||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||...
5/17/2013
...'which today we call neurosis...'
___________________________________________________________
"The Hamlet dilemma, which today we call neurosis, seems to me to be a symbolic expression or manifestation of man’s plight when caught between the turn of the tides. There comes a moment when action and inaction seem alike futile, when the heart is black and empty and to consult it yields nothing. At such moments those who have lived by illusion find themselves
high and dry, thrown up on the shore like the wrack of the sea, there to disintegrate and be swallowed up by the elemental forces. Whole worlds can go to bits like that, living out what you would call a “biological death,” a death which Gutkind calls the Mamser world of unreality and confusion, the ghostly world of Hamlet, the Avitchi of the Buddhists, which is none other than a world of “effects.”
Here the unreal world of ideas, dogmas, superstitions, hopes,
illusions flounders in one continuous nightmare–a reality more vivid
than anything known in life because life had been nothing but a long
evasion, a sleep."
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Henry Miller to Anais Nin, 1937
5/13/2013
~ my brother Rimbaud, who is a girl
--- Dear Ariane, my brother Rimbaud, who is a girl, asked me to send
you a message, because she is weeping day and night now,
she asked me to send you this message,
"there is no castration, there is none, that is the point of the
movement started by others, and she, Ariane and the others are
deluded and deceiving the Others of the Other, she is like so many a
good meaning but wrong, maybe dangerously in errance to be passing
on such doctrine. It is not her fault, that she does not understand
what she is saying and doing. God bless her, but God help her
clients, whoever they are, even more. Lastly, I suggest that she and
her fellow priests quit their profession."
I know it sounds nuts, but she was sobbing and crying for days after
she read what you said, and also some of the others . Rimbaudboyo is
a homeosexual who is not into homo castrato, so she would not bear
the sort of theory and doctrine you are spreading.
I am her only self that speaks in a normal language and I was a
student of another sort of thinking, but anyhow. I had to say this
to get it off my chest. No hard feelings, .
O PPS I might as well say, I am not homosexual. But what does it
matter, it is not necessarily, like somethng in the family.
________________________________
you a message, because she is weeping day and night now,
she asked me to send you this message,
"there is no castration, there is none, that is the point of the
movement started by others, and she, Ariane and the others are
deluded and deceiving the Others of the Other, she is like so many a
good meaning but wrong, maybe dangerously in errance to be passing
on such doctrine. It is not her fault, that she does not understand
what she is saying and doing. God bless her, but God help her
clients, whoever they are, even more. Lastly, I suggest that she and
her fellow priests quit their profession."
I know it sounds nuts, but she was sobbing and crying for days after
she read what you said, and also some of the others . Rimbaudboyo is
a homeosexual who is not into homo castrato, so she would not bear
the sort of theory and doctrine you are spreading.
I am her only self that speaks in a normal language and I was a
student of another sort of thinking, but anyhow. I had to say this
to get it off my chest. No hard feelings, .
O PPS I might as well say, I am not homosexual. But what does it
matter, it is not necessarily, like somethng in the family.
________________________________
5/03/2013
5/01/2013
some
I think some of the se idea expressed below from A/O are useful things to keep in mind in what you call the more difficult passages in Hart Crane's The Bridge and his other poems.
Yet it has been a long time since Engels demonstrated, already
apropos of Balzac, how an author is great
because he cannot prevent
himself from tracing flows and causing them to circulate, flows that split
asunder the catholic and despotic signifier of his work, and that
necessarily nourish a revolutionary machine on the horizon.
That is
what style is, or rather the absence of style—asyntactic, agrammatical:
the moment when language is no longer defined by what it says, even
less by what makes it a signifying thing, but by what causes it to move,
to flow, and to explode—desire.
For literature is like schizophrenia: a
process and not a goal, a production and not an expression.
133 a/o ENG
from 243
T he extreme importance of J.-F. Lyotard's recent book is due to its
position as the first generalized critique of the signifier. In his most
general proposition, in fact, he shows that the signifier is overtaken
toward the outside by figurative images, just as it is ovvertaken toward
the inside by the pure figures that compose it—or, more decisively, by
"the figural" that comes to short-circuit the signifier's coded gaps,
inserting itself between them, and working under the conditions of
identity of their elements.
