Le suicide de Deleuze : son dernier acte de libert� �

Le suicide de Deleuze : son dernier acte de libert>>:

Propos receuillis par Olivier Doubre pour Politis
par Richard Pinhas
Mise en ligne le vendredi 23 décembre 2005
Richard Pinhas est musicien.Il a longtemps suivi l’enseignement de Gilles Deleuze. Il anime un site Internet consacré au philosophe ,dispatu il y a tout juste dix ans.Il dresse ici un portrait personnel de celui qui fut son ami.


the important thing


important thing is flight

away around under even poetry art

molar like teeth big things
in the way

fete of inertia

keep going

round unde r

here come the enemies
we must

pound and

what is this fascism that desires itself

what is it makes them,

desire their own

there is noother word, repression

elections of dead men and dead women

fright in a puff

what is this

how escape

body of death

stiff knees in my own body
reflect and refract the body politic

what righteous

gangs of conservatives

've come to ruin your body

mind soul

here comes

the end which was always coming

so pray for the hills

to rise

valleys fall

Antioedipus and her gang ran

for the hills disappearing

gone the hills

genetic geeks of loss

what window sills of escape?

is that a jet overhead


you hear

is that a line of smoke escaping
your mouth
freeing your heart


the seminal years of WW1 and
a gathering in zurich

the collection of artists poets

scintillating the death around them
the war

'I had no love for the death heads

I silently went my way...'

what sound does a wolf make
tracking in the snow

the pack

dispersing up the high roads. roads sniffed, tracks unknown, languages unspoken language that is not political but a spiritual track of unknown
quantity _ is this the way to the frosty north and the desire shield,
getting out

the machine hovering down
like a helicopter
that chops off your head
heading down the space


what space i s garnered

the wolves circled

because the snow turned

to what?

some spooky sight of deaths and light, a rhyme repeating forever, no

language to flee _ a thesauras of exploding nouns

a mouth growling

endings that become

endings that're female becomings

but who deifies what law is this of bodies

of love,

of beauty

as your station crosses out the night

the mountain huggers down on the christian city

speaking its night

repeat repeat

bannking the road
the listing

hungers the wolves

tracking hurling
sniffing snapping


R yer legs sore


sore back of knees is 'i am screw'd
you fuck'd me ' there is no quote
italics baking the wrong of

fortune's body
her his fortune's body

to word


I am a dizzy spell


a basket of burning leaves



badiou lecture at the deitch gallery

badiou lecture at the deitch gallery

for franny and her gangling gang
the gaggle of gals
her multiple selves
the n- becomings of
the pebbles the sand
what is being
what does it mean to be?

on the island in Greece
I remember seeing her
as she walked toward me
and I was saying

yes yes yes, why is there being
why is there something rather than nothing?

c o n

n e c t i n



desire... machine... contin...

in other words they're not namby pamby i feel sorree myself and my life things and art is not making itself better being composed of such slush goo baba clutter.
whata monstrous lingo of schio
analogues and the language of psychosis?
glossolalia the litter of its

not the i, me, my of the mommy daddy
sort of jazz
but the real bad





where waving Archbishops kick you out
of the centre of your dead brothel family
yer dead family body
crossing the spears of
with the sex if not
of Zeitgeist?

she wandered around the end
edge of her flex text __

givin' all
forsaking none

living ball
taking less

is giving less

and not less
is not gi ving at a ll .

'I wan to see your dirtiest filthiest sonnets'

Someone in a book we read in London once eons past said in a

in the past of your sonnet was a hair
history conned the characters of its loom
yer sweet tuck was the riddle of its charm
a house to roll rompers and body
of your lover



seeks the condi[c]tion of the animal __

best to all lines of flight and
schizo analogues.
as in a cabin going up space
or an escalater shooting its
teeth into space the grid holding its own
sown teeth the girl steadies herselves
in the circuit that is nowhere

a banking turn
she sallies along the spin
of whirling working day
O her mouth opens the pen
of his heart
a case to spare parts
offers the monetary suit

-- ---- ---

'Revolutionaries, artists, and seers are content to be objective, merely objective: they know that desire clasps life in its powerfully productive embrace, and reproduces it in a way that is all the more intense because it has few needs. And never mind those who believe that this is very easy to say, or that it is the sort of idea to be found in books.' --

Picabia's Daughter Born without a Mother _june 1915 _ seen first in 219_ an art magazine of that time .

