------------terrritories of a peramb lati g schizo a la An gleterre _ deterre to An gle
mais le paranoia
Monday
Doctor Challenger's reader in thee Ukay!
"Beware of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. They begin their book, ‘Anti-Oedipus’: ‘It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats’."You see, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I just saw something in a book shop and took a quick look. That is how people 'read' in bookshops, these days, and what one picks up from this is not nothing:
‘Paranoid combination of signs versus machinic assemblages of schizophrenia’, ‘microscopic cybernetics, without regard to the traditional opposition between mechanism and vitalism’, 'organ-machine', ‘desiring-machines’, 'universal schizophrenic', and... there's more in each paragraph.
‘Paranoid combination of signs versus machinic assemblages of schizophrenia’, ‘microscopic cybernetics, without regard to the traditional opposition between mechanism and vitalism’, 'organ-machine', ‘desiring-machines’, 'universal schizophrenic', and... there's more in each paragraph.
An honest reader no less than a reel reel to reel 1ONE| Is paranoia the honesty of the lost?
"Suppose I stumbled on Deleuze first time when I was studying Proust a few years ago. I took avid notes, which I looked over recently, now bewildered by the sentence ‘Proust’s narrator is the universal schizophrenic operating marionettes’. I now know the standard meaning of the word ‘schizophrenic’, but what I see throughout Deleuze’s writing, and in the books co-authored with Guattari, in interviews about Schizophrenia and Society, where it emerges that schizophrenics are organ-machines / organless bodies (strange resonance of the humanist ‘mens sana in corpore sano') where ‘schizoanalysis’ is superior to psychoanalysis which is a ‘terrible curettage’, and more suited to exploded and fragmentary..."
A rich and honesty commentary from this wander reader___
A rich and honesty commentary from this wander reader___
..."imaging, is that Schizophrenia for Deleuze is a metaphor for true and thorough de-humanisation.
Somehow, this is not too far from Deleuze & Guattari’s idea of the ‘rhizome’, an untidy network with nodes, knots, etc., mobile and multi-dimensional model of human understanding.
Deleuze (She means Guattari and Deleuze really) writes about machines, mechanisms (? no mechanisms there), psychoanalytical overthrow (hence the title ‘Anti-Oedipus’), the anti-logos or anti-rationalism, in the language of ratio and clarity itself. To me, his (their writing)writing is transfixing like a stainless, flashing, sharp-edge chiliahedron, quiet and grandiose like glossy ruin. "
Walking ambling as any true schizo does, off the couch conch into the rue of books and real reality
"Walking through British book shops, I see to my surprise – since the British don’t like the French – that Deleuze translations are ubiquitous in slim or fat volumes, Introductions to Deleuze, Guides to Deleuze, Analyses of Deleuze, just one thing is missing: criticism.
None of the academics I know read or care about Deleuze, except perhaps my philosophy teacher back in the Lycée who, through mention of Deleuze, got me interested in Proust – and here I am again."
Deleuze this deleuze that,
everyone deleuze but not a drop to drink
____________
Now she comment on rapport to Dereader who's deferred deferential is exponential. she bong rong rong.
O yes dear reader the reading and publising list as it serves the economics of a given interest or academic need or want or readering round the bend edges of the filtering paranoiacs of everyday life
-------------------------------------???
Is he?
if so these qu est io nSreq ire mor e co ntext
...'They say that philosophy is something in the books and real life is another story, when has a book ever changed the course of events. That is an open question; regardless, texts en vogue infiltrate common language and mainstream thinking.
Much as I am freaked, repulsed and attracted by what and how Deleuze writes, much as I intend to study the detail behind soundbytes like ‘universal schizophrenic’, ‘organ machine’, and the likes, and little as I understand whether Deleuze thinks of all this favourably or negatively: the point is that these are the first things that spring from his pages, they are extravagant, awful, well-researched and demonstrated, and apparently, quite popular. What is the meaning of this?
extrapolated commented on and glossed
from
My UbIQuiTous Paranoia
O the bookstores of London
and its dirty devils
is strong to hearten the weak.
But aphasia is not our name
O student of language
and schizophellia
__
the reader wanters
in her water of the leman of
the shy river
of weird
weir of plenty and abstaction of nothing.
Walking ambling as any true schizo does, off the couch conch into the rue of books and real reality
"Walking through British book shops, I see to my surprise – since the British don’t like the French – that Deleuze translations are ubiquitous in slim or fat volumes, Introductions to Deleuze, Guides to Deleuze, Analyses of Deleuze, just one thing is missing: criticism.
None of the academics I know read or care about Deleuze, except perhaps my philosophy teacher back in the Lycée who, through mention of Deleuze, got me interested in Proust – and here I am again."
Deleuze this deleuze that,
everyone deleuze but not a drop to drink
____________
Now she comment on rapport to Dereader who's deferred deferential is exponential. she bong rong rong.
"The Derrida-clique is indispensable, sharp, prolific, influential, but something rings hollow, or mechanical, or simply, inhuman.
Why is Deleuze so popular with the British general public? Why, in Heffers Cambridge, no History of German Literature, no Expressionist Poetry (not even mention of it in Poetry Encyclopaedias or anywhere else), no Laforgue, no Russian Literature in Russian, however, about 150 books in French, essentially Balzac and the Realist Novel, Huellebecq and recent prize winners, and a bit of Sartre ; in the Philosophy section, Modern Philosophy by authors, Russell books: 5, Locke 3, Nietzsche 19, Kant 12, Derrida 3, Foucault 6, Hobbes 4, Spinoza 5, Popper 7, Deleuze 14. Book shops are for the general public. Four years ago, Deleuze was not here, now suddenly, he is prominent."O yes dear reader the reading and publising list as it serves the economics of a given interest or academic need or want or readering round the bend edges of the filtering paranoiacs of everyday life
-------------------------------------???
Is he?
if so these qu est io nSreq ire mor e co ntext
...'They say that philosophy is something in the books and real life is another story, when has a book ever changed the course of events. That is an open question; regardless, texts en vogue infiltrate common language and mainstream thinking.
Much as I am freaked, repulsed and attracted by what and how Deleuze writes, much as I intend to study the detail behind soundbytes like ‘universal schizophrenic’, ‘organ machine’, and the likes, and little as I understand whether Deleuze thinks of all this favourably or negatively: the point is that these are the first things that spring from his pages, they are extravagant, awful, well-researched and demonstrated, and apparently, quite popular. What is the meaning of this?
ey are extravagant, awfu
gant, awful, well-researched and demonstrated, and apparently, quite popular. W
-------------------------------extrapolated commented on and glossed
from
My UbIQuiTous Paranoia
O the bookstores of London
and its dirty devils
is strong to hearten the weak.
But aphasia is not our name
O student of language
and schizophellia
__
the reader wanters
in her water of the leman of
the shy river
of weird
weir of plenty and abstaction of nothing.
