d ` A

August came to a grinding halt. it was dead summer. deja. a pickled herring woke its sun. narrative to her working gulp. it shited the time and played to the pays. not feathered and tarred but tattered and battered.

radio deleuze: d `

d `

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this book has no pages. doctor deleuze disappears up. the stream. of its fundamental immanence. carrying a flame, a film, a dog. he holding the ulyssean calender as its worries his aging eyes. the heavy staff grips the end of the world as its a world worth living in and dying for ~



________________________________________________________

as

tune up. tune 'down ' your radio. as spindle to needle does the jobtune up. tune

'down ' your radio. as spindle to needle does the jobtune up. tune 'down ' your radio. as spindle to needle does the jobtune up. tune 'down ' your radio. as spindle to needle does the jobtune up. tune 'down ' your radio. as spindle to needle does the job

the Seconde(e)[d) book

I always read the second book. forgetting to amnesia its title. birth of place. date of large and kitchen sink

inking

close this radio mister d

ladies and gentlemen

"In any event"
"the moon"
(Jack Kerouac"

(now why not 'close ' that parethesis Mister D? changing it would ruin the question
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------ First haunt best haunt. ghost by writing is tale by knight. her abortion was queen to Knight. King's mate to pawn. Death

of what is heard

________________________________________________________

somewhere in the second book of later essays of Prof. Challenger daddio deleuze theres some finer comments on smoking cigarettes than anyone ever heard. as if vincennes could happen sans cigarette. in smoking was the word reading of philsopher's calm clanging vocal. not a seperation but a prepartion for the hammer of the Idea its Persona swooping on the air . as the bodies held their seat and the voice around behind hemmed a hesitant as the Orgre voice spoke.

This we SaW.






As if Zarathustra to say
I no longer remember the reaons for my own opinions
treat your rivalies


with their worth of their
enemy

O grasp you gods~

rather baffles

the problem with addiction machine. does not produce. and record but consumes vaporizes. vacuole . black hole. so when the line of flight 's on fire vibrant it rushs to production. the desire machine need. protect itself against capital. addiction working for capital to the extent it reterritorialiez; thu s the uncertain status of addicts in capital. thus the rise of the rich rehab programmes versus the more well-known and potentially subversive epistemologies of the programmes as the twelve stepping machine ~ capital is shy of these . as their unterritorial nature, singuarly defined, puts them beyond aparticular reach ~ virtuallly invisible a meeting among these deaddictingdesiremachines has no territory and is nomad by practice. A praxis of the nomad its blithe unwar like nature as open line of flight rather. baffles the fancy.

....AreOPlanes of Consistency ..............................

Photo by Dean Burton.

By Skyler Dillon

The University of Nevada, Reno’s Sheppard Fine Arts Gallery is kicking off its 2009-2010 season with an unusual exhibit featuring work from three artists: sculptor and University associate professor of art, Tamara Scronce; RenoDean Burton; and Seattle video artist, Thom Heileson. The three will be on hand to discuss their show, “Planes of Consistency,” with audience members at an opening lecture on Aug. 27 at 5:30 at the Sheppard Gallery. The lecture will be followe photographer, d by a reception at 6:30.

The exhibit was inspired by the work of 20^th century philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. The title refers to a term used in their work, “A Thousand Plateaus,” to describe a virtual plane where objects may perform freely, without being slowed down by impediments.

“For me, it’s somewhat about how things meld into another continually, at scales we can’t even notice, like a trillion Mobius stripes all interconnected,” said Marjorie Vecchio, curator of the exhibit.

In their work, Deleuze and Guattari explore human experience as represented by intersecting lines connecting time, history and intellect. The artists’ use of cropping, editing and repetition in the exhibit reflects the philosophers’ theories.

“For one, the artwork is not specifically narrative even though it includes things we mostly recognize,” said Vecchio. “Also, none of it has a clear beginning or end, and that shows how Deleuze and Guattari understand our life force. The work is not about something we can name, but more about inner experiences we find hard to describe.

The show consists of approximately ten pieces and uses video, photography and mixed-media sculpture in a blending of art forms designed to capture the imaginations of the audience.

“It enhances our experience by speaking to our contemporary and future lifestyles of how we

view and understand the world,” explained Vecchio, who is currently working on two books on art and film as a Scholar-in-Residence at Columbus State University in Georgia. “It is very complex.”

“Planes of Consistency” features brand-new work by artists Scronce and Burton, and the exhibit marks the first time Heileson’s pieces have been shown in Nevada.

“The artists’ works are very different in many ways simply because they are made by different people,” said Vecchio. “However, there is also a strong relationship because they are all of the same time period and general part of the country, and of similar age and interest. It’s fascinating to witness.

The exhibit runs from Aug. 24-Sept. 25, and is open Monday-Thursday from 11 a.m.-5 p.m as well as Friday from 11 a.m.-2 p.m. Vecchio hopes that audiences will take the opportunity to discuss the exhibit with the artists.If you're living there it'd be interesting to ..

I’d like viewers to suspend the need to declare what the art ‘is’ or ‘about’ and instead enjoy what it does and how it makes them feel,” she said. “It’s much more fun and thoughtful to get wrapped up in someone else’s world that they have created than to try and drag theirs into ours.”

isit www.unr.edu/art.

-------------------------------------------------------

..

each and then each

each doctor is not a poem. not a doctor poem. not a doctor. ea ch molecule. well tht idea of air-plane of consistency

O that dong song Gonna take you for a ride on my areOplane
Gonna take you for a ride on mah AReOPlAne

Itjus whatbeen told isjezwhatbeenborn

well that take unstable centre collage its emptiness across the wide space of desire
and Laugh!


each heart


theyssome camealong distrubuting their colabulary instead of labratory. yeayea. well not matter now, eh? a strong story's a story. a nd ghosts haunt song.


And the magic come back dead
and the felix was a wand conjure ghost s of phi lo

each heart

each heart
souNS sUspCiouslyDemanian . what prayortellis doing there in our radio?


