Radio DelEuZe: line of fight

21.4.09

line of fight

What is The professor cynically congratulated himself on taking his pleasure from behind, but offspring always turned out to be runts and wents, bits and pieces, if not stupid||| vulgarizations. (Gilleagmatic framework is better than tracing concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nprecarious and pragmatic framews Deleuze and Felix Guattari)the line of flight? Dadaleuze reply

When a term is introduced and has the least bit of success, as has been the case for “desiring machine” or “schizoanalysis”, either one circulates it, which is already rather pernicious, a sort of coaptation, or one renounces it and seeks other terms to upset the order. These are words that Félix and I now feel it urgent not to use: ‘schizoanalysis,’ ‘desiring machine’ —it’s awful, if we use them, we’re caught in the trap. We don’t know very well what they mean, we no longer believe in the words; when we use a word, we want to say, if this word doesn’t agree with you, find another, there’s always a way. Words are totally interchangeable (Desert Islands 278 ).

a discussion after Anti-Oedipus and before A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze stressed the incoherence of what he and Guattari wdoing:

Neither Guattari nor myself are very attached to the pursuit or even coherence of what we write. We would hope for the contrary, we would hope that the follow-up to Anti-Oedipus breaks with what preceded it, with the first volume, and then, if there are things that don’t work in the first volume, it doesn’t matter. I mean that we are not among those authors who think of what they write as a whole that must be coherent; if we change, fine, so there’s no point in talking to us about the past. (Deleesert Islands )

"It is not the first two persons that function as the condition for literary enunciation; literature begins only when a third person is born in us that strips us of the power to say 'I' (Blanchot's 'neuter')"

[I]t’s not science, it’s a monster slang, it’s nomadic. Even in the realm

of theory, any precarious and pragmatic framework is better than tracing

concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nothing. (ATP 24)

______________________

precarious and pragmatic framework is better than tracing concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nprecarious and pragmatic framewecarious and pragmatic framework is better than tracing concepts, with theiScurrying vermin, groping like the blind, running like a lunatir breaks and progress changing nprecarious and pragmatic framework is better than ork is better than tracing concepts, with their breing nprecarious and pragaks and progress changing n

__________AnD What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics.

_____

__________AnD

What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics.

And : The question of speed is important and also very complex. It doesn't mean the first in the race: you can be late through speed. Speed is to be caught in a becoming_ which is not a development or an evolution. One must be like a taxi, queue(ligne d'attente), line of flight, traffic jam, bottleneck, green and red lights, slightly paranoid,brushes with the police. To be an abstract and broken line, a zigzag which glides 'between'. The grass and speed. What you misnamed style just now_ charm or style_ is speed.

And :One only discovers worlds through a long, broken flight.

_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 question of what use it has in an extra-textual practice that prolongs the text ..

Professor D Challanger speaking

in Clinical Critical terms as the hat was in the wind

How else?

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 separates 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 threatening that that, which is supposed to entertain with death.
_______________________

Difference and Repetition.