Radio DelEuZe: _________________

23.9.10

__________________ the open sea ...

_________________________________________________

The book I did wasn't about the history of philosophy, it's something

I wanted to do with him, with the idea I have of him and my

admiration for him. If there was any poetry in the book, one might

see it as what poets call a tombeau.

I differed from him only on very

minor things: what he called an apparatus, and what Felix and I called

arrangements, have different coordinates, because he was establishing

novel historical sequences, while we put more emphasis on geographical
elements, territoriality and movements of deterritorialization.

We were always rather keen on universal history, which he

detested.

But being able to follow what he was doing provided me

with essential corroboration.

He was often misunderstood, which

didn't get in his way but did worry him.

People were afraid of him,

that's to say his mere existence was enough to stop idiots braying.

Foucault

fulfilled the function of philosophy as defined by Nietzsche:

being bad for stupidity.

Thinking, with him, is like diving down and

always bringing something back up to the surface.

A thought that

folds this way and that, then suddenly bursts open like a spring. I
don't in fact think he was particularly influenced by Leibniz.

Although there's a remark in Leibniz that applies particularly well to

him: "I thought I'd reached port, but found myself thrown back onto

the open sea."

Thinkers like Foucault advance by lurching from one

crisis to another, there's something seismic about them.

_______________ ____________________________________________

and as Corry Shores always graciously does so we too thank you

text excerpt of Deleuze (Negotiations) and Martin Joughin the noble translator of these words

from francais to english

_________________________________________________________________________________

__________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.