Descartes and Bataille

Reading Descartes and the ideas of dualism and interactions between the immaterial mind and material body immediately made me think back to Elliot and Brang and their quests to find a cause of apotemnophilia. It seems Descartes would argue that apotemnophilia exists in both "worlds" that is to say, begins as an idea or dream or something in the immaterial mind, and then manifests in the material body. Pinker and Brang (it seems) would argue against Cartesian dualism, that there is no seperate mind, therefore, apotemnophilia is a physical condition originating in the parietal lobe etc etc. Elliot (more or less) discusses both of these possibilities, and doesn’t make any terribly solid conclusions (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I think the interactions between the immaterial mind and material body as discussed by Descartes can maybe account for Brang’s (and probably Pinker’s) ideas in that the "problem" could start in the physical body and then manifest in the immaterial mind as the idea "I need to remove my leg". Descartes offers an explanation for why one would imagine themselves differently than they appear biologically.

So, in the context of apotemnophilia, are Pinker and friends and Elliot all that different? I don’t think so at all. Not only in the immaterial vs material argument I make above, but also in terms of how they do what they do–that is, try and find a logical (reasonable) explanation for why apotemnophilia exists. Brang’s entire though process is clearly Cartesian (“X causes Y causes Q and BAM apotemnophilia!”), Elliot’s slightly less so, but only because he never really comes to an answer. Elliot still plows through possible explanations, trying to find some kind of answer that makes sense. He also explores “treatment” possibilities, which I think are by definition Cartesian in nature–the idea that some “problem” exists, the cause can be found, something can be done, and the problem can disappear completely and one can return to a “natural” or “normal” state relies on the kind of rationality and logical reasoning Descartes argues is the way the world works.

Is this the correct way to approach issues such as apotemnophilia? It’s certainly difficult to fit into the “framework of reasoning” of Cartesian thought. It also seems that this is where many problems arise, when we try to fit something into a Cartesian framework and end up excluding someone or something, or anger those who don’t want to be categorized, or realize that there is some idea or thing that we cannot explain logically, and then freak out. The work of Georges Bataille (who I am vaguely familiar with through debate) is a criticism of the Cartesian model of thought. Bataille argues Descartes, our economy, all of us attempt to spend productively. This can mean seeing all goods, acts, individuals in context of their overall utility (which is a whole different set of arguments) or thinking about things in a way that attempts to fit them all together, have nothing go unexplained–essentially, Cartesian thought. This model of thought/action cannot account for the existence of excess, of things like eroticism or unexplainable desires (such as having your limb cut off, even though it serves no utility or goal). Bataille argues that this is why we fear (and then demonize things) certain things. For example, homosexuality: erotic union that serves no productive purpose (literally, reproduction is impossible) is something that we cannot explain or understand in Cartesian thought. This is what pushes some to hunt for a “gay gene” (rational explanation) and others to be grossed out (it is inexplicable, and therefore unnatural). Elliot and Brang seem to show we are trained to think in a “productive”/Cartesian way…is that how we should think? I suppose this post is not so much an argument for reason, but a general thought problem…what do you all think?