In Husserl’s Bedroom (or, from Facticity to Fuckticity)

May 26, 2016
phenomenology of fucking

Selections from Michael Kosok’s “Phenomenology of Fucking,”

from Telos 8, Summer 1971. (yes, apparently Telos had a sense of humor in the ’70s!)

 

“As Nietzsche discovered, the object of the game, which is hidden from most mortals, is to go beyond the game of respectable civilized behavior and to re-establish paradise on earth: the point is to see man as “a rope tied between beast and over-man” and thus as a bridge and aself-sacrifice to his higher nature as a man who has transcended the contradictions of civilized behavior as we know it.” (65)

“… we can analyze the predicament of what takes place between the original paradise of simple mating and the paradise in the process of coming – known as love. Simply put, this involves an awareness of the fact that civilized behavior, no matter how you clothe or polish it, is a phenomenology of fucking. And surely, we are all fucked up: the least one can do is recognize it in all of its various forms, which can then be used as a basis of intelligent action and not merely action whose only result is a transformation from one version of fuck-ticity to another.”(66)

“Indeed, fucking reinforces civilized behavior in that it serves as a sedative and temporary relieffrom the antagonisms of civilization and makes one all the more ready to continue the ratrace of public existence. Fucking is therefore a blind unity of mutual object-possession dependent solely on the physical energy of the participants; and thus it is a unity bound to collapse into the two unrelating centers a fucking pair really is as soon as the available energy runs out.” (67)

“During intercourse, the highest goal of the game is to so completely integrate sexuality into civilized behavior that, should Aunt Sally step into the wrong room at the right time, she could easily think that one was simply making one’s bed instead of one’s partner. And no one would really notice much difference since, during intercourse, one doesn’t give a fuck!” (67)

“Whereas fucking is a blind unity of two centered objects mutually possessed and void of genuine consciousness, intercourse is the reverse side of this double immediacy, an empty unity of two projected images mutually dispossessed, a state of mere consciousness: e’ now appears as the total opposite of +e’, called -e’….Humanity, caught between these two alternatives, constantly shifts back and forth, first having intercourse, which is safe but not exciting, and then fucking, which is exciting but not safe since too much of it tends to break down the pretenses of civilized behavior, which is predicated on obscuring the failure of fucking or any other kind of mutual possession to overcome the separation between Self and Other.” (67)

“Summarizing this matrix and our entire argument in terms of the transcendence of possession – and referring to the four alienated modes marked 1,2,3 and 4 and the two unmarked non-alienated modes of mating (e’) and love (e”), the following sequence appears: mating is the pre-possessive state of sex; fucking is mutual possession; intercourse and marriage in general ismutual dis-possession (or negative possession of one’s objects through their negating images); masturbation and romance is self-possession; rape and conquest is other-possession, and finally love is trans-possession and a higher form of natural pre-possession.” (75)

Aesthetics Automobile Feminine Sexuality Freud Incoherent Statements Love Philosophy of Furniture