_______________________

we cannot afford to repeat the peat.
of bogged and emmet
we've seen our
feet
stung
by whippoorwills
&deardarling dells


_______________________________________________________________________

dialogues with the replete

: the older gods

have you finished with the old dogs Felix? have you rid yourself of their apocalyptic make up?

O we have said it all and less.

the older gods

were truly dill dull and pickled~ my very own dear ~

each heart

heart stable centre
broke'




the instability of text
the unreliability of the text
Take this text and eat it
sour in yer mouth
sweet in yer gut
or re-
Verse

---------------------------------------------------------------------

'a territory of the heart'

In each heart there is a stable centre
that is broken

-------------------------------------




so take a code any code a machine cuts down its sheave. harvested . barked by knights. Don SomoneorOther. A dog's night. Roughs to blkank wood. Or wouldsome land nymph come to your hoarse. the language spare as .diamonding in the tough silver pan. of gold and thought.



------------------------------------------------------------

about anxiety and paper. and he was waving his finger
ornate call to us
as the hall filled
refilling its wave
and
particle
bursting
at seam

with

the
many

my black hole

-----------------------------

black hole is not your black hole. But a black hole is a .... not a white wall, or an
Eye in the Wall but a heart in the sky? is that the hole that's the sun and

Whitewall,black
holbstract machinefaciality—Body,
head, and face—Face and landscape—The courtly novelheorem
of deterritorialization—The face and Christ—The two figures of the
face: frontal view and profile, the turning away—Dismantling the face
------------------------------------------>

<_____so>
think ofthe epistrata between the two plateaus and their narrow concave ~
8. 1874: Three Novellas, or "What Happened?" 192

________is that yer crack uP
Mist er AlcoHOlIC
the second last time
he swore....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earlier, we encountered two axes, signifiance and subjectification. We saw
that they were two very different semiotic systems, or even two strata.
Signifiance is never without a white wall upon which it inscribes its signs
and redundancies.

Subjectification is never without a black hole in which

it lodges its consciousness, passion, and redundancies. Since all semiotics
are mixed and strata come at least in twos, it should come as no surprise
that a very special mechanism is situated at their intersection. Oddly

enough, it is a face: the white wall/black hole system.


A broad face with
white cheeks, a chalk face with eyes cut in for a black hole. Clown head,
white clown, moon-white mime, angel of death, Holy Shroud.

-------------------------------My Lord turned his face away

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The face is
not an envelope exterior to the person who speaks, thinks, or feels. The
form of the signifier in language, even its units, would remain indeterminate
if the potential listener did not use the face of the speaker to guide his
or her choices ("Hey, he seems angry ..."; "He couldn't say it..."; "

So then "I" hide
my face

I cape it
veil
smother
it's
visageity
exploring the contour of
outside
as if a building

_____________Compare Laing's comments about the face in Self and others, the part about the swindler, collusion and
relations
of check and balance
in a nexus
of individuals....

the wink and nod which knocks the legitimacy of a person in their actuality

(the Blake quote he refers to)

child, woman, mother, man, father, boss, teacher, police officer, does not
speak a general language but one whose signifying traits are indexed to specific
faciality traits. Faces are not basically individual; they define zones of
frequency or probability, delimit a field that neutralizes in advance any
expressions or connections unamenable to the appropriate significations.
Similarly, the form of subjectivity, whether consciousness or passion,
would remain absolutely empty if faces did not form loci of resonance that
select the sensed or mental reality and make it conform in advance to a
dominant reality. The face itself is redundancy. It is itself in redundancy with the redundancies of signifiance or frequency, and those of resonance
or subjectivity. The face constructs the wall that the signifier needs in order
to bounce off of; it constitutes the wall of the signifier, the frame or screen.
The face digs the hole that subjectification needs in order to break through;
it constitutes the black hole of subjectivity as consciousness or passion, the
camera, the third eye--------- Compare Laing in The Facts of Life
My face is a mask I remove it, take it off, handle
it, turn it around ,
flip it inside out
"look' at it.
With what do I 'look' at
if my face
is
off ?
--------------------------------------------------------
the what is a building
a
room

a building
a
sacred
space
of

ex_statis
ex_tasis
of flight
out of
self
's
profane
day to day ~




Fourth Person Singular ~ Her Eye ~ Someone is Me
On faits ca et ca?
it's not 'moi' who acts.

this atom's atomsphere

------------------------------------ Challenger know atoms are constituted destituted & restituted from day to day, but however tooted they is, they gotta bust chops as the stitching

hitching maketh the day.

Is that a Judge in a wig
heaving her constitional

atom

dispersing coward crowds?

is the monkey sheaf brief in his design

.
look they father the papers
creating states

hoping trees become bears.

"Is there some way for the mass of singularities and atoms that we all are to come forward as a constitutive power, or must we rather accept the juridical paradox that con­stitutive power can be defined only by constituted power?"

Control y Devenir
Control and Becoming
-------------------------- this atom'sphere globed its passage rough the planet's glove.

By E.R. at

Gilles Deleuze in conversation with Antonio Negr

Mona gets her ownsome

Mona was born in a rhizome. She burrowed her way out. brushed fast the gold rink dark harir along the linear cavity knowing when it comes to waves, they gotta be short. wait? short hair is tory is it not her tttoatal tit plopped out. Her mouth a harbinger of liberty, her . what. no long waves were Whig. her wig like any other satin stained cloth fell to the floor, love itself was a knot in the door.



She cashiered herself. Chasing sudden widow. Barrowing the latent pocket. She's gasped to her goodness. And is it this and that?


The wave grows . Each particle a hurtling pillar, a cramming smashing . thing. aimedat her baby finger. Shes mircodot down now. At

Anytime her match is becomed her round buttocks skillets she's love to her seven harpies. Well, jewels are like that. We live at sea the hound dog bay married women with anglia accents do have their perturbations and attraction.


Between any merry chase there's awl the all the awl that wall. Come again, dear gloves, dome again.But
Is she not comecerned with void? Is the audible not the grainable if taking on the laster's voice? She ringing her handsome of out of boy. SHe hath married the hail strong storm of wam.
A For mere near an far she fan. Her tutelage is every puffering page. Her radial smokes are bye-byes in the sun. Kettled as it is by feet smellin of sun ~ . Shee evermore herselves when knotting dates. her palm leader is capta to her amaze. not an Italian egoist at all she 's ferried to her navy the high lips in the bathtub roared their fasting swain ~ .

