the problem of the Wall_ how does the wall
ought to come with other things such as: caress, or rubadub or yaya, or forcoughforcough or im duming and yumming! i learnt how to forcough in a book called enderby by anthony burgess.
question of the(e) day is love a dictatorship and a democracy?
I am wondering (learning )how to turn a Wall into a line... or a potatoe! between this and '~real writing' one asks how to divide and multiply~so between 'here' and the 'there' of real writing, or wait, real writing is also 'virtual' (and blogs are a part of this questioning also). and then the question of translation. of transition.
I recently read in Eric Alliez's introduction to the Guattari Effect the discussion he brings up about translation and how this affects our reading of Guattari's texts (and naturally others). When you read a reader whose penchant for inventing terms is abundant and varied as was Guattari's and you 'translate' them you come across a stretch of possibles.
He discusses the term assemblage and 'agencement' as examples. Anyhow, i sort of think something similar arises in electronic social media, the virtual places__ speaking to people across different languages, and browsers, and computers, and time zones. So to continue this infinite multiplication and drift.
So there are languages, and desires and bodies, and the virtual unsmooth space of face book, and the possibility of its visual field becoming virtual visual?
More to continue to become continued.
Mais para se tornar continuou.So the 'bing' translation machine. so the machine machine. the writing machine .
if i like everything does that make me a Simile?
One can ask and I do, as I as I am , if I am, is the body and language that greets at the border of desire the mouth which speaks? so then the I is the borderline of the body at the ridge of desire. One, then Two seeks the sober line of deterritorialization, and not the demented one. One has to literalize metaphor to find, to create the machines, and 'agencements'.
Take the terms elsewhere.
we produce subjectivities, yet are not, except for a select few, paid for it.
Guattari says somewhere that those in analysis ought to be paid, because they produce. they produce as much as the analyst