteries within it–though still you glance curiously through the golden bars that surround its domain–fascinated and interested. For the hints of unknown perfumes are drifting mockingly across your face, disclosing something of the secret gardens and delights.” ( The Will to Power)

“There is a false appearance of cheer against which nothing can be done; but adopting it, one has to be finally satisfied with it. We who have taken refuge in happiness, who in a certain sense need the noon and its wild excesses of sunlight, who sit by the edge of the road to watch life go by like a procession of masqueraders or a drama wherein we go mad–doesn’t it appear that we’re aware of our fear of something? Something in us breaks easily. Do we fear youthful and destructive hands? Is it to avoid chance that we take refuge in life, in its brilliance, in its falsity and superficiality, in its shiny lies?
If we seem light-hearted, is it from being infinitely sad? We are serious because we know something of the abyss–and is this why we erect barriers to that seriousness? We laugh within ourselves at those with a taste for melancholy, whom we suspect of lacking depth–alas, we envy them as we deride them, since we aren’t happy enough to allow them their delicate misery. We’re compelled to flee the barest hints of sadness–our hell and our darkness are always too near. There is something we know that we dread, something we don’t want to be on good terms with; the faith we have makes us tremble, its murmurings cause us to grow pale–and those who don’t believe in that faith seem happy to us.


We turn aside from the sight of misery, stop our ears to the lamentations of suffering; and pity would break us, if we didn’t have the secret of toughening ourselves. Stay with us in your courage, oh you mocking indifference! Cool us, ye winds blowing from the glaciers! We’ll no longer take things to heart–we’re choosing as our supreme god and redeemer: the mask.” ( The Will to Power)
對於悲傷的景象,我們轉身不顧,閉耳不聞痛苦的悲嚎。假如我們沒有堅強我們自己的秘密,悲憫之心會毀滅我們。請你勇敢地跟我們同在,喔,你這種嘲笑的冷漠!讓我們冷爽,你這位從冰原吹拂過去的風!我們不再將事情掛念在心—我們選擇假面具作為我們崇高的神祗及救贖者。」 (權力意志)

“The supreme cosmic discourse: ‘I am cruelty, trickery,’ etc., etc. Mocking our fear of assuming responsibility for mistakes (mocking a creator) or for any pain. More malicious than ever before etc. This is a supreme way of taking pleasure in our own work; wrecking it so as to be able to reconstruct it again and again. It’s a new triumph over death, pain, obliteration.” ( The Will to Power)

「崇高的宇宙的訊息是:「我殘酷!我戲謔!等等。」嘲笑我們的恐懼,恐懼因為錯誤而負責,(嘲笑我們作為一位創造者),或恐懼因為痛苦而負責。宇宙的訊息比起以前,更加惡意,等等。這是一個崇高的方式,歡樂於我們自己的工作,破壞它,為了要能夠一再地重建它。這是一種新的勝利,克服死亡,痛苦及被抹除。」 (權力意志)
“‘Be sure! From now on I will take interest only in necessity! Be sure: amor fati will be my supreme love!'”–There exists the possibility you’ll go that far; though first you will have to show some interest in the Furies. And I declare that their serpents make me hesitate. –“‘What do you know about the Furies? The Furies, isn’t that just a derogatory name for the Graces?–He’s out of his mind!” ( The Will to Power)

「要確定!從現在開始,我將只對需要感到興趣!要確定:命運之愛將是我崇高的愛!」—你們將必須走那麼遠,這種可能性是存在的。雖然首先你們將必須顯示某種的興趣,對於復仇女神。然後我宣稱,復仇女神的蛇使我躊躇不前—「你們對於復仇女神瞭解多少?復仇女神,難道不就是上帝的恩典的貶抑名稱?—上帝發瘋了!」 (權力意志)
“Indicating the power and confidence obtained by showing that ‘I’ve unlearned fear’; in place of mistrust and doubt, trust our instincts; each person loving and honoring himself or herself in wisdom and even absurdity; partly as a fool, partly as a god; not being a figure of woe or an owl; or a serpent . . .” ( The Will to Power)

「我以顯示「我已經忘懷恐懼」,來指示我獲得的力量跟信心。讓我們信任我們的本能,來代替不信任與懷疑。讓我們信任每個人以智慧,甚至以荒謬,熱愛自己,尊重自己的人;他們有點像是傻瓜,又有點像是神祗。他們不是災難的人物,或是老鷹,或是蛇、、、」 (權力意志)


Bataille 14

May 22, 2011

Bataille 14

Bataille on Nietzsche
Part I
Mr. Nietzsche
Strolling with art lovers through the galleries and across the polished wooden floors in the museum of possibilities, inside of us we eventually kill off whatever isn’t grossly political, confining it to sumptuous dated and labeled illusions.