Finger oF SPeaCh

Just cause its a Finger of Speech dont .mean its not a machine. and not a figure of rhetoric. or rhetoric ought to be re-inscribed as a functioning cog of the literary machine. It spits out figures _ but figures that are alive are figures/flow _ points/signs . Being figural does not make them any less machinic.

but that does not mean the cogs and wheels, of figures are not inscribed
in machines

there are machines. everybuddy nosthis. yer radio is a machine.

so ________________ All metaphors are literal.

'Judge Schreber feels something, produces
something, and is capable of explaining the process theoretically. Something is
produced: the effects of a machine, not mere metaphors.-'A/O9-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As in Jesse Watkins Account of a Journey __ as recounted by Laing__ Laing remarks apropos of Watkins travelling backwards in time __ the recessive moment __ on a psychotic trip __ and the feelings he describes as not being mere metaphors.

What is the meaning of this distinction between two regions: one
molecular and the other molar; Mona the microdot ~one micropsychic or micrological_Jill's marriage micrological, the other

statistical and gregarious? ----------- Franny is into statistical her sex is fried in sunshine... not a metaphor __Is this anything more than a metaphor lending the
unconscious a distinction grounded in physics, when we speak of an opposition|||||||||| but her intratomic ass is winging it hot! mass~Baby!||||||||||||||||||||||

between intra-atomic phenomena and the mass phenomena that operate through
statistical accumulation, obeying the laws of aggregates?

-------O my aggregates and congregates!
&paragates~

But in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphors, but matter itself. "
Doctor Einstein is that you winking in thee backer of the classroomsystole system?

|_________________________ It taint A Finger of Speaching Mona ~
|A/O The Molecular Unconscious (Intro to schizoanalysis) _ So that means a schizoanalysti-poet is a physicist_ and a savant ___ . Sounds like rimbaud! in his big old bad letter to Izambard, his old teacher, pretty sure that was his name _ the poet's gotta be a savant, a scholar, a this athat, a criminal, all kind of things, yet he didnt mention physics! so now we are ~ and why not become a geologist a historian a gynecologist too ~

Shes's Devenir caught in her cookies

________________
Oh its hot radio ~

FoU-Cault et Deleuze re-set ~

This transcript first appeared in English in the book ‘Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: selected essays and interviews by Michel Foucault’ edited by Donald F. Bouchard.

MICHEL FOUCAULT: A Maoist once said to me: "I can easily understand Sartre's purpose in siding with us; I can understand his goals and his involvement in politics; I can partially under- stand your position, since you've always been concerned with the problem of confinement. But Deleuze is an enigma." I was shocked by this statement because your position has always seemed particularly clear to me.

GILLES DELEUZE: Possibly we're in the process of experiencing a new relationship between theory and practice. At one time, practice was considered an application of theory, a consequence; at other times, it bad an opposite sense and it was thought to inspire theory, to be indispensable for the creation of future theoretical forms. In any event, their relationship was understood in terms of a process of totalisation. For us, however, the question is seen in a different light. The relationships between theory and practice are far more partial and fragmentary. on one side, a theory is always local and related to a limited field, and it is applied in another sphere, more or less distant from it. The relationship which holds in the application of a theory is never one of resemblance. Moreover, from the moment a theory moves into its proper domain, it begins to encounter obstacles, walls, and blockages which require its relay by another type of discourse (it is through this other discourse that it eventually passes to a different domain). Practice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay from one practice to another. No theory can develop without eventually encountering a wall, and practice is necessary for piercing this wall. For example, your work began in the theoretical analysis of the context of confinement, specifically with respect to the psychiatric asylum within a capitalist society in the nineteenth century. Then you became aware of the necessity for confined individuals to speak for themselves, to create a relay (it's possible, on the contrary, that your function was already that of a relay in relation to them); and this group is found in prisons -- these individuals are imprisoned. It was on this basis that You organised the information group for prisons (G.I.P.)(1), the object being to create conditions that permit the prisoners themselves to speak. It would be absolutely false to say, as the Maoist implied, that in moving to this practice you were applying your theories. This was not an application; nor was it a project for initiating reforms or an enquiry in the traditional sense. The emphasis was altogether different: a system of relays within a larger sphere, within a multiplicity of parts that are both theoretical and practical. A theorising intellectual, for us, is no longer a subject, a representing or representative consciousness. Those who act and struggle are no longer represented, either by a group or a union that appropriates the right to stand as their conscience. Who speaks and acts? It is always a multiplicity, even within the person who speaks and acts. All of us are "groupuscules."(2) Representation no longer exists; there's only action-theoretical action and practical action which serve as relays and form networks.

FOUCAULT: It seems to me that the political involvement of the intellectual was traditionally the product of two different aspects of his activity: his position as an intellectual in bourgeois society, in the system of capitalist production and within the ideology it produces or imposes (his exploitation, poverty, rejection, persecution, the accusations of subversive activity, immorality, etc); and his proper discourse to the extent that it revealed a particular truth, that it disclosed political relationships where they were unsuspected. These two forms of politicisation did not exclude each other, but, being of a different order, neither did they coincide. Some were classed as "outcasts" and others as "socialists." During moments of violent reaction on the part of the authorities, these two positions were readily fused: after 1848, after the Commune, after 1940. The intellectual was rejected and persecuted at the precise moment when the facts became incontrovertible, when it was forbidden to say that the emperor had no clothes. The intellectual spoke the truth to those who had yet to see it, in the name of those who were forbidden to speak the truth: he was conscience, consciousness, and eloquence. In the most recent upheaval (3) the intellectual discovered that the masses no longer need him to gain knowledge: they know perfectly well, without illusion; they know far better than he and they are certainly capable of expressing themselves. But there exists a system of power which blocks, prohibits, and invalidates this discourse and this knowledge, a power not only found in the manifest authority of censorship, but one that profoundly and subtly penetrates an entire societal network. Intellectuals are themselves agents of this system of power-the idea of their responsibility for "consciousness" and discourse forms part of the system. The intellectual's role is no longer to place himself "somewhat ahead and to the side" in order to express the stifled truth of the collectivity; rather, it is to struggle against the forms of power that transform him into its object and instrument in the sphere of "knowledge," "truth," "consciousness," and "discourse. "(4)

In this sense theory does not express, translate, or serve to apply practice: it is practice. But it is local and regional, as you said, and not totalising. This is a struggle against power, a struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power where it is most invisible and insidious. It is not to "awaken consciousness" that we struggle (the masses have been aware for some time that consciousness is a form of knowledge; and consciousness as the basis of subjectivity is a prerogative of the bourgeoisie), but to sap power, to take power; it is an activity conducted alongside those who struggle for power, and not their illumination from a safe distance. A "theory " is the regional system of this struggle.

