Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Jean-Luc Marion on 'love'

"Even for a gaze aiming objectively, the pupil remains a living refutation of objectivity, an irremediable denial of the object; here, for the first time, in the very midst of the visible, there is nothing to see, except an invisible and untargetable (invisable*) void." (p.81)

*[Translator's note: the French invisable signifies "that at which one cannot aim" (viser, "to target," "to aim at").]

"Freed from intentionality**, love in the end would be defined... as the act of a gaze that renders itself back to another gaze in a common unsubstitutability. To render oneself back to a gaze means, for another gaze, to return there, as to a place for a rendezvous, but above all to render oneself there in an unconditional surrender: to render oneself to the unsubstitutable other, as to a summons to my own unsubstitutability - no other than me will be able to play the other that the other requires, no other gaze than my own must respond to the ecstasy of this particular other exposed in his gaze. But to render oneself other, to surrender this gaze to the gaze of the other who crosses me, requires faith." (p.101)

**["Intentionality renders consciousness intentional of something other than its own lived experiences, namely the object itself. The very fact that the intention most often oversteps intuitive fulfillment confirms the fact that consciousness aims at more than it lives, thus that it aims at an object that is definitely other than itself. Consciousness, by and with its polarized lived experiences, becomes always consciousness of an other, consciousness altered by alterity itself, intrinsically alienated consciousness. Hence, just as the interpretation of love on the basis of the immanence of lived experiences to consciousness brought to light the self-idolatry of passion, its interpretation on the basis of the transcendence of the intentional object should lead to the thought of its authentic alterity." (p.78)]
The texts are from Jean-Luc Marion. Prolegomena to Charity. Translated by Stephen Lewis. USA: Fordham University Press, 2002.

So, what is love?

2 comments:

M SIBAT said...

LOL ... I also found the translation either sucks or the author super lor-sor and has no idea himself.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi M Sibat,

Or the idea is just so foreign to us and never cross our mind what actually 'love' is. :)