When something is free, you can’t define it

Bataille thought that an entity that had true freedom did not accept linguistic parameters of definition.

“When something is free, you can’t define it”


I do not think it possible to abolish the Oedipus complex at an intellectual level. One can only do this at a psycho-physiological level. Hence, the dry mouth of the observer of the solitary sex act, in M’s fiction is a sign of psycho-physiological strain. However, withdrawing oneself into the inwardness of one’s psycho-physiology is a way of “torturing oneself” and storing up energy against the dominant paradigm. This is, nonetheless a rejection of the dominant paradigm — hence a rejection of the dominant forces of the Oedipus complex. Yet, such internal self-withdrawing is a mystical way of seeing based on ID (as E says, through the penile eye) [link to Gnosticism ] – the ability to “see” conventional aspects of society through non-conventional experiences. [implying various sorts of radicalism]. The process of the rejection is revolutionary and it is insightful, for it rejects the prolonged internal dying [thanatos] which comes from social and political conformity. In biblical parlance, it rejects the old wineskins for the vitality of the new.

Anti-Oedipus = a necessary prerequisite for a certain type of insight. Gnosticism