In language and in writing itself, sometimes
the letters as breaks, as shattered partial objects—and sometimes the
words as undivided flows, as nondecomposable blocks, or full bodies
having a tonic value—constitute assignifying signs that deliver themselves
over to the order of desire: rushes of breath and cries.
(In
particular, formal investigations concerning manual or printed writing
change their meaning according to whether the characteristics of the
letters and the qualities of the words are in the service of a signifier,
whose effects they express following exegetical rules; or whether, on the
contrary, they break through this wall so as to set flows in motion, and
establish breaks that overflow or rupture the sign's conditions of
identity, and that cause books within "the book" to flow and to
disintegrate, entering into multiple configurations whose possibilities
were already the object of the typographical exercises of Mallarme—
always passing underneath the signifier, filing through the wall: which
again shows that the death of writing is infinite, so long as it arises and
arrives from within.)
370
---------------------But on
the other, the schizorevolutionary, pole, the value of art is no longer
measured except in terms of the decoded and deterritorial-ized flows
that it causes to circulate beneath a signifier reduced to silence, beneath
the conditions of identity of the parameters, across a structure reduced to
impotence; a writing with pneumatic, electronic, or gaseous indifferent
supports, and that appears all the more difficult and intellectual to
intellectuals as it is accessible to the infirm, the illiterate, and the
schizos, embracing all that flows and counterfiows, the gushings of
mercy and pity knowing nothing of meanings and aims (the Artaud
experiment, the Burroughs experiment). It is here that art accedes to its
authentic modernity, which simply consists in liberating what was present in art
from its beginnings, but was hidden underneath aims and objects, even if
aesthetic, and underneath recodings or axiomatics: the pure process that fulfills
itself, and that never ceases to reach fulfillment as it proceeds—art as
"experimentation."*
Crane's work in its most intense motors passes over and by what can be explained.
====================================
4/06/2013
From the enormous political, social, and historical content of Schreber's delirium, not one word is retained, as though the libido did not bother itself with such things.
_______________
From the enormous
political, social, and historical content of Schreber's delirium, not one
word is retained, as though the libido did not bother itself with such
things. Freud invokes only a sexual argument, which consists in
bringing about the union of sexuality and the familial complex, and a
mythological argument, which consists in positing the adequation of the
productive force of the unconscious and the "edifying forces of myths
and religions."
This latter argument is very important, and it is not by chance that
here Freud declares himself in agreement with Jung. In a certain way
this agreement subsists after their break.\\
If the unconscious is thought to
express itself adequately in myths and religions (taking into account, of
course, the work of transformation), there are two ways of reading this
adequation, but they have in common the postulate that measures the
unconscious against myth, and that from the start substitutes mere
The supposed adequation can then be interpreted in what is
termed anagogical fashion, toward the "higher." Or inversely, in analytical
fashion, toward the "lower," relating the myth to the drives. But
since the drives are transferred from myth, traced from myth with the
transformations taken into account. . . What we mean is that, startingfrom the same postulate, Jung is led to restore the most diffuse andspiritualized religiosity, whereas Freud is confirmed in his most rigorous
atheism. Freud needs to deny the existence of God as much as Jung needs to
affirm the essence of the divine, in order to interpret the commonly postulated
adequation.
58 ANTI-OEDIPUS
What came to pass in the history of psychoanalysis?
---------------------/////////////////////////////////
From the enormous
political, social, and historical content of Schreber's delirium, not one
word is retained, as though the libido did not bother itself with such
things. Freud invokes only a sexual argument, which consists in
bringing about the union of sexuality and the familial complex, and a
mythological argument, which consists in positing the adequation of the
productive force of the unconscious and the "edifying forces of myths
and religions."
This latter argument is very important, and it is not by chance that
here Freud declares himself in agreement with Jung. In a certain way
this agreement subsists after their break.\\
If the unconscious is thought to
express itself adequately in myths and religions (taking into account, of
course, the work of transformation), there are two ways of reading this
adequation, but they have in common the postulate that measures the
unconscious against myth, and that from the start substitutes mere
expressive forms for the productive formations. The basic question is
never asked, but cast aside: Why return to myth? Why take it as the
model?
