Radio DelEuZe: Artaud's organs

1.5.11

Artaud's organs

----------

Artaud's organs betrayed him ~his body betrayed him , it's the body's organization that betrays us ~ he wanted t o find a way out ~

a line leading away from the murderous organism the traitorous judgment of god, the
munitions strata built by the state and the molar monstrosity of centuries old ghost and dictatorial millenia

______________ If the earth itself is the judgement of god, as deleuze and guattari suggest then Artaud's lines into experiment and consciousness are vital for our understanding of how we too live our subjectivities and how we too are 'subjected'
to the powers that be.

however and whoever they are ~

_________________________________________________The Way Out ~

__________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.