Re: transgression again

OK, I've kept out of this up to now although it's very interesting I didn't 
really have much idea about what was going on.

There's just one point that I wanted to make about transgression (and someone 
may have mentioned it already) and that's the time aspect.
There is only a 'transgression' if that particular society forbids something and 
then someone or some people do it. Now if society changes and it becomes 
acceptable then it's not a transgression anymore. I'm not saying society totally 
changes or that we all accept something, also I know that in some cultures 
certain things are more or less acceptable than in the West. But it seems that 
what is a transgression today is not the same as a transgression say 2 centuries 
ago (is this extremely obvious? sorry).

Anyway so in a way I think that is what F points out (among other things) in M 
and C. The mad transgressed the limit and were treated in a certain way. If the 
mad transgressed (this is a horrible verb!) again 50 years later they were 
treated differently. Was the transgression the same? i.e. being mad? or did it 
somehow change because society had changed? Actually maybe this turns into a 
chicken and egg thing - who was mad first!

Also I think Bataille had some interesting things to say about the limit. Does 
this ring any bells for anyone?

Cheers,
Rebekah Bale
Dept of Comp Lit
University of Hong Kong.