The slimy haunts consciousness as its own feared dissolution into facticity

Evidence

But what is it then which is expressed by this fear on the ontological level if not exactly the flight of the For-itself before the In-itself of facticity; that is, exactly temporalization. The horror of the slimy is the horrible fear that time might become slimy, that facticity might progress continually and insensibly and absorb the For-itself which exists it. It is the fear not of death, not of the pure In-itself, not of nothingness, but of a particular type of being, which does not actually exist any more than the In-itself-For-itself and which is only represented by the slimy. It is an ideal being which I reject with all my strength and which haunts me as value haunts my being, an ideal being in which the foundationless In-itself has priority over the For-itself. We shall call it an Antivalue. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1406 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Here we can see the symbol which abruptly discloses itself: there exists a poisonous possession; there is a possibility that the In-itself might absorb the For-itself; that is, that a being might be constituted in a manner just the reverse of the “In-itself-For-itself,” and that in this new being the In-itself would draw the For-itself into its contingency, into its indifferent exteriority, into its foundationless existence. At this instant I suddenly understand the snare of the slimy: it is a fluidity which holds me and which compromises me; I can not slide on this slime, all its suction cups hold me back; it can not slide over me, it clings to me like a leech. The sliding however is not simply denied as in the case of the solid; it is degraded. The slimy seems to lend itself to me, it invites me; for a body of slime at rest is not noticeably distinct from a body of very dense liquid. But it is a trap. The sliding is sucked in by the sliding substance, and it leaves its traces upon me. The slime is like a liquid seen in a nightmare, where all its properties are animated by a sort of life and turn back against me. Slime is the revenge of the In-itself. A sickly-sweet, feminine revenge which will be symbolized on another level by the quality “sugary.” This is why the sugar-like sweetness to the taste—an indelible sweetness, which remains indefinitely in the mouth even after swallowing—perfectly completes the essence of the slimy. A sugary sliminess is the ideal of the slimy; it symbolizes the sugary death of the For-itself (like that of the wasp which sinks into the jam and drowns in it). — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1403 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Actually we have here the image of destruction-creation. The slimy is docile. Only at the very moment when I believe that I possess it, behold by a curious reversal, it possesses me. Here appears its essential character: its softness is leech-like. If an object which I hold in my hands is solid, I can let go when I please; its inertia symbolizes for me my total power; I give it its foundation, but it does not furnish any foundation for me; the For-itself collects the In-itself in the object and raises the object to the dignity of the In-itself without compromising itself (i.e., the self of the For-itself) but always remaining an assimilating and creative power. It is the For-itself which absorbs the In-itself. In other words, possession asserts the primacy of the For-itself in the synthetic being “In-itself-For-itself.” Yet here is the slimy reversing the terms; the For-itself is suddenly compromised. I open my hands, I want to let go of the slimy and it sticks to me, it draws me, it sucks at me. Its mode of being is neither the reassuring inertia of the solid nor a dynamism like that in water which is exhausted in fleeing from me. It is a soft, yielding action, a moist and feminine sucking, it lives obscurely under my fingers, and I sense it like a dizziness; it draws me to it as the bottom of a precipice might draw me. There is something like a tactile fascination in the slimy. I am no longer the master in arresting the process of appropriation. It continues. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1402 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The slimy’s horror is the fear that facticity will absorb the For-itself — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1406; The slimy symbolizes the In-itself absorbing the For-itself — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1403; The slimy reverses possession so that the For-itself is possessed — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1402 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• The slimy’s horror is the fear that facticity will absorb the For-itself #corroborates (0.95) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1406
• The slimy symbolizes the In-itself absorbing the For-itself #corroborates (0.92) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1403
• The slimy reverses possession so that the For-itself is possessed #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1402
• Slime and femininity both symbolize consciousness’s threat of lapsing into in-itself #expands (0.82) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 378
• Sliminess symbolizes a possible fusion of for-itself and in-itself #expands (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1399
• Sartre’s ontology of the slimy derived from personal disgust rather than pure insight #complicates (0.80) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 392
• Sartre’s concept of the slimy encodes a gendered fear of feminine appropriation #complicates (0.78) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 133
• Subjectivity cannot reside in its own being but haunts itself #expands (0.75) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 374