The supposed adequation can then be interpreted in what is
termed anagogical fashion, toward the "higher." Or inversely, in analytical
fashion, toward the "lower," relating the myth to the drives. But
since the drives are transferred from myth, traced from myth with the
transformations taken into account. . . What we mean is that, startingfrom the same postulate, Jung is led to restore the most diffuse andspiritualized religiosity, whereas Freud is confirmed in his most rigorous
atheism. Freud needs to deny the existence of God as much as Jung needs to
affirm the essence of the divine, in order to interpret the commonly postulated
adequation.
But to render religion unconscious, or the unconscious religious, still
amounts to injecting something religious into the unconscious. (And what would
Freudian analysis be without the celebrated guilt feelings ascribed to the
unconscious?)
58 ANTI-OEDIPUS
What came to pass in the history of psychoanalysis?
---------------------/////////////////////////////////
2/25/2013
read don't walk or walk right in
AntILogos_ A-- _ Literary Machine: wrote
‘People do not need an introduction: Why does anyone need an “introduction” to a book that speaks so well for itself. In fact, the book does just fine, so I would say to anyone needing a so called intro Just Read the book. It’s simple go to page and one and move along.The book , will teach you how to read it, and so you will your own senses.
….. what’s so aggravatin’ is the idea that anyone needs an introduction. Do you need an introduction to music you like or that someone tells you about? No, well it’s the same thing with good books.
‘People do not need an introduction: Why does anyone need an “introduction” to a book that speaks so well for itself. In fact, the book does just fine, so I would say to anyone needing a so called intro Just Read the book. It’s simple go to page and one and move along.The book , will teach you how to read it, and so you will your own senses.
….. what’s so aggravatin’ is the idea that anyone needs an introduction. Do you need an introduction to music you like or that someone tells you about? No, well it’s the same thing with good books.
Don’t be a rhizombie_ be a schizoid thinker! sTART in the middle and go. Or start at the front and go, but go you gotta go you must.’
The same goes for most books, read them for yourself, enjoy them or not and then move on, and use them as they work for you.
I don’t wish to sound stern, but bayjayzus! there’s a bloody industry that’s just insanely devoted to introductions, prefaces, prologues and what not. ….
The least stern of readers suggest Read for yourself~ With Joy ~.
what a rest ___-----------------Out for a wa lk ////////////////////________________)..................>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A schizophrenic out for a walk is a better model than a neurotic lying on the
analyst's couch.
A breath of fresh air, a relationship with the outside world.
Lenz's stroll, for example, as reconstructed by Buchner.
While taking a
stroll outdoors, on the other hand, he is in the mountains, amid falling
snowfiakes, with other gods or without any gods at all, without a family, without
a father or a mother, with nature. "What does my father want? Can he offer me
more than that? Impossible. Leave me in peace."
"He
Lenz has projected himself back to a time before the
man-nature dichotomy, before all the co-ordinates based on this fundamental
dichotomy have been laid down.
He does not live nature as nature, but as a
process of production. There is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a
process that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together.
Producing-machines, desiring-machines everywhere, schizophrenic machines, all
of species life: the self and the non-self, outside and inside, no longer have any
meaning whatsoever.
Now that we have had a look at this stroll of a schizo, let us compare what
happens when Samuel Beckett's characters decide to venture outdoors. Their
various gaits and methods of self-locomotion constitute, in and of themselves, a
finely tuned machine. And then there is the function of the bicycle in Beckett's
works: what relationship does the bicycle-horn machine have with the
mother-anus machine?
What a rest
rest to speak of bicycles and horns. Unfortunately it is not of them I have to
speak, but of her who brought me into the world, through the hole in her arse if
my memory is correct."
"What a REST
rest to speak of bicycles and horns. Unfortunately it is not of them I have to
speak, but of her who brought me into the world, through the hole in her arse if
my memory is correct." It is often thought that Oedipus* is an easy subject to
deal with, something perfectly obvious, a "given" that is there from the very
beginning. But that is not so at all: Oedipus presupposes a fantastic repression of
desiring-machines. And why are they repressed? To what end?
