Radio DelEuZe: Dosse the Zany Biographer of Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze

24.9.10

Dosse the Zany Biographer of Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze

CP who is taping naked today : Tell me about Dosse C.D.

CD The first time I heard this zany historian was in Paris about a year or two before his book was published. He's a hoot. and well worth hearing. He's rescued Guattari and also reterritorialized Deleuze from the reactionaries who wanted to seperate him! He's a true bee buzzing the orchid! a burrow digger in spite of his errors! Peace be upon his multitudinous brain & head ~ .

______________________

Francois Dosse, author of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari: Intersecting Lives, has been touring the country discussing the book. To packed houses at NYU, Columbia, and Harvard, Dosse has been discussing the somewhat unlikely partnership that had a profound effect on post-1968 thinking.

François Dosse
envoyé par slal. - L'info internationale vidéo.

(Dosse will also be inBaltimore, Alabama, and California over the next few days to discuss the book.) For our French-speaking readers, below is a video of Dosse discussing the book:

For those who don’t speak French, here is a brief excerpt from theIntroduction describing the nature of their collaboration. (The Introduction also discusses how the two found each other and how each served an important intellectual function for the other.)

The two men created a veritable laboratory for testing their ideas, thanks to the transversal nature of their work. Guattari’s contribution to Deleuze was above all a breath of fresh air in a rarefied universe. “You felt that he rejoiced in his meetings with Félix. They seemed happy to be meeting, although they didn’t see each other much because they knew how delicate human relations can be.”
The differences in their personalities produced a two-speed machine: “Our rhythms were always different. Félix complained that I didn’t respond to his letters, but I could not answer immediately; it took me one or two months, by which time Félix had already moved on.” By contrast, however, when they worked together, each would force the other into taking firm positions, and this would go on until both fighters were exhausted and the idea they were discussing and arguing about had taken off; something like a “setting” or foundation for the idea arose from their work of proliferation and dissemination: “I considered that Félix had real insights, whereas I was a kind of lightning rod stuck in the ground so that the idea could take a different shape, and then Félix corrected it, etc. That’s how our work developed

_________________Cutted and Pasted from Columbia University Press Blog where everyone has sex, masturbates and is a wonderful rhizomoatic soup. Come along! read them in Bed its fun and horny and extremely erudite!

__________________________

__________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.