Desiring - machines constitute the non-oedipal life of
the unconscious _ oedipus being the gadget or phantasy . By
way of Opposition, Picabia called the machine: "the daughter
born without a mother. Buster Keaton introduced his house
machine, with all its rooms rolled into one, as a house without a mother, and desiring machines determine everything that oges on inside, as in the bachelor's meal (the Scarecrow, 1920).

Are we to understand that the machine has but a father, and that it is born like Athena fully armed from a virile brain?'

Chaosophy 125 (English trans.)

fer more on Picabia follow the external link.


all shining |plateau translate: 1998

it was all shining it was Adam.

no more anxiety...
in the plateaux.

Comment, comment; J'ai est un autre, et plusieurs!

It is, in other words most strange indeed that the master of deconstruction would choose to write an introduction to the new English edition of Antioedipus. It is, of course, 'well-known' that the book had originally been prefaced in English by Michel Foucault.

Is there a final reconciliation taking place here before all the final curtain calls take place, and the old lions,

if not in this earth, then at least between the lines will perhaps have greeted one another.

In their faces and not their texts.

We also heard, thru the various grape-vines which

carry this sort of gossip that Jacques Derrida is writing the introduction to Antioedipus in its new translation.

It is said that this new translation will de mystify certain non-Derridean notions like the B.W.O. Matter, Immanence, etc.

"I think this new translation has been the deconstuction of the territory of a sorrow in philosophy"

Imagine reading such drivel from the hand of an old Master
hitter like Derrida!! hussssshshhs Deleuze wins strike 27.

No matter how prolific you are you old Derrida
you dont have it, Bye Bye Derrida ___

So Mona reads.

Scandalous she says not meaning to scan as in metric tic-tac-toe and iambic pentameter efforts 150 years late! Nah, my dears, no effort to rule the roost of desire deconstructions.

I James Joyce have said these words.


Sommaire Chimeres 57

De l'exil italien, entretetien avec Erri de LucaPsychiatrie aujourd'hui : la parole des infirmiers RAF : lettres de prison de Gudrun Ensslin+ Gilles Deleuze, Éducation et cinéma

Cette revue accueillera les travaux des individus et des groupes se réclamant de près ou de loin de la “schizoanalyse”, science des chimères : les travaux de tous ceux qui entendent renouer avec l'inventivité première de la psychanalyse, en levant le carcan de pseudo-scientificité qui s'est abattu sur elle comme sur l'ensemble des pratiques et des recherches en philosophie et en sciences humaines. À la manière des arts et des sciences en train de se faire. Work in progress. Les textes émanent ici de psychanalystes, de philosophes, d'ethnologues, de scientifiques ou d'artistes. Pas pour une inter-disciplinarité de galerie. Retour au singulier. À chacun sa folie. Les grands phylums théoriques finiront bien par y retrouver les leurs. De toutes façons, par les temps qui courent, nous n'avions plus le choix, il fallait repartir de là.

Félix Guattari, Chimères n°1

Chimeres is the journal periodical begun by Felix Guattari

and Gilles Deleuze. The site has wonderful links to the seminars of Guattari as well other rhizmomatic bits morsels and what knots to a thousand other palaces, spaces and aces...

Arthur LipSettrecharged

THis is my pal Arthur Lipsett _ he's dead. 1986. Film-maker. I was a poet, he hired me to write some words for his movie, and he paid me $100 for ten words, more like letters. I remember he came over for supper , as we used to call it in them days, not dinner! supper, I was living with Gail we had about 10 or 12 cats or so, this was 1977. Arthur was a great artist, film-maker, he freaked everyone out at the National Film Board.

It's weird how life is. I think Arthur, like Ryan (Larkin) was nominated for an Academy award. No, now that I come to think of it, I doubt it. Too spooky, lhe was, like Beefheart. Big Eyed Beans from Venus don't let anything get in between us. Like I mean how can you be weirder than that, and win the big old academy award. Gosh, good old Arthur __ I made a song for him in 1987 in my second book and later with David and my poetry ensemble Nietzsche's Daughter we did a great version of it. A song to be sprachsong as they say. Sort of like something between speech and song. I was howling jumping up and down on stage at Les FouFounes Electrique _ that measn Hot ASs in English. On St. Catherine. Not far from where my mother grew up when it was the red light district the hot wild district in the 30's. Zoot suiters. Men in pin stripes moustaches baggy pants. Women in clothe so tight it gave you a ...

[Singing' cockles and mussels alialilo]

Ah, yes, Arthur, it's been a long time since we spoke, you been dead, since 1986, and they say you killed yourself. I know, I was at the funeral. There was only six of us there. Not many. Buried way down in the East end of the City, not far from the river, not many like you buried on down there .