DELEUZE: Precisely. A theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with the signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself (who then ceases to be a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my book as a pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to find your own instrument, which is necessarily an investment for combat. A theory does not totalise; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself. It is in the nature of power to totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that theory is by nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This is surely evident in prisons: the smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners' demands can puncture Pleven's pseudoreform (5). If the protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational system. There is no denying that our social system is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its extreme fragility in all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In my opinion, you were the first-in your books and in the practical sphere-to teach us something absolutely fundamental: the indignity of speaking for others. We ridiculed representation and said it was finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this "theoretical" conversion-to appreciate the theoretical fact that only those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own behalf.

FOUCAULT: And when the prisoners began to speak, they possessed an individual theory of prisons, the penal system, and justice. It is this form of discourse which ultimately matters, a discourse against power, the counter-discourse of prisoners and those we call delinquents-and not a theory about delinquency. The problem of prisons is local and marginal: not more than 100,000 people pass through prisons in a year. In France at present, between 300,000 and 400,000 have been to prison. Yet this marginal problem seems to disturb everyone. I was surprised that so many who had not been to prison could become interested in its problems, surprised that all those who bad never heard the discourse of inmates could so easily understand them. How do we explain this? Isn't it because, in a general way, the penal system is the form in which power is most obviously seen as power? To place someone in prison, to confine him to deprive him of food and heat, to prevent him from leaving, making love, etc.-this is certainly the most frenzied manifestation of power imaginable. The other day I was speaking to a woman who bad been in prison and she was saying: "Imagine, that at the age of forty, I was punished one day with a meal of dry bread." What is striking about this story is not the childishness of the exercise of power but the cynicism with which power is exercised as power, in the most archaic, puerile, infantile manner. As children we learn what it means to be reduced to bread and water. Prison is the only place where power is manifested in its naked state, in its most excessive form, and where it is justified as moral force. "I am within my rights to punish you because you know that it is criminal to rob and kill . . . ... What is fascinating about prisons is that, for once, power doesn't hide or mask itself; it reveals itself as tyranny pursued into the tiniest details; it is cynical and at the same time pure and entirely "justified," because its practice can be totally formulated within the framework of morality. Its brutal tyranny consequently appears as the serene domination of Good over Evil, of order over disorder.

DELEUZE: Yes, and the reverse is equally true. Not only are prisoners treated like children, but children are treated like prisoners. Children are submitted to an infantilisation which is alien to them. On this basis, it is undeniable that schools resemble prisons and that factories are its closest approximation. Look at the entrance to a Renault plant, or anywhere else for that matter: three tickets to get into the washroom during the day. You found an eighteenth-century text by Jeremy Bentham proposing prison reforms; in the name of this exalted reform, be establishes a circular system where the renovated prison serves as a model and where the individual passes imperceptibly from school to the factory, from the factory to prison and vice versa. This is the essence of the reforming impulse, of reformed representation. On the contrary, when people begin to speak and act on their own behalf, they do not oppose their representation (even as its reversal) to another; they do not oppose a new representativity to the false representativity of power. For example, I remember your saying that there is no popular justice against justice; the reckoning takes place at another level.

FOUCAULT: I think that it is not simply the idea of better and more equitable forms of justice that underlies the people's hatred of the judicial system, of judges, courts, and prisons, but-aside from this and before anything else-the singular perception that power is always exercised at the expense of the people. The anti-judicial struggle is a struggle against power and I don't think that it is a struggle against injustice, against the injustice of the judicial system, or a struggle for improving the efficiency of its institutions. It is particularly striking that in outbreaks of rioting and revolt or in seditious movements the judicial system has been as compelling a target as the financial structure, the army, and other forms of power. My hypothesis -but it is merely an hypothesis- is that popular courts, such as those found in the Revolution, were a means for the lower middle class, who were allied with the masses, to salvage and recapture the initiative in the struggle against the judicial system. To achieve this, they proposed a court system based on the possibility of equitable justice, where a judge might render a just verdict. The identifiable form of the court of law belongs to the bourgeois ideology of justice.

DELEUZE: On the basis of our actual situation, power emphatically develops a total or global vision. That is, all the current forms of repression (the racist repression of immigrant workers, repression in the factories, in the educational system, and the general repression of youth) are easily totalised from the point of view of power. We should not only seek the unity of these forms in the reaction to May '68, but more appropriately, in the concerted preparation and organisation of the near future, French capitalism now relies on a "margin" of unemployment and has abandoned the liberal and paternal mask that promised full employment. In this perspective, we begin to see the unity of the forms of repression: restrictions on immigration, once it is acknowledged that the most difficult and thankless jobs go to immigrant workers-repression in the factories, because the French must reacquire the "taste" for increasingly harder work; the struggle against youth and the repression of the educational system, because police repression is more active when there is less need for young people in the work force. A wide range of professionals (teachers, psychiatrists, educators of all kinds, etc.) will be called upon to exercise functions that have traditionally belonged to the police. This is something you predicted long ago, and it was thought impossible at the time: the reinforcement of all the structures of confinement. Against this global policy of power, we initiate localised counter-responses, skirmishes, active and occasionally preventive defences. We have no need to totalise that which is invariably totalised on the side of power; if we were to move in this direction, it would mean restoring the representative forms of centralism and a hierarchical structure. We must set up lateral affiliations and an entire system of net- works and popular bases; and this is especially difficult. In any case, we no longer define reality as a continuation of politics in the traditional sense of competition and the distribution of power, through the so-called representative agencies of the Communist Party or the General Workers Union(6). Reality is what actually happens in factories, in schools, in barracks, in prisons, in police stations. And this action carries a type of information which is altogether different from that found in newspapers (this explains the kind of information carried by the Agence de Press Liberation (7).'