This does not mean that we are attempting to make nature one of the poles
of schizophrenia. What the schizophrenic experiences, both as an individual and
as a member of the human species, is not at all any one specific aspect of nature,
but nature as a process of production. What do we mean here by process? It is
probable that at a certain level nature and industry are two separate and distinct
things: from one point of view, industry is the opposite of nature; from another,
industry extracts its raw materials from nature; from yet another, it returns its
refuse to nature; and so on. Even within society, this characteristic man-nature,
industry-nature, society-nature relationship is responsible for the dis-
________________________________
tinction of relatively autonomous spheres that are called production,
distribution, consumption. But in general this entire level of distinctions,
examined from the point of view of its formal developed structures,
presupposes (as Marx has demonstrated) not only the existence of
capital and the division of labor, but also the false consciousness that the
capitalist being necessarily acquires, both of itself and of the supposedly
fixed elements within an over-all process.
For the real truth of the
matter—the glaring, sober truth that resides in delirium—is that there is
no such thing as relatively independent spheres or circuits: production is
immediately consumption and a recording process (enregistrement*),
without any sort of mediation, and the recording process and consumption
directly determine production, though they do so within the
production process itself.
He erything is production: production of
productions, of actions and of passions; productions of recording
processes, of distributions and of co-ordinates that serve as points of
reference; productions of consumptions, of sensual pleasures, of anxieties,
and of pain. Everything is production, since the recording processes
are immediately consumed, immediately consummated, and these consumptions
directly reproduced.+ This is the first meaning of process as
we use the term: incorporating recording and consumption within
production itself, thus making them the productions of one and the same
process.
A schizophrenic out for a walk is a better model than a neurotic lying on the
analyst's couch.
A breath of fresh air, a relationship with the outside world.
Lenz's stroll, for example, as reconstructed by Buchner.
This walk outdoors is
different from the moments when Lenz finds himself closeted with his pastor,
who forces him to situate himself socially, in relationship to the God of
established religion, in relationship to his father, to his mother.
different from the moments when Lenz finds himself closeted with his pastor,
who forces him to situate himself socially, in relationship to the God of
established religion, in relationship to his father, to his mother.
While taking a
stroll outdoors, on the other hand, he is in the mountains, amid falling
snowfiakes, with other gods or without any gods at all, without a family, without
a father or a mother, with nature. "What does my father want? Can he offer me
more than that? Impossible. Leave me in peace."
Everything is a machine.
Celestial machines,
Celestial machines,
the stars or rainbows in the sky,
alpine machines— all of
them connected to those of his body.
them connected to those of his body.
The continual whirr of machines.
"He
thought that it must be a feeling of endless bliss to be in contact with the
profound life of every form, to have a soul for rocks, metals, water, and plants, to
take into himself, as in a dream, every element of nature, like flowers that breathe
with the waxing and waning of the moon."la To be a chlorophyll- or a
photosynthesis-machine, or at least slip his body into such machines as one part
among the others.
Lenz has projected himself back to a time before the
man-nature dichotomy, before all the co-ordinates based on this fundamental
dichotomy have been laid down.
He does not live nature as nature, but as a
process of production. There is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a
process that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together.
Producing-machines, desiring-machines everywhere, schizophrenic machines, all
of species life: the self and the non-self, outside and inside, no longer have any
meaning whatsoever.
Now that we have had a look at this stroll of a schizo, let us compare what
happens when Samuel Beckett's characters decide to venture outdoors. Their
various gaits and methods of self-locomotion constitute, in and of themselves, a
finely tuned machine. And then there is the function of the bicycle in Beckett's
works: what relationship does the bicycle-horn machine have with the
mother-anus machine?
What a rest
rest to speak of bicycles and horns. Unfortunately it is not of them I have to
speak, but of her who brought me into the world, through the hole in her arse if
my memory is correct."
