tree

It seems highly probable that both Bataille and postmodernism assume certain postures on the basis of what they take to be the advantages bestowed on them through the developments taking place in history.

 

In the case of Bataille, one might well question one of the assumption relating to his trope of the “inverted Icarus”  As we have discussed, and in terms of what I see as true, Nietzsche made one of his essential motifs “masculinity” because he was on a phallic ascendency journey to the sky.  If one sees this not so much in terms of an innate masculine impetus, but rather in terms of a need to DEVELOP a masculine familiarity, and condition oneself to a masculine modality of transcendence --- well, perhaps Bataille realized that the historical work had been done.  In other words, so far as HE was concerned (half a century later), his masculinity was already clearly apparent and attained.  What was necessary NOW was to take the movement in the opposite direction (not to lose masculinity, but to capture wholeness).  This might be why Bataille came up with his notion of the inverted Icarus, who doesn’t ascend to the sun, but rather falls into it.  (And I am not sure, but perhaps this is also a falling to Earth, except that Earth is less an emblem of enlightenment than the Sun).

 

But Nietzsche did say, in ZARATHUSTRA, that one should return one’s spiritual harvest to the Earth, rather than send it skyward.

 

Postmodernism, however, has this simplistic formulation that we can dispense with being concerned with BEING and just work on theory, which does the job of labeling and hypnotizing and therefore indirectly controlling being.

 

This is also an assumption about history – that we are beyond rough handling and PHYSICALLY controlling and labeling people.  We can retract and be concerned only with theoretical labels and conceptual constructs, designed to move history (by engaging actively and politically).

 

But once again what obstructs is that this idea does not at all model the human psyche, which is more of a tree with three levels (roots, stem and branches) rather than just historical end points of stem and branches.  Actually the conceit and naivety of Western postmodernists and others similar to them in general is to imagine that history has bestowed on them the capacity to ONLY be stem and branches – whilst they continue to act as root systems as well!