• German
  • English
 

The artist philosopher as a pornosophist eccentric

EXPRAXIS MEANS TAKING ASCETICISM TO ITS VERY EXTREME, THE EXERCISE OF EROTIC ECSTASY. EROTIC ECSTASY OPPOSES SEXCENTRIC AND THEOCENTRICECSTASY, IT SWAYS BETWEEN SEXUAL EROTICISM AND SAPIOSEXUALITY.

Sex­centric ecsta­tics are phal­lo­centric indi­vi­du­als and vul­va fetis­hists. They find the ori­gi­nal and only divi­ne being in the phal­lus and vul­va. Uni­on with the divi­ne for them equa­tes to a sexu­al, phy­si­cal uni­on. The more they’re distanced from the abs­trac­tion of thought, the clo­ser they belie­ve them­sel­ves to be to the divi­ne, the phal­lus, the vulva.

Theo­centric ecsta­tics belie­ve that the more distance they put bet­ween them­sel­ves and sexua­li­ty, the clo­ser they beco­me to divi­ne thin­king, the one and only brain. For the for­mer, mys­ti­cal uni­on coin­ci­des with sexu­al rela­ti­ons; for the lat­ter, it’s a men­tal and intel­lec­tu­al pro­cess. Sex­centric ecsta­tics belie­ve the more you ascend to the sexu­al pla­ne, the clo­ser you get to the abso­lu­te truth. Theo­centric ecsta­tics belie­ve the more distance you put bet­ween yourself and the sexu­al sphe­re, the clo­ser you’ll get to god. Both stri­ve for cathar­sis: an intel­lec­tu­al and sexu­al one respec­tively. One wants to shed all sexu­al pul­si­ons, while the other wants to shed all thought. Both want to unite with God, the one and only god. Sex­centric ecsta­tics stri­ve to sepa­ra­te sex from the brain. Theo­centric ecsta­tics stri­ve to sepa­ra­te the brain from sex. One wants sex without intel­lect; the other wants intel­lect without sex. Both don’t think. Both are mys­tics: sexu­al and intel­lec­tu­al mys­tics. Sex mys­tics oppo­se intel­lec­tu­al mys­tics and vice ver­sa. Both are gre­at human bein­gs, they’re cha­rac­te­ri­sed by an obses­si­ve com­pul­si­ve trait, they’re extre­me, thought­less, without a con­sci­ence, bey­ond good and evil in dif­fe­ring ways. They’re metho­di­cal amo­ra­lists with rever­se pola­ri­ties. Both are fol­lo­wers of Dio­ny­si­us: one high­lights the sexu­al aspect of the divini­ty, the other the intel­lec­tu­al one. Ero­tic ecsta­sy ele­va­tes both sex­centric and theo­centric ecsta­sy and remo­ves their polar natu­re. Ero­tic ecsta­sy has a divi­ne, holy natu­re which ele­va­tes sex­centric and theo­centric ero­ti­cism, or even ‘phy­si­cal ero­ti­cism’ and an ‘ero­tic of the heart’. Ero­ti­cism is not some­thing human or other­world­ly: it means dis­co­vering one’s ego. You can reve­al the cos­mic ego in yourself, and our limi­ted sen­ses encoun­ter infi­ni­ty thanks to ero­ti­cism – in moments of ecstasy.

Ero­tic ecsta­tics are mys­tics without a god – becau­se god is love and sexu­al rela­ti­ons to them equa­te as a rela­ti­on bet­ween sex and the brain, sen­ses and thought, pas­si­on and rea­son, life and death. Uncon­di­tio­nal devo­ti­on to holy ecsta­sy isn’t uncon­trol­led, it fol­lows a spe­ci­fic order, to allow for that uncon­di­tio­nal and unbound moment; ecsta­sy is prac­ti­ced trans­gres­si­on to reach that rush of ecsta­sy. Ect­sa­tics thus pro­vi­de forms. The artist phi­lo­so­pher is an ero­tic saint. His army is the holy Eros, he’s a holy asce­tic. The artist phi­lo­so­pher is the asce­tic who turns asce­ti­cism into an exer­cise; he mana­ges asce­ti­cism as exer­ci­ses. To him, art is a cult: the cult of beau­ty. Beau­ty doesn’t sim­ply sur­round power – it pro­mi­ses power. Beau­ty is not per­for­ma­ti­ve, rather it pro­mi­ses some­thing – that is its performance.

