Radio DelEuZe: re :socialism

16.12.09

re :socialism

At the end of the 3rd part of the interview Godard when asked

about his not yet completed film

SociAliSm _2010

says that he won't say anything about it except for maybe its name , that it is not sure yet that the series of movements- there might 3 or 5 and so on ...

in it are settled .... wonderful interview

and his strength of character shines through _ that it may yet change. the film may yet change its shape..... How Protean ~ he is and careful not to disclose more than he wants ... about his

work....

and his wonderful thank you at the end

is itself strong and definitive....

__ One thinks of Nietzsche's comments about genius and the air of sureness regarding their work...

Taking Nietzche's idea of studying philosophers with one's nose,

one can say also that one can study film makers with one's eyes nose,

and that Godard smells like fire and sulphur of burning radiant truth ~

____________________

__________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.