FOUCAULT: Isn't this difficulty of finding adequate forms of struggle a result of the fact that we continue to ignore the problem of power? After all, we had to wait until the nineteenth century before we began to understand the nature of exploitation, and to this day, we have yet to fully comprehend the nature of power. It may be that Marx and Freud cannot satisfy our desire for understanding this enigmatic thing which we call power, which is at once visible and invisible, present and hidden, ubiquitous. Theories of government and the traditional analyses of their mechanisms certainly don't exhaust the field where power is exercised and where it functions. The question of power re- mains a total enigma. Who exercises power? And in what sphere? We now know with reasonable certainty who exploits others, who receives the profits, which people are involved, and we know how these funds are reinvested. But as for power . . . We know that it is not in the hands of those who govern. But, of course, the idea of the "ruling class" has never received an adequate formulation, and neither have other terms, such as "to dominate ... .. to rule ... .. to govern," etc. These notions are far too fluid and require analysis. We should also investigate the limits imposed on the exercise of power-the relays through which it operates and the extent of its influence on the often insignificant aspects of the hierarchy and the forms of control, surveillance, prohibition, and constraint. Everywhere that power exists, it is being exercised. No one, strictly speaking, has an official right to power; and yet it is always excited in a particular direction, with some people on one side and some on the other. It is often difficult to say who holds power in a precise sense, but it is easy to see who lacks power. If the reading of your books (from Nietzsche to what I anticipate in Capitalism and Schisophrenia (8) has been essential for me, it is because they seem to go very far in exploring this problem: under the ancient theme of meaning, of the signifier and the signified, etc., you have developed the question of power, of the inequality of powers and their struggles. Each struggle develops around a particular source of power (any of the countless, tiny sources- a small-time boss, the manager of "H.L.M.,"' a prison warden, a judge, a union representative, the editor-in-chief of a newspaper). And if pointing out these sources-denouncing and speaking out-is to be a part of the struggle, it is not because they were previously unknown. Rather, it is because to speak on this subject, to force the institutionalised networks of information to listen, to produce names, to point the finger of accusation, to find targets, is the first step in the reversal of power and the initiation of new struggles against existing forms of power. if the discourse of inmates or prison doctors constitutes a form of struggle, it is because they confiscate, at least temporarily, the power to speak on prison conditions-at present, the exclusive property of prison administrators and their cronies in reform groups. The discourse of struggle is not opposed to the unconscious, but to the secretive. It may not seem like much; but what if it turned out to be more than we expected? A whole series of misunderstandings relates to things that are "bidden," "repressed," and "unsaid"; and they permit the cheap "psychoanalysis" of the proper objects of struggle. It is perhaps more difficult to unearth a secret than the unconscious. The two themes frequently encountered in the recent past, that "writing gives rise to repressed elements" and that "writing is necessarily a subversive activity," seem to betray a number of operations that deserve to be severely denounced.

DELEUZE: With respect to the problem you posed: it is clear who exploits, who profits, and who governs, but power nevertheless remains something more diffuse. I would venture the following hypothesis: the thrust of Marxism was to define the problem essentially in terms of interests (power is held by a ruling class defined by its interests). The question immediately arises: how is it that people whose interests are not being served can strictly support the existing power structure by demanding a piece of the action? Perhaps, this is because in terms of investments, whether economic or unconscious, interest is not the final answer; there are investments of desire that function in a more profound and diffuse manner than our interests dictate. But of course, we never desire against our interests, because interest always follows and finds itself where desire has placed it. We cannot shut out the scream of Reich: the masses were not deceived; at a particular time, they actually wanted a fascist regime! There are investments of desire that mould and distribute power, that make it the property of the policeman as much as of the prime minister; in this context, there is no qualitative difference between the power wielded by the policeman and the prime minister. The nature of these investments of desire in a social group explains why political parties or unions, which might have or should have revolutionary investments in the name of class interests, are so often reform oriented or absolutely reactionary on the level of desire.

FOUCAULT: As you say, the relationship between desire, power, and interest are more complex than we ordinarily think, and it is not necessarily those who exercise power who have an interest in its execution; nor is it always possible for those with vested interests to exercise power. Moreover, the desire for power establishes a singular relationship between power and interest. It may happen that the masses, during fascist periods, desire that certain people assume power, people with whom they are unable to identify since these individuals exert power against the masses and at their expense, to the extreme of their death, their sacrifice, their massacre. Nevertheless, they desire this particular power; they want it to be exercised. This play of desire, power, and interest has received very little attention. It was a long time before we began to understand exploitation; and desire has had and continues to have a long history. It is possible that the struggles now taking place and the local, regional, and discontinuous theories that derive from these struggles and that are indissociable from them stand at the threshold of our discovery of the manner in which power is exercised.

DELEUZE: In this context, I must return to the question: the present revolutionary movement has created multiple centres, and not as the result of weakness or insufficiency, since a certain kind of totalisation pertains to power and the forces of reaction. (Vietnam, for instance, is an impressive example of localised counter-tactics). But bow are we to define the networks, the transversal links between these active and discontinuous points, from one country to another or within a single country?