Among those people you didn't know, who cared not a bit for what you would have been doing. Those weird amazing movies, jerky as a jagged girl walking down the street to make my love. Very Nice Very Nice _ yea I remember seeing that one.

and the others.

Arthur Arthur you never read Antioedipus, I was 4 years sober when you died, not even, it was 3 and a half _. Arthur like the name of another great poet. Arthur they say you hung yourself .

Arthur Harold Lipsett
Born: May 13, 1936

Died: April, 1986

You died the same month as Jean Genet. He died in a Paris hotel, I wonder what time you died, and if you stepped into
the other world, across the river, at around the same moment. Would have been cool , wouldn't it?

You and Jean Genet steppin over the river aT the same Second!

that would have been somethin'! Now.
Kool. Kool. Dig Daddio . Like writing this Poetr
drinkin tea at midnight candle burnin'

And that would be cool to have you
drop over now
years later

And this cool photo of you by Lois Siegal _ yeah, its'

copyrighted. It deserves to be it's so good. Like you

were and are and arrrreeeiing and I know where

you're coming from Arthur with your becomings

not dead but alive alive not dead

not that I want to cross the river

the way you did but when its time,

ta go Ill go gladly with a grace given

by the becoming s s s of it whatever

what ever its it

Ole Papa Deleuze went out the windoo

Too bad ya never read the Anti

Zinging the plac



Arthur Lipsett

those are yer notes.

'All ya ever do is blabber N' smoke
Why dont you quit actin' like you Know...'


Its what I got on . the machine. Some machine.
Diaal down jeans and my baby got no home

Highfi land
gramaphone land
they bash us with gramaphones

1975 .

Yea, thas a cool pic of Arthur's Note.
Up there floating around in this blog page.

and some cool phot of you by Lois Siegal
and two more taken by Judith Sandiforth .

Filmography:1961: Very Nice, Very Nice 1963: 21-87 1964: Free Fall 1965: A Trip Down Memory Lane 1968: Fluxes 1970: N-Zone 1977: Strange Codes.

Then there's the ones you didnt finish, the last one after the last. And the works of art you'd made in the moment. Of your hands in my kitchen on Debullion street making hour after hour of tapes for that show I was doing with the Punketariat called No More Fun__ 1978 . The group Punketariat does a show a seven day show installation precorded poetry massive wall sized collage live performance of poems. First public reading of my poem Blue Dog. And the night of

and 1986 at your grave
the coffin lowering down
how strange
what a fuck -up.
I put a ticket stub to movie on the coffin

as it ....

Strange . Life is.

Strange .

Like this, like this typewriter

with its pictures on the world wide web .

Actually Ver Nice Very Nice was nominated for
an Academy award. Imagine that , you and Ryan
both nominated. Strange birds flyin high'



Bodies bodies we , yes,

didnt think anything could go
wrong with them thenn

we thought we were eternal

Guess what ! you know,

we are,

its these bodies
vehicules that
the vehicule of the figure

that transforms .

bUt over the 'ruisseau'
the little 'ruiseea'

we're there

goin on

meeting the oness we couldnt

meet in this body .

You gotta smoke to live, Arthur,
you gotta burn .


Now I find out! some twenty years later!

Man you were famous! back then

when I was a kid!

in the foster homes

Look at this __

Kubrick described Very Nice, Very Nice (1961) as “one of the most imaginative and brilliant uses of the movie screen and soundtrack that I have ever seen.” Kubrick was so enthused with the film he invited Lipsett to create a trailer for Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1965) an offer Lipsett refused. Stanley Kubrick, letter to Arthur Lipsett, Arthur Lipsett Collection, Cinematheque québécoise Archives, Montreal, May 31, 1962. Lucas cites Lipsett's 21–87(1963) as an inspiration for THX-1138 (1971). See Kevin Courrier, “The Incredible Mr. Lipsett”, Globe and Mail, February 25, 1997, p. D1. Brakhage admired Lipsett's ability to transform “documentary file footage” for “his own polemically poetic usage”. See Stan Brakhage, “Space as Menace in Canadian Film and Painting”, in Brakhage, Telling Time: Essays of a Visionary Filmmaker, Documentext, Kingston, 2003, p. 95.

__ I mean , sure , Christopher told me about you, but

what did I know about the early days. An d the fame the glamour

what strange pulses & beats flew over my head.

I heard a rumour about you being

beaten up by agang in Europe _

Christopher told me this __

Yes, you were never the same he said.