Only when shame brings this home to us do we realize it. To live out possibility to the utmost means many will have to change–taking it on as something outside of them, no longer depending on any one of them.
Nietzsche never doubted that if the possibility he recommended was going to exist, it would require community.
Desire for community was constantly on his mind.
He wrote, “Intimacy with great thinking is unbearable. I seek and call out to those to whom I can communicate such thinking without bringing about their deaths. “Without finding them, he sought souls who would be “deep enough.” He had to resign himself, content himself with saying: “When a challenge like this rises from the soul’s depths, not to hear the sound of a reply is a terrifying experience, and possibly even the most tenacious perish from it. It freed me from my ties with living men.”
Numerous observations express his suffering . . .
“You’re preparing for a time when you’ll have to speak. Perhaps at that point you will be ashamed of speaking, just as you sometimes are of writing. You may still have to interpret yourself–and is it possible your actions and abstentions won’t suffice to communicate yourself? There will come a cultural era in which to read at all will be construed as bad taste; there will be no reason to blush when you are read in that future age; while at present when you are called a writer, you’re insulted; and whoever praises you on account of your stories reveals a lack of tact, creating a gap between you and him; and it never crosses your mind that this glorification is in fact humiliation. I know what the present-day condition of the reader’s soul is; but beware of your wish to expend efforts on that state, to go to any trouble to produce it!
“Men who possess a destiny, those who by going forth take on a destiny, the whole breed of relentless drudges, oh, don’t they long for rest now and then! They yearn for the strong hearts and sturdy necks that (for a few hours at least) take away the weight pressing down upon them! But how vain that desire! . . . They wait, and nothing of what takes place around them responds to their attention. No one comes to meet them with even the smallest portion of their own suffering and excitement. No one suspects what they put into their waiting . . . Finally, further along, they learn this elementary bit of wisdom: stop waiting. And a second lesson: be congenial, be modest, take everything in stride . . . That is, be a bit more relaxed than has been the case up to now.” ( The Will to Power)
「擁有命運的人,那些出發去擔負起命運的那些人,持續不斷勞苦從事的那些人,哦!他們難道從來不渴望休息!他們渴望強烈的心跟強壯的脖子,(至少幾個小時也好),會帶走壓迫在他們身上的重擔!但是那種欲望是多麽的徒勞!他們等待,可是他們四周發生的事情,沒有一樣回應他們的專注努力。沒有人前來跟他們相會,哪怕僅是帶著些微的他們自身的痛苦或興奮。沒有覺察到他們對於等待付出的期盼、、、最後,等待得更久,他們學會這個基本的智慧:停止等待。第二個教訓是:學會同情,學會謙虛,對於每一件事大而化之、、、換句話說,學會比迄今所表現的樣子更加豁達。」 (權力意志)

My life with Nietzsche as a companion is a community. My book is this community.

I take the following few lines very much to heart:
“I don’t desire to become a saint, I prefer being taken for a fool . . . And perhaps I am a fool . . . But all the same–though not ‘all the same,’ since nothing has ever been as deceptive as a saint–the truth speaks from my mouth . . .”
I am not about to rip masks off anyone . . .
What do we in fact know about Mr. Nietzsche?
Constrained to sickness and silence . . . loathing the Christians . . . And we won’t mention the others! . . .
And then . . . there are so few of us!


Bataille 13

May 21, 2011

Bataille 13

Bataille on Nietzsche
Part I
Mr. Nietzsche
. . . the heights where you find him link him in friendship to recluses, to the unrecognized of all times.

