Radio DelEuZe: September 2006

9.29.2006

a night in tunisia

a night in tunisia is how we start [ed] the show the show yea, change themes baby when you like yer a glider hook the dares and doeers to yer door _ machine no telling when the last clap 's goin in _ door to door the black man of jazz got it right Parker write prose like that blow their doors wide open no t dead beat of now all control Kerouac dig the interrupted bust of it prose fleckflak flow of its nerves just hitting long

the secret compositions of Deleuze in jazz bar cafe over the hill not the secret of contrail but love its beat s dig its beats over hill

in the show we open it that way.

________________________

and here~~~Hot House performed byCharlie Parker Bird & Gillespie on film

'Both Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie Both Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie won the 1951 Down Beat Jazz Awards At this occasion they were featured at a TV show and played a short version of Hot House.
With them is a young Dick Hyman on piano, Sandy Block on bass and Charlie Smith on drums. This is one of the very few recordings of Charlie Parker on film.'

_AnD______as_______for___

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

__________AnD What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics.

_____

__________AnD

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…

_____AnD