"What a REST
rest to speak of bicycles and horns. Unfortunately it is not of them I have to
speak, but of her who brought me into the world, through the hole in her arse if
my memory is correct." It is often thought that Oedipus* is an easy subject to
deal with, something perfectly obvious, a "given" that is there from the very
beginning. But that is not so at all: Oedipus presupposes a fantastic repression of
desiring-machines. And why are they repressed? To what end?
Is it really
necessary or desirable to submit to such repression? And what means are to be
used to accomplish this? What ought to go inside the Oedipal triangle, what sort
of thing is required to construct it? Are a bicycle horn and my mother's arse
sufficient to do the job?||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
necessary or desirable to submit to such repression? And what means are to be
used to accomplish this? What ought to go inside the Oedipal triangle, what sort
of thing is required to construct it? Are a bicycle horn and my mother's arse
sufficient to do the job?||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aren't there more important questions than these,
however? Given a certain effect, what machine is capable of producing it? And
given a certain machine, what can it be used for? Can we possibly guess, for
instance, what a knife rest is used for if all we are given is a geometrical
however? Given a certain effect, what machine is capable of producing it? And
given a certain machine, what can it be used for? Can we possibly guess, for
instance, what a knife rest is used for if all we are given is a geometrical
description of it? Or yet another example: on being confronted with a complete
machine made up of six stones in the right-hand pocket of my coat (the pocket
that serves as the source of the stones), five stones in the right-hand pocket of my
trousers, and five in the left-hand pocket (transmission pockets), with the
remaining pocket of my coat receiving the stones that have already been handled,
as each of the stones moves forward one pocket, how can we determine the effect
of this circuit of distribution in which the mouth, too, plays a role as a
stone-sucking machine? Where in this entire circuit do we find the production of
sexual pleasure? At the end of Malone Dies, Lady Pedal takes the schizophrenics
out for a ride in a van and a rowboat, and on a picnic in the midst of nature: an
infernal machine is being assembled. "Under the skin the body is an over-heated
factory,/ and outside,/ the invalid shines,/ glows,/ from every burst pore."
machine made up of six stones in the right-hand pocket of my coat (the pocket
that serves as the source of the stones), five stones in the right-hand pocket of my
trousers, and five in the left-hand pocket (transmission pockets), with the
remaining pocket of my coat receiving the stones that have already been handled,
as each of the stones moves forward one pocket, how can we determine the effect
of this circuit of distribution in which the mouth, too, plays a role as a
stone-sucking machine? Where in this entire circuit do we find the production of
sexual pleasure? At the end of Malone Dies, Lady Pedal takes the schizophrenics
out for a ride in a van and a rowboat, and on a picnic in the midst of nature: an
infernal machine is being assembled. "Under the skin the body is an over-heated
factory,/ and outside,/ the invalid shines,/ glows,/ from every burst pore."
This does not mean that we are attempting to make nature one of the poles
of schizophrenia. What the schizophrenic experiences, both as an individual and
as a member of the human species, is not at all any one specific aspect of nature,
but nature as a process of production. What do we mean here by process? It is
probable that at a certain level nature and industry are two separate and distinct
things: from one point of view, industry is the opposite of nature; from another,
industry extracts its raw materials from nature; from yet another, it returns its
refuse to nature; and so on. Even within society, this characteristic man-nature,
industry-nature, society-nature relationship is responsible for the dis-
________________________________
tinction of relatively autonomous spheres that are called production,
distribution, consumption. But in general this entire level of distinctions,
examined from the point of view of its formal developed structures,
presupposes (as Marx has demonstrated) not only the existence of
capital and the division of labor, but also the false consciousness that the
capitalist being necessarily acquires, both of itself and of the supposedly
fixed elements within an over-all process.
For the real truth of the
matter—the glaring, sober truth that resides in delirium—is that there is
no such thing as relatively independent spheres or circuits: production is
immediately consumption and a recording process (enregistrement*),
without any sort of mediation, and the recording process and consumption
directly determine production, though they do so within the
production process itself.