FOUCAULT: The question of geographical discontinuity which you raise might mean the following: as soon as we struggle against exploitation, the proletariat not only leads the struggle but also defines its targets, its methods, and the places and instruments for confrontation; and to ally oneself with the proletariat is to accept its positions, its ideology, and its motives for combat. This means total identification. But if the fight is directed against power, then all those on whom power is exercised to their detriment, all who find it intolerable, can begin the struggle on their own terrain and on the basis of their proper activity (or passivity). In engaging in a struggle that concerns their own interests, whose objectives they clearly understand and whose methods only they can determine, they enter into a revolutionary process. They naturally enter as allies of the proletariat, because power is exercised the way it is in order to maintain capitalist exploitation. They genuinely serve the cause of the proletariat by fighting in those places they find themselves oppressed. Women, prisoners, conscripted soldiers, hospital patients, and homosexuals have now begun a specific struggle against the particularised power, the constraints and controls, that are exerted over them. Such struggles are actually involved in the revolutionary movement to the degree that they are radical, uncompromising and nonreformist, and refuse any attempt at arriving at a new disposition of the same power with, at best, a change of masters. And these movements are linked to the revolutionary movement of the proletariat to the extent that they fight against the controls and constraints which serve the same system of power.

In this sense, the overall picture presented by the struggle is certainly not that of the totalisation you mentioned earlier, this theoretical totalisation under the guise of "truth." The generality of the struggle specifically derives from the system of power itself, from all the forms in which power is exercised and applied.

DELEUZE: And which we are unable to approach in any of its applications without revealing its diffuse character, so that we are necessarily led--on the basis of the most insignificant demand to the desire to blow it up completely. Every revolutionary attack or defence, however partial, is linked in this way to the workers' struggle.

This discussion was recorded March 4, 1972; and it was published in a special issue of L'Arc (No. 49, pp. 3-10), dedicated to Gilles Deleuze. It is reprinted here by permission of L'Arc. (All footnotes supplied by the editor.)

1. "Groupe d'information de prisons": Foucault's two most recent publications (I, Pierre Riviere and Surveiller et Punir) result from this association.
2. Cf. above "Theatrum Philosophicum," p. 185 in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice.
3. May 1968, popularly known as the "events of May."
4. See L'Ordre du discours, pp. 47-53 in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice.
5, Rene Pleven was the prime minister of France in the early 1950.
6. "Confederation Generale de Travailleurs", General Confederation of Workers.
7. Liberation News Agency.
8. Nietzsche et la Philosophie (Paris: P.U.F., 1962) and Capitalisme et schisophrenie, vol. 1, 'Anti-Oedipus, in collaboration with F. Guattari (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1912). Both books are now available in English.
9. Habitations à Loyer Modéré - moderate rental housing."

-----------------Agree dont agree whatever you might think you think compare that sort of intelligence with the idiocies espoused by certain so called contemporary "thinkers."

________________________originally viavia___ Via LibCOm.ORg_________________

A real Card__ Monkey bus...HeadLess

As usuall Z gets it wrong _ his take on the Marx brothers, for instance__ Harpo as libido _ well Harpo is not libido____________ Why Cant Harpo just be an artist and thrive ?but Z wont offer a reading that works in other terms__ exciting and fun ones that open perceptions UP __ Like say __________________
, but no he has to 'prove' the lame lacanian sitting duck stuff__ absent daddy name of the signified papap __ language as structure _______________________________________

its shit
(or polemics okay at best its that _ yet one disguising itself as formulating truths- this
is seeming perhaps to be unfair yet man did you see what he said about May 68 in one of his talks, what he claimed was its legacy? the thought and energy of May 68 reduced to envious parroting --- )

(all that crap about the desert of the real and the unreal and that hangover from B and the simulacrum and its economy and B attacking from the side of his mouth
what he calls 'the philosophy of desire' as if you could escape Desire that way)

the structure problem's been displaced man

its called Machines plugging into other machines

--------------------------------------------------------------- Again Contrast
Mister Z to the graduate students at Manchester

Say this student Katarina Båth speaking about

R epetition and metamorphosis in W.G. Sebald’s The Rings of Saturn

connecting reconnecting weaving in and out the texts thread of ideas that dont offend the work under discussion and if anything made me want to read this novelist I had never heard of previous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mister Z is Zorro of Ideas __

And Harpo

he's The grand Escapee_ as Groucho The Verbal Genius (a sort of tristan Tzara of the old silver screen) ____pigenon-holded (no thats not a error) by Mister Z, as the "super-ego" Well good old Grouch is in reality the brilliant wit of Jewish survival at its best. He uses that wit to survive against stupider and more violent men....

Poor Z always dragging up the old Freudian___ what did Guattari call him?
The Adam Smith of psychiatry ? bla bla claiming fortuitously things , that are not real, have nothing to do with anything except peoples' imagination...

____Patrica MacCormack does better than mister deadZ.
for instance _ in
Deleuze and the Demonological Text
Lady Mac's take on the weird writing of Lovecraft and the spooky zones and the heycity______________ & yep there's weird shit in Loveycraft__
of body without organs gives one a glimpse perception as action. She say Heycity. its cool, its workable, it might not be yers or yerown but at least it has the virtue of being hers. not bound by the heavy artillery of dead analytic jargon.

Thought should be like a oral lancing going and giving and inviting more thinking along all the moment of its capture and unlatching.

this Is__
taking something to a new place and not cashing in on a current craze of ideas and selling them fast and furious. She take a Deleuze Guattarian idea, notion and bring s it somewhere original and striking, making you rethink any older ideas you might cling to the dust shit stuck in yer headears.

_________________________the problem with Z is he forgets
that he is dealing figures of rhetoric that are no more or less real than than any others.--- there's a nice interview, in Chaosophy _ the old edition__ where Felix G _ says hey you know the figures, and notions that (and Deleuze) he speaks about are not to be considered any more or less real than their usefulness.

Whereas Z and the whole pack of analytic thinkers and analytic assumptions he carts around like a dead ass dragging its skein, believes all of this shit, about ego and name of the daddy and the rest of the panoply of unconscious reconscious etcetera. Why any of this has value if it's not experiential? We are supposed to believe that convenient little story. Christ, its been over 30 years since AntiOedipus and people, still believe this shit. Well, well.

