This is conceptually incorrect as to say that Nietzsche was a Nazi.
Writers could not be held responsible for the outcomes of their works,
theories.
It is like saying that Einstein should be responsible for
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he discovered the lows that
regulate atomic expositions.
This is totally manipulative.
One cannot call De Sade a Nazi.
He is actually the precursor of Freud in his writing down]
in creative terms the symptoms of a mental disease. He was anthropologically
correct in
depicting the phenomenon of human relations in a given context.
The same of Masoch.
The two were maybe more (psycho)analysts
able to render complexities that normally are hidden and unspoken, than
patients.
The doctors are those who are geenrally more able to write treatise about a
certain disease, very rarely the patients themselves!
I find difficult to believe that any among you really feel
induced to behave in a sexual criminal way because of Sade's suggetsions.
He might stimulate boredom, more than anything and produce actually those
desired effects that are seen in Northern civilized countries like Sweden
where the legalization
of pornography (while attracting tourists from the less civilized
countries ) produced an evident reduction
in all the sex-related crimes.
The unconditional availability always reduces the demands. The interest
lowers wghen the forbidden things is spoken about.
Can you deny this?
I do not understand why all this bitterness against Sade. One might suggest
that this is caused by a
hidden and maybe threatening sense to be aroused...by what he wrote.
Let's say, unwillingly stimulated.....
Can you put your hand on the fire that this is not the case?
Erminia.
supposed to desire).
>
> Nobody living has any business "celebrating" the eroticism of Nazism,
> though. Exposing it, yes. Desecrating it, ideally (desecration requires
> exposure: I am not asking that anything remain hidden, which can always
> mean: cherished in secret). I don't know - I simply couldn't say - whether
> Genet desecrates the eroticism of Nazism or consecrates it (except that
it's
> pretty obvious that the actual Nazis would have taken Auden's spoof advice
> in _The Orators_: "It is wiser to shoot at once"). I do think that Sade
does
> the latter: tant pis pour les victimes, but Eros rules...
>
> Simone Weil talks somewhere about the need to punish Hitler by revising
our
> conception of greatness - she says that we concur with Hitler in finding
> Hitler to have been a "great" man, albeit an evil one, and that our
> assessments of his moral worth do nothing to deprive him of the triumph of
> being so considered. The answer is to revise our conception of
"greatness",
> so that it can no longer mean Hitler: to make his idea of "greatness" seem
> pathetic and despicable.
>
> I am all for this kind of desecration. I've argued that it's what G.
Hill's
> up to in Mercian Hymns, where he confuses the great Offa with a vain,
> bullying, solipsistic, neurasthenic schoolboy (himself, or some strange
> likeness thereof: how's that for exposure?). His portrait of Peguy
subjects
> the "great prophetic intelligence" to all manner of Bergsonian
pratfalls...
>
> (Did I mention that Hill's new volume has one poem for each of the 120
days
> of Sodom?)
>
> The link, which appears to have been slightly garbled, was to an account
of
> Aleister Crowley, a seriously overrated tosser who flattered the sex
> liberationists of the sixties that they were on to something cosmic. Same
> old crock.
>
> - Dom
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|