As for the method of deconstruction of texts I see clearly what it is, I admire it a lot, but it has nothing to do with my own method. I do not present myself as a commentator on texts.
For me, a text is merely a small cog in an extra-textual practice. It is not a question of commenting on the text by a method of deconstruction, or by a method of textual practice, or by other methods; it is a questin of what use it has in an extra-textual practice that prolongs the text ..
Professor DChallanger speaking
in Clinical Critical terms as the hat was in the wind
What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics. my book on Kant’s different; I like it, I did it as a book about an enemy, a book about an enemy tries to show how his system works, how its various cogs-the tribunal of reason… but I suppose the main way I coped with it at the time was to see the history of philosophy as a sort of buggery or it comes to the same thing, immaculate conception. I saw myself as taking an author from behind taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offsprings, yet monstrous. It was really important for it to be his own child, cuz the author had to actually say all I had him saying,
but the child was bound to be monstrous too, cuz it resulted from all sorts of shifting, slipping, dislocation and hidden emissions…
Le but, ce n’est pas de répondre à des questions, c’est de sortir, c’est d’en sortir.
G. VELTSOS: En ce sens-là vous êtes ami avec Deleuze parce que vous créez ensemble un monde ?
F. G. : C’est ça. Mais comme je le disais dans une interview, je suis ami avec Deleuze mais je ne suis pas copain. Je ne sais pas comment l’on pourrait traduire ça. Parce que, par exemple, avec Deleuze on s’est toujours vouvoyé, on a toujours gardé une grande proximité et une grande distance amicale. Comme si l’on en avait besoin, précisément, pour maintenir la consistance de notre tapisserie commune. (...)