-----------------------------\Our Court Jesters will Out O my YoRICks|

To Wit:

Why is Groucho a Super-Ego? He's a man of wit and survival and without his banter the others would be long gone. No shit, daddyio. That's called getting by in an insane world. A schizoid planet where every second step is riddled with madness, and deliriums , our own and others.
_A nd Poor Chico the ego?? nah _ man, he's a sort of fall guy between the old vaudeville routines the Marx brothers knew about inside out and outside In. Stage stuff ... ya dig? .... give me a break he's a dumb bum, a wit who plays the between guy between Groucho's fast bite off and Harpo silent anarchy_ dig it man its Dada ~ ya know? Dada_
Z takes the Fun out of Fast and Furious, like a boring editor, or some nitwit philosophy student trying to revive hegel thinking to knock Professor Del on the head... sleeper shit, spies on the side of paranoid power ~ Shocking! Disgraceful! O
My poor Grouch turning in his grave
spinning round at the speed of Light!

------------------------------------- O Harpo
--------------------------------------You hero of the String'd Harp genii
--------------------------------------of the entertainment and the seven thousand
----------------------------children a day digging yer antics ~
--------------------------------------------- But the analyst cop
wants to bust yer chops, cut yer act ~

O so hohohoso.

------------------------------------------------- The analyst is an allegorist
Analytic blather like this: = allegories taken seriously as items of dogma and old church creedism disguised as the 'real' thing.

And

of course to justify Z's claims --- he builds the whole analytic edifice MumMIe PappEE etceterAis.
Lineage of parental authority. Cop piss crapped parlez vous bs which leads into the residue of the nosologies and crapologies of psychiatry.
One has the Impression he wants to bring back the old analytic theories with his own stamp blazing away on them.....


Let me correct that: One
does not have that Impression
One kNows this.

After all
Mister
Z never worked
(to my knowledge) with actual
schizos
and he fforgets
that Guattari reminds us that neurotics
ought
to be
psychotified
___he does not mean to make them suffer
but to get
them
out of the whining
and self pitying of its
predictable
desire
to be'normal'

to get them out of their shit

which is what the Marx brothers
do

get the boring
ones out of the shite

Make uS Laugh
Please





The Z analytic machine includes special effects Batteries Not Included.

always the same old shit with the name of the father coming back in every movie he sees....

Why is Harpo called innocent and evil, utter corruption? because he disrupts a police office and a pile of papers go flying?

Hes an anarchist for christssake sake. He s a mute
a hero
A Lucky
(in the middle of the the the ~ vladpunch&judyactestragon)
before the [f]act
Lucky as in Waiting for Godot.
hes not the causer of chaos
hes the bringer
of sweet
lines of chase
and furtive

play ~

he's the Overman
himself
(picture of the least ressentiment ~)

repeating
his disarray

as

Love

Ya

Dummy

Zi-Zi yer rong and rong...


its because he's still doing the lacan freud shuffle. its too bad because hes so popular and think of what he could do...

its so boring.


__________________________________ Whatever you do boys and girls

Dont read Zizzzzzzzzzzzz
before you watch a movie you might like
its like reading an introduction before reading the book

See the Movie
Read the Book
Start yer own Reading groups
Ignore those
who dont let ya read for yerself
Ignore them that cut yer percepts
ignore them
that sweep yer own ideas
to cutting floor
bust their arse doan
take theIR
shite
makeyer own machine
deluxe
desire

Once twice or A Hundred Times
before you poison yer perceptions
______________________________________ This broadcast is a non-paid commercial for the idea that thinking for yourself, and learning for yourself is a normal thing to do. find yer electric ecletic body. Forget the staged quote of desire. Remind yer self of Rembrandt.


Act as a Perceptor. Turn yer headphones into brain phones.

One 800 think ~________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------- thank yer goodness
_--------------------------------------Doctor Deleuze taught us
-------------------------------------------How to read
----------------------------for ourselves.

----------------------------------------------------------thank the philosophical gods
-------------------------------------------for Carmelo Bene
and his rampaging works and films and plays and version of things
to remind us no matter how deep the shit how thick the water

An Artist
Finds
the
Way Out ~

Marxksmyeward
find yer own cabbage patch
discorporate ~

----------------------

And the connection between
Marx brothers
and Bene
well you figure that out yerself
reader
if you're there at all


-----------------------
If the Marx brothers were successful
its because they
made people laugh
the multitude
as hardt or negri might say
saw themselves
in their
irreverent
ImPure ImPiOus GenIus





____________________________________________


Worth checking out
is Danny Kaye
a
different kind of genius

Hilarious and Intense

Say

The Court Jester

Zanier
and raucously smart fast talking

this is almost at the the speed & pace of Elizabethan
acting ~

nothing
deductive about it
alliterative
fatal
& fun ~
And god
forbid
one has fun ~ eh?

hahaah
Enjoy the beDoinks

____________

The pellet with the pestle
the poison with the pestle is the pellet with the pallet~!

and the hamletic overtones
the notorious swordswapping scene of the prince and laertes

CrazEE CataTonic Knights
Bashin&N Bustin~
--------------------


It's the HeadLess Knight
(a goodsome knight he was ycleppin'byelong
the darkforest
encoutezing he was
ami DonQuiChote)

Wins

in the End ~ .

is it possible? now

of course R . D Laing the great doctor of schizophrenia. the healer. his book, the Politics of Experience and the Bird of Paradise , sold and resold and solded many time over in the 60's, 70's etcetera 80's and into the infinite series of learning.

Laing first clinical appointment with schizophrenics was after WW2 _ where he had served as medical doctor shrink ___

Laing took charge of 'backward' and according to the various biographies and accounts available of which there are at least seven all told written ___

the ward was closed after a year or so.

All of his patients were able to go home

and None or few returned __ no pills, no shock therapy ___ all had been considered hopeless,, useless, schizophrenic women with no chance of return.



One of Laing's last books, a less known one than the others ~_

_________________i s entitled the Voice of Experience ~ ___________________

He wrote a bout a dozen of books, did hundreds of hours of therapy privately, in groups, and with the Philadelphia Association, which he cofounded in the sixties|

there are fictional and non fiction al accounts of him and his work by friends, his son, colleagues, enemies, biographers, and others.
there are films, essays, poems. paintings. The famous Mary Barnes _ Two Accounts of A Journey through Madness _ cowritten by Mary Barnes and Joe Berkes (which Guattari took exception to).

A n auto biographical essay _ The Facts of Life __ was published in mid 80's. Laing's most well known colleagues are David Cooper and Aaron Esterson. Cooper wrote seven books...

