Radio DelEuZe: de l'herbe

2.04.2013

de l'herbe

________________________________

When a body “encounters” another body, or an idea another idea, it happens that the two relations sometimes combine to form a more powerful whole, and sometimes one decomposes the other, destroying the cohesion of its parts. And this is what is prodigious in the body and the mind alike, these sets of living parts that enter into composition with and decompose one another according to complex laws. The order of causes is therefore an order of composition and decomposition of relations, which infinitely affects all of nature. But as conscious beings, we never apprehend anything but the effects of these compositions and decompositions: we experience joy when a body encounters ours and enters into composition with it, and sadness when, on the contrary, a body or an idea threaten our own coherence.”

Deleuze - Spinoza: Practical Philosophy

____________________grass grows ~ in the middle

thanks to
Stéphane Elmadjian

in the middle of things ~

_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

How else can one write of those things which one doesn't know, or knows badly? It is precisely here that we imagine having something to say. We write only at the frontiers of our knowledge, at the border which seperates our knowledge from our ignorance and transforms the one to the other.
Only in this manner are we resolved to write. To satisfy ignorance is to put off writing until tomorrow -or rather, to make it impossible. Perhaps writing was a relation to silence altogether more threantening that that, which is supposed to entertain with death.
_______________________

Difference and Repetition.

__________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

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. (...)