Radio DelEuZe: more part and whole

5.2.11

more part and whole

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------||||||||||||||||-----More of this con VeRsa-------------ition----------

so the whole's beside the part as equal but not identical ____________>

However lets see some things: It happens (writing)
in 20 th century poetry __________out of a necessity created by the author as Tzara states _______________________

Now with Artaud it comes out of another screaming space

the terror of the body without organs

  Tzara's necessity and the Joycean possibilities _____________>

________________Artaud is somewhere between this/these

He is neither works from necessity nor possibility _______________________________ and this makes his position
different fromthat of Tzara and other contemporary poets ________________________ He tries to explain this in his
letters to the guy from the NRF___ what was his name?
(Riviere?)

I cant remember but itseasy to find out ______ he tells him I am not like, not even like these other guys,
they write freely out of their unconscious
whereas I am trapped there
or I have to hack my way around ___________> he says
I love Tzara but I am not like him

i do not flow I choke
I spurge I bifurcate __________I crack in two and four before the word thought that is my being ___
The word is a body that's crushed in Artaud's mouth organ

_______For Tzara , "La pensee c'est fait dans la bouche" and he writes from a vigorous necessity and he swings with it
but he does not suffer it 'internally ' in a n identical way to Artaud
__________________ Artaud is more like Beckett
in his problems with writing )_____(he writes
as its killing him almost literally)_(more on
this later)_______________

One can see that 20th century poetry (and writing) distributes itself in spectrums
like this (there are other names one can add to this 'list' but I'm citing these as known quantums)

  Tzara <________________|________________>Artaud

   (the bar in the

center is a sort of Wall that fibrillates

or becomes cement like)

Joyce <----------------|-------------------> Kafka/Beckett

________________________________________

he tells him Look I am not speaking of problems with form
and the right word, I am speaking about my mind

my own mind splitting in to pieces the thought
and word
sundering /bifurcating

_______________________________________________

there are incidences between these writers names and their texts ___
that accumulate into energies

_____ Tzara's prose poem __ Monsieur AA antiphilosophe ~ Tzara's is the great polemecist and he is the poet of the Ear

What about Joyce's name __________________ Joy is a the center of it ~

Comedy _________________

what am I getting at? does a name distribute a writer's destinty? across
the span of time and his works?

__________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.