— 1882-85
“RECLUSES AMONG recluses, where will we be then? Since it is certainly the case that that’s where, because of science, we’ll some day be. Where will human companions be found? It used to be we would look for a king, father, a judge for us all–since we needed authentic kings, fathers, judges. Later on we’ll seek a friend, since human beings will have become splendid autonomous systems, though remaining alone. Mythological instinct will then go looking for a friend.” ( The Will to Power)
「隱士中的隱士,那麼我們將會在哪里?這確實是有朝一日,因為科學,我們將會有身置何處的情況。到何處尋求人類當同伴?以前是我們尋找一位國王,父親,法官給予我們大家。因為我們需要真誠的國王,父親及法官。後來,我們將尋求一位朋友,因為人類將會成為輝煌的自主的系統,雖然始終是孤單。神話的本能將會去尋找一朋友。」 (權力意志)

“We’ll make philosophy a dangerous thing, change the idea of it, teach a philosophy that is dangerous to life; what better service can be rendered to philosophy? The more expensive the idea, the more it will be cherished. If we unhesitatingly sacrifice ourselves to notions of ‘God,’ ‘Country,’ and ‘Freedom,’ and if all of history is the smoke surrounding this kind of sacrifice, how can we show the primacy of the concept of ‘philosophy’ over popular concepts like ‘God,’ ‘Country,’ and ‘Freedom,’ except by making the former more expensive than the latter–showing that it demands still greater hecatombs?” ( The Will to Power)
「我們將會使哲學成為一件危險的事情,改變事情的觀念,教導一門對於生命危險的哲學,對於哲學我們還能夠提供什麼更好的服務?這個觀念越是昂貴,它越會被珍惜。假如我們毫不猶豫地犧牲自己,奉獻給上帝,國家及自由的觀念,假如所有的歷史都是環繞這種犧牲的煙幕,我們如何能夠顯示哲學的觀念優先于諸如上帝,國家及自由的觀念?除了將是將前者表現得比後者更加昂貴,顯示:前者要求更大的獻祭?」 ( 權力意志)

If it were ever entertained, this proposal might prove interesting. With no one in the offing wanting to die for it, however, Nietzsche’s doctrine is null and void.


If I ever have occasion to write out my last words in blood, I’ll write this: “Everything I lived, said, or wrote–everything I loved–I considered communication. How could I live my life otherwise? Living this recluse’s life, speaking in a desert of isolated readers, accepting the buoyant touch of writing! My accomplishment, its sum total, is to have taken risks and to have my sentences fall like the victims of war now lying in the fields.” I want people to laugh, shrug their shoulders, and say, “He’s having fun at our expense, he’s alive.” True, I live on, even now am full of life, though I declare, “If you find me reluctant to take risks in this book, throw it away; if on the other hand, when you read me you find nothing to risk yourself, then listen: Throughout your life up until your death, your reading will only corrupt you . . . and you’ll stink with corruption.”

“THE TYPE OF MY DISCIPLES–For any of those in whom I take an interest I wish only suffering, abandonment, sickness, ill treatment and disgrace; I don’t want them spared the profound contempt for self or the martyrdom that is mistrust of self; they haven’t stirred me to pity . . .” ( The Will to Power)

「我的門徒的類型—對於任何我感到興趣的人,我只希望痛苦,放棄,疾病,虐待及羞辱。我不想要他們被赦免對於自我的深刻藐視,或是赦免對於自我的不信任的折磨。他們從不曾引起我的同情、、、」 (權力意志)
Nothing human necessitates a community of those desiring humanness. Anything taking us down that road will require combined efforts–or at least continuity from one person to the next–not limiting ourselves to the possibilities of a single person. To cut my ties with what surrounds me makes this solitude of mine a mistake. A life is only a link in the chain. I want other people to continue the experience begun by those before me and dedicate themselves like me and the others before me to this–to go to the furthest reaches of the possible.

人性的需求,並不一定需要那些渴望人性的那些人的社會。任何將我們帶下這條途徑的東西,會要求共同的努力—至少,從一個人到另一個人繼續下去。不要將我們自己限制于單一個人的可能性。 切斷我跟環繞我的東西,會使我的這個孤獨成為一種錯誤。生命僅是鎖鏈的一環。我要其他的人繼續在我之前那些人的這個經驗,然後他們像我及我之前的那些人一樣,奉獻他們自己於這個目標:邁向可能性的最深淵。
Sentences will be consigned to museums if the emptiness in writing persists.
Currently we take pride in this–that nothing can be understood till first of all deformed, emptied of content, by one of two mechanisms–propaganda and writing!
Like a woman, possibility, makes demands, makes a person go all the way.