He erything is production: production of
productions, of actions and of passions; productions of recording
processes, of distributions and of co-ordinates that serve as points of
reference; productions of consumptions, of sensual pleasures, of anxieties,
and of pain. Everything is production, since the recording processes
are immediately consumed, immediately consummated, and these consumptions
directly reproduced.+ This is the first meaning of process as
we use the term: incorporating recording and consumption within
production itself, thus making them the productions of one and the same
process.
Second, we make no distinction between man and nature
the
human essence of nature and the natural essence of man become one
within nature in the form of production or industry, just as they do
within the life of man as a species.
__________________________________________________________
2/24/2013
.. whole an ......... pArt
‘(Hence) Proust maintained that the Whole itself is a product,
produced as nothing more than a part alongside other parts, which it
neither unifies nor totalizes, though it has an effect on these other parts
simply because it establishes aberrant paths of communication between
noncommunicating vessels, transverse unities between elements that
retain all their differences within their own particular boundaries.
Thus
of what is seen nor a unity of the points of view, except along the
transversal that the frantic passenger traces from one window to the
other, “in order to draw together, in order to reweave intermittent and
opposite fragments.”
This drawing together, this reweaving is what
Joyce called re-embodying. The body without organs is produced as a
whole, but in its own particular place within the process of production,
alongside the parts that it neither unifies nor totalizes.
And when it
operates on them, when it turns back upon them (se rabat sur elles), it
brings about transverse communications, transfinite summarizations,
polyvocal and transcursive inscriptions on its own surface, on which the
functional breaks of partial objects are continually intersected by breaks
in the signifying chains, and by breaks effected by a subject that uses
them as reference points in order to locate itself.
The whole not only
coexists with all the parts; it is contiguous to them, it exists as a product
that is produced apart from them and yet at the same time is related to
them. Geneticists have noted the same phenomenon in the particular
language of their science: “… amino acids are assimilated individually
into the cell, and then are arranged in the proper sequence by a
mechanism analogous to a template onto which the distinctive side chain
of each acid keys into its proper position.”
As a general rule, the
problem of the relationships between parts and the whole continues to
be rather awkwardly formulated by classic mechanism and vitalism, so
long as the whole is considered as a totality derived from the parts, or as
an original totality from which the parts emanate, or as a dialectical
totalization. Neither mechanism nor vitalism has really understood the
nature of desiring-machines, nor the twofold need to consider the role of
production in desire and the role of desire in mechanics.
Antioedipus - The Desiring-Machines 43-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/05/2013
Jung and easily Freudened!????????????
-------------------------------------
I find this so strange claiming that D&G are Jungian instead of Freudian. A bit odd! I'd say they are neither. Besides its Felix Guattari who did therapies and analysis not Gilles Deleuze. Neither of them were 'yjung and easily freudended!' as James Joyce quipped in Finnegans Wake____seriously schizoanalysis is a machine assemblage that uses whatever is at hand. The idea of usefulness (theory wise and practice wise) i.e. Never Interpret but find out how agiven machine (A/O) and how a strata can be tipped (AtP) into a molecular line(s) of flight to any given Outside.
I find this so strange claiming that D&G are Jungian instead of Freudian. A bit odd! I'd say they are neither. Besides its Felix Guattari who did therapies and analysis not Gilles Deleuze. Neither of them were 'yjung and easily freudended!' as James Joyce quipped in Finnegans Wake____seriously schizoanalysis is a machine assemblage that uses whatever is at hand. The idea of usefulness (theory wise and practice wise) i.e. Never Interpret but find out how agiven machine (A/O) and how a strata can be tipped (AtP) into a molecular line(s) of flight to any given Outside.
___________________besides who gives a hoot?______________________________
it either works And dont
______________________
1/29/2013
------------------Neither
Neither Guattari nor
myself are very attached to the pursuit or even coherence of
what we write. We would hope for the contrary, we would hope that the
follow-up to Anti-Oedipus breaks with what preceded it, with
the first volume, and then, if there are things that don’t work in
the first volume, it doesn’t matter. I mean that we are not among
those authors who think of what they write as a whole that must be
coherent; if we change, fine, so there’s no point in talking to us
about the past.
Deleuze speaking on a Deserted Island
____________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