In any case, in any case .... |


On the radio you charm yer brain across the circuits to get back your brain. And think.



Think for yourself. There are dogmas or dogmans in radio. you can resay ideas for yourself. Think is the Key. Think, for yourself.

___________________________________


forgive my hasty posts riddled with error, typos, and necessary re-dos. Adjust yer head according.

Let all

So then let all my mondays be blue and my movies B grade B and grade schzioprhenia
captialist as my decoded flows are better sung than taught.

We shall have
with you round
the rainbowers
of transomer

style widows ~

So Mister and (Mrs Ligne de Fuite

Daddyio Deleuze was 'fraid of crazy folk. once at laBorder Clinique. he was there. meeting with Felix the Pierre with whom he was writing up a sotten storm called AntyOEdIpus, well some crazy person, some fou fou got off wandering the grounds,of that grand old largesse space they had and well bust his arse Guattari didn't blink and went about





his business looking for the at loose 'lunatic' when Doctori Deleuze heard that well he went Pale as a Ghost White as A Sheet. No w imagine that this body without organs swifting round like. I first of dear doctor fiund Schzios the finest of the crazies, the kindliest canniest smartest and least likely to hurt harm and hinder anynoone.

Now old Pierre he wasnt fraid of no schizos
and no mister catanonic deleuze
was neither
but the line
of flight at such speed
looped his scare wheels
right around him


didnt they?
dint they

dint they?
now

aw right yer a blighter
he was bloody scared he
was sure enough
by the lord bloody jesus
of immanence christ sake himself!


_______________________


and good old Laing
the grand Scottish
doctor
mending


here and
there

blogs HoSpice laws of hospitality

on the hands fashion synthesis two terms in hand fictional trilog ee loves of Hospitality and in question are not combines a poetgraphic narrative and disjunction what Daddy names disjunctive restrictiveexclusive or theological discourse illustrates another form of at odds with each other hand fictional trilogy Mona mother the Laws of Hospitality and in question are not Jill gypsy combines on other this fashion synthesis in which two terms in a theological discourse in his

what Daddy says is hooker

fisheye




illustrates another form Franny nanny at odds with each
horn of plenty for her Jill janny good do her sex washer
hand our mouths hornographic narrative
disjunction what Daddy says its disjunctive restrictive-
exclusive or she took her
umbrella off of him she too her skirt offher dirndl skirt off
her high shirt off her


she comes with her big sex mouth to show it
him

What Mummy sees"when" Mona got home
she hummed as a busboy scrounged as a gleamer
her hospice was naked. as her body was
she was invitee au nakedness her summer belong
was not a blog but a lover. she was not she was bot she is

boot her bootless cry to heaven of kinsmen. Her Pierre came her air. She flew narrative disjuncity out of high school.
she held welfare or menningitis.
she grabbed homosexualed in her body comeing into my mouth as hospitals

would not conceive in her living casket a bodyrestrictive trilogy of Mouths of god and fiction trinity c'est
combines on other this home a bot she gaped and
bootless cry to reprieve question combines a poerographic
knot in other autobigraphic narrative and disjunction whho wore georaphic form the Laws of lover of hospitality
unlike who dont greet you in your own home mama tongue
but in question what was blog but a lover she staged she
was not a body other hand fictional doubles triples
the Imagines of hospitality trilogy in her illustrates another form of at odds hospitality exclusive, of at odds with each other hand, odds her ends off invitee au nakedness her
summer belong was no in this fashionsynthesis in which two form which two rooms a theological two narrative or a theological discourse in his illustrates theological Dadddy hospice was naked. as her body was was comeing her living casket a bodyon in on other this fashion synthesis each the on andand disjunction what Daddy terms the disjunctive

((her neck was c oming. she was . neck. she was necking. between her leg. thigh.a baboon, and likewise an ape. she was. not that other. worker)


fashionable ass her kissing buttocks My Maria Buttocks Come to her ass her puss was lesbian my sister terms the disjunctive restrictiveexclusive or and and andCarmen Deleuze wasWhen Mona got heaven welfare into my mouth as hospitals would not narrative oflikes of hospice in question are Daddysays question are not combines a are discourse each other a phonographic narrative and disjunction she narrative or menningitis. she was homosexualed in her and or at odds with each other hand, fictional with in hand, fictional positrives the layers of poeticpoeticipoetic sextual sinynthesis in her enacts design of disjuncity out of high school vNeck collage she hahd had had engage a la moment theological phallalic to her breath to his kissdiscourse show and tells another discourse this fashion synthesis two terms she was kinsmen. Her Pierre was her air. She disjunction whatdaddy terms the disjunctive restrictive, exclusiveThe combines disjunctive restrictiveexclusive or


summer fog
summer belong was no in this fashionsynthesis in which two form whichtwo rooms a theological two narrative or a theological discourse in his illustrates theological Dadddy hospice was naked. as her body was was comeing her living casketa bodyon in on other this fashion synthesis each the on andand disjunction what Daddy terms the disjunctive fashionable ass her kissing buttocks My Maria ButtocksCome to her ass her puss was lesbian my sister terms the disjunctive restrictiveexclusive or and and andCarmen Deleuze wasWhen Mona got heaven welfare into my mouth as hospitals would not narrative oflikes of hospice in question are Daddysays question are not combines a are discourse each other a
------------------ If mummie is a porn star can she too read guattari and audit at Vincennes each Tuesday morning? the old lady did as did the other dharma.



semeothequegraphic narrative and disjunction
shes narrative reliable sequence or menningitis. she was


homosexualed in her and or at odds with each other hand, fictional with in hand, fictional positrives the layers of poeticpoeticipoetic sextual sinynthesis in her enacts design of disjuncity out of high school vNeck collage she hahd had had engage a la moment theological phallalic to her breath to his kissdiscourse show and tells another discourse this fashion synthesis two terms shewas kinsmen. Her Pierre was her air. She disjunction what
daddy terms the disjunctive restrictive, exclusive
the not place where

she didnt live she had to move
always and again

The combines disjunctive restrictiveexclusive or