Beau­ty is not only found in beau­ti­ful things, but also in ugli­ness. Beau­ty isn’t the only thing which is fasci­na­ting, but also ugli­ness. Ugli­ness is, by being repul­si­ve, attrac­ti­ve. Attrac­ti­vi­ty always pro­mi­ses power, regard­less of its beau­ty or ugli­ness, more often than not ugli­ness is allu­ring in its power – becau­se even ugli­ness fasci­na­tes. The demon Eros is beau­ti­ful and ugly, poor and rich, cynic and cyni­cal. Beau­ty and repul­si­ve, dis­gus­ting, abject sub­jects are depic­ted in art. Art dedi­ca­ted to the abject ele­ments in our life is cal­led por­no­so­phy: it repres­ents the truth of abject ele­ments, of ‘who­res’. This aes­the­tic extre­mism is a scan­da­li­sing form of life, which gets to the bot­tom of said ‘scan­dal’ (i.e. life). The bar­ba­ric truth of life comes to light. This scan­dal oppo­ses the poli­ti­cal cor­rect­ness of mass demo­cra­cy, the ugli­ness of its grun­ting, noi­si­ly eating, into­xi­ca­ting drin­king hedo­nism with eli­tist hedo­nism: cynic Aris­to­te­lism = por­no­so­phy. The suc­cess­ful scan­dal isn’t an infi­ni­te remo­val of taboos. If scan­dal knows no limits when remo­ving taboos, then it’s not ero­tic but por­no­gra­phic. The scan­dal, a bles­sing in dis­gui­se, breaks taboos to enab­le eroticism.

The gua­ran­tee of a taboo as a con­di­ti­on for the pos­si­bi­li­ty of ero­ti­cism is a form, a style. Por­no­so­phy is sty­li­sed ero­ti­cism, not sex, it’s an aes­the­ti­cis­ed reli­gi­on: ero­ti­cism as reli­gi­on. In Anci­ent Greece, they spo­ke of phal­lus, in Rome of fasci­nus. The bund­le, the axe, the sym­bol of lega­li­ty fasci­na­tes, enchants, tempts and ent­ran­ces us. In that sen­se, the phal­lus has always stood for sov­er­eig­n­ty and the bund­led fire: the torch. The por­no­so­pher, inso­far as he makes the phal­lus into a holy relic, is also the torch­bea­rer of art: the artist philosopher.

Share Post
Written by

Künstlerphilosophin. Sie promovierte zum Thema: „Sehnsüchtige Körper – Eine Metatropie“. Lehre seit 2006 an verschiedenen Hochschulen und Universitäten. Darunter: Philosophisches Institut der Universität Leipzig, Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst zu Leipzig, Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut der Uni Leipzig, Germanistische Institute der Universitäten Lodz, Piliscisiaba/Budapest und Sydney/Australien. Außerdem hielt sie Vorlesungen und Seminare vom WS 2012/13 – WS 2013/14 als Juniorprofessorin (i.V.) an der Sportwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Uni Leipzig. Kolumnistin der Leipziger Zeitung seit 2015. Mitglied des kulturwissenschaftlichen Beirates Klinikum Bremen Ost. Von 2002 bis 2010 war sie Vorstandsmitgleid der Nietzsche Gesellschaft e.V.. Wichtigste Publikationen: Volker Caysa/ Konstanze Schwarzwald: Nietzsche – Macht – Größe (De Gruyter), Volker Caysa/ Konstanze Schwarzwald: Experimente des Leibes (Peter-Lang-Verlag 2008), Sehnsüchtige Körper – Eine Metatropie (2011), Askese als Verhaltensrevolte (2015), Denken des Empraktischen (2016). www.empraxis.net. Foto © Hagen Wiel

Shopping Cart
There are no products in the cart!
Continue Shopping
0