Derrida

Derrida on death and enjoyment:

Last Supper

The disciples are dealing with definite objects (this is that), their friendship, their union in the one they recognize as their midpoint and master becomes more than sensible, more than internal. Their friendship, their union is visible, evident on the outside, objectified, like the very thing it is. No longer is it just ‘represented’ in an ‘image’ or an ‘allegorical figure’.

Nevertheless this object is not an object like any other. This very thing does not give itself ‘in person’ like any other. On one side feeling becomes objective, but on the other side the bread, the wine, and the sharing are not ‘purely objective.’ There is something more to them than what is seen. It is a question of a ‘mystical action’  that can be understood only from within. From the outside, only bread and wine are seen.

this more (this mehr) … does not take itself into account, cannot give rise to an objective calculus, to a discursive explanation.

Feeling, enjoyment itself (Genuss) are induced by this copulation without any proper object of its own. More precisely ba a penetration (Durchdringen). Here the father intervenes. Jesus not only says, ‘ the wine is blood’; he also says, ‘the blood is spirit.’ The common cup, the fact of drinking together, of swallowing in one gulp the sa

(durchdringt) ‘many’. Thirsty, many come to drink of this, in order to gain height there and raise themselves above their sins. The present of the cup that makes copulation possible in the covenant, that present is not given, is not present. It presents itself only in  the expectation of another coupling that will come to fulfill what is announced or breached here.

‘The action seems purer, more appropriate to its end, in so far as it gives spirit only, feeling only, and robs the understanding of its own, i.e., annihilates the matter, the soulless.’ (Hegel)

Hegel defines by a comparison the return to subjectivity in the act of consummating. Here the comparison with reading must define just what escapes – he had barely told us above – the comparative structure. …

Spirituality of the Christian Last Supper consum(mat)es its signs, does not let them fall outside, loves without remains. This assimilation without leftover also satisfies itself. The destruction of the object keeps love in sight of the religion to which this destruction prohibits love and access. Religion always binds itself to an object. Love is still too subjective; it still marks Christianity, in the moment of the Last Supper, with an inner split.

‘This kind of objectivity [the stone image is in question] is totally relieved, whereas feeling remains; this kind of objective mixing rather than unification, such that love becomes visible in something, attached to something that is to be annihilated – that is what does not let this action become a religious one.’ (Hegel)

Consum(mat)ed without remain(s), the mystical object becomes subjective again but ceaases thereby even to be the object of religious adoration. Once inside, the bread and the wine are undoubtedly subjectivized, but thy immediately become bread and wine again, food that is digested, naturalized again, they lose their divine quality. They would lose it as well, it is true, in not being digested. Their divinity stands, very precariously, between swallowing and vomiting; and it is neither solid nor liquid, neither outside nor in.

To think is to think being, and to think being as immortal is to think its life. To think being as life in the mouth, that is the logos. Being, life, father, and son are equal in the infinite unity of the logos. …

 

Hegel,  #death

 

In  accepting his penalty … the criminal reognises the law, and so he is free. …

Death is the phenomenon of the subject that frees itself in subjecting itself to the law’s universality. Therefore the subject raises itself, stands up above a certain type of constriction: but the subject can stand thus only to suffer the absolute increase of a counter-constriction that, to chastise it absolutely, totally frees it from the prior constriction called natural, empiric, and so on, the prior constriction that is always weaker. …

Death alone permits access to this infinite that permits calculating the incalculable, annulling the calculus thus without fail, without bargaining for chastising: ‘The the penalty is the restoration of freedom. … It issues from freedom, and, even as constriction remains in freedom.  If the penalty is represented as constraint, it is posited merely as a specific determinatedness and as something purely finite, carrying no rationality in itself. … The state as judicial power trades in specific wares, called crimes, for sale in exchange for other specific wares, and the legal code is its price list.’

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s