Adam argues forcefully—it's the beginning of a larger discussion that needs to be had—that Hägglund gives the notion of a desire for fullness an unnecessary brushoff. Hägglund argues we just can't desire fullness. Yet as Kotsko states millions of humans desire Nirvana, which at least on Hägglund's view is “absolute death.” And their heads don't explode. Yet this “absolute death” is equivalent to the desire for fullness, on Hägglund's view.
Kotsko then asks for an “overarching account” that would at least outline how this desire for fullness might work via Derrida and Lacan along with the “desire for survival.”
Since this is at the heart of Buddhaphobia and my Glossator essay, here's my opener: look to Bataille. He argues that religion is not the search for something bigger than oneself, like a giant crowd in which to be lost (fascistic notion!), but the search for a lost intimacy.
With this model, we have a nontotalizable reality (check), openness to the new and to the arrivant (check), and a nonrealizable infinity of interrelation (check). I believe that satisfies the need for something that would past muster in Derrida land. We also have non-theism rather than theism or atheism, if by “theism” we mean belief in some transcendent beyond, and if by “atheism” we mean simple denial of anything beyond the empirical.
0 comments:
Post a Comment