Bataille 12

May 20, 2011

Bataille 12

Bataille on Nietzsche
Part I
Mr. Nietzsche

AN UNLUCKY incident gives me a feeling of sin: I don’t have any right to run out of luck!
Breaking the moral law was necessary to experience that urgency. (Compared to the strictness of this attitude, wasn’t the old morality simple?)
Now begins a difficult and unrelenting journey–the quest for the most distant possibility.


The idea of a morality that couldn’t conquer the possible beyond good, wouldn’t such an idea be ridiculous?
“To deny worth, but to do what surpasses all praise or (for that matter) understanding.” ( The Will to Power)
“If we want to create, we have to credit ourselves with much more freedom than previously was given us and thus free ourselves of morality and bring liveliness to our celebrations. (Intimations of the future! To celebrate the future and not the past! To invent the myth of this future! To live in hopefulness!) Blessed moments! But then: let the curtain fall, and let us bring our thinking back to solid goals near at hand!” ( The Will to Power)

「假如我們想要創造,我們必須推崇我們自己,擁有更多的自由,比先前所被給予我們的,然後將我們自己從道德律解放出來,將生命活力帶到慶祝當中。(對於未來的宣告!慶祝未來,而不是過去!杜撰這個未來的神話!生活在希望當中!)這些時刻有福了!但是然後讓這個窗簾垂落下來,讓我們將我們的思想帶回手邊具體的目標!」 ( 權力意志)
The future: not a prolonging of the self through time but the occurrence of surpassing, going further than the limits reached.


Bataille 11

May 20, 2011

Bataille 11

Bataille on Nietzsche
Mr. Nietzsche

So let’s leave Mr. Nietzsche and go on. . .
— Gay Science

I live–if I choose to see things this way–among a curious race that sees earth, its chance events and the vast interconnectedness of animals, mammals, and insects not so much in relation to themselves–or the necessities limiting them–but in relation to the unlimited, lost, and unintelligible aspect of the skies. Theoretically, for us happy beings, Mr. Nietzsche is a secondary problem . . . Though there exists. . .

IT’S OBVIOUS such happy beings aren’t that much in evidence, I must quickly add.
Except for a few exceptions, my company on earth is mostly Nietzsche . . .
Blake or Rimbaud are ponderous and touchy. Proust’s limitation is his innocence, his ignorance of the winds that blow from the outside.
Nietzsche is the only one to support me: he says we. If community doesn’t exist, Mr. Nietzsche is a philosopher.

“If from the death of God,” he says speaking to me, “we don’t fashion a major renunciation and perpetual victory over ourselves, we’ll have to pay for that loss” ( The Will to Power).
That sentence has a meaning–I immediately saw what it was driving at.

We can’t rely on anything.
Except ourselves.
Ludicrous responsibility devolves on us, overwhelms us.
In every regard, right up to the present, people always have relied on each other–or God.

As I write I hear rolling thunder, moaning wind: I am watching within me, sensing noise, explosions, storms moving across the land over time. In an unlimited time, unlimited sky, traversed by crashing roars, dispensing death as simply as the heart pumps blood, I feel myself born away in sharp impulses–too violent for me right now.

Through the shutters into my window comes an infinite wind, carrying with it unleashed struggles, raging disasters of the ages. And don’t I too carry within me a blood rage, a blindness satisfied by the hunger to mete out blows? How I would enjoy being a pure snarl of hatred, demanding death: the upshot being no prettier than two dogs going at it tooth and nail! Though I am tired and feverish . . . “Now the air all around is alive with the heat, earth breathing a fiery breath. Now everyone walks naked, the good and bad, side by side. And for those in love with knowledge, it’s a celebration.” (The Will to Power)
“The profoundest thinkers aren’t those whose stars orbit cyclical pathways. To those who see inside themselves as if into the immense universe and who in themselves bear Milky Ways, the extreme irregularity of these constellations is well known; they lead directly to chaos and to a labyrinthine existence.” (Gay Science)