He said.

Remember Art Dump __ Christopher?

Now that was a cool place

when Bango was hapening

that weird idea of a band

an idea

was what made it interesting.

and you taking photos of my hands

in the kitchen on DeBullion street.

Even though, I don't smell much these days,

I remember your smell. and never knew

much you suffered. A programme of

of suffering

end the suffering.

So we end as always on a high note of

renewal and

here then your flying high Prospero.

What disjunction flattened yer brain.

Not a prosperous Prospero.

Clad in your white sheets.

List! List! o ghost!

And you know what, who cares if you make mistakes,
it's just a glorified typewriter,
a fancy highfi.

So tipso,





Green bars to clad your ruins .


nomads language borderlines

"Being a nomad, living in transition, does not mean that one cannot or is unwilling to create those necessarily stable and reassuring bases for identity that allow one to function in a community. Rather, nomadic consciousness consists in not taking any kind of identity as permanent. The nomad is only passing through; s/he makes those necessarily situated connections that can help her/him to survive, but s/he never takes on fully the limits of one national, fixed identity. The nomad has no passport or has too many of them."

SO SAiTh RoSY Braidotti in 1994 in a Booke

and Janine MacIntosh the Schizo from Scotland agrees

le plateau 00,120.00

dear ___all is borderline persona... its part of the between and the
line of flux, the gender dissolution... the orthography which decays also is
a joy. More another days

Deleuze and Guattari confronted this same question in A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia:
Linguistics can claim all it wants to be science, nothing but pure science-it wouldn't be the first time that the order of pure science was used to secure the requirements of another order. What is grammaticality, and the sign S, the categorical symbol that dominates statements? It is a power marker before it is a syntactical marker, and Chomsky's trees establish constant relations between power variables. Forming grammatically correct sentences is for the normal individual the prerequisite for any submission to social laws. No one is supposed to be ignorant of grammaticality; those who are belong in special institutions. The unity of language is fundamentally political. There is no mother tongue, only a power takeover by a dominant language that at times advances along a broad front, and at times swoops down on diverse centers simultaneously.

So zing nomad mad no I love thy theeine is it the question of yer cerebellum so belle so bell so So a Mouth a mouth Oh a mouth Ah!

we must hear those music of those Braque guitars.





(Janine Macintosh is a "real" character in the Fictions series:

I like ending things with an open parenthesis,
don't you


why on earth

why on earth, on earth? ___ god jointed __ would wld. wood desire machines work work like that like that like that would would wld.

the whirling mast

no no the whirling manifesto of the last pages before the intro-duction proper to Schizoanalysis. Leclerc discusses the "Deleuze's stance to interpretation and metaphor.

His hostilty to intepretation and to metaphor, two processes characteristically within the scope of language, is notorious.
But equally notorious is his love of literature as the art
of language__ for Deleuze, a high modernist in his approach to literature, literary texts (their literariness) are very much a matter of style and syntax.

(Lecercle_ Deleuze and Language 2)

incipit __ insipid sip id Sip Id. Incipient Sip Id.

This is a test Antioedipus you zing the place the
zeugma of
the z


as it speak witches the line

they say A/O was still too academic. thus they are farcing . a little like Tzara and his hat trick.

But it is not a manifesto but a programme. A programme for living, writing and thinking. They tell me I punctuate like a French man. A french writing machine. in my blood, a hood in my blood, cloaked en francais. Impossible Incipient. I suspect it is church altar boy school latin. In nomine patris... .

blacl hole white[ning] face

"It seems clear to me that philosophy is truly an unvoiced song, with the same feel for movement music has."

Gilles Deleuze

"Find your black holes and white walls, know them, KNOW YOUR FACES; it is the only way you will be able to dismantle them and draw your lines of flight."
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

Indeed how remove the face of mask that plasters down the skin to the oily eyes,
preventing all else from seeing. Heart beating at the rate of death.


how to

how to remain intelligent in the midst of chaos.

seek the Chaosmosis the round cycle of the wheel

Mouth Mouth Mouth

that word recurring

Thought made in the mouth

thinking what you say


what the whatness of its becoming
one , the one among many, says in the active passive
sense of past beginings becomings, the lip
murmurming full of strength


irrational numbers: Pop-Philosophy...and then? (An Exchange of Views)

[A truncated transcription by ‘undercurrent’ of a symposium held in Paris in December 2004 under the auspices of the CSL, under the title Pop’philosophie, et après…?. Participants in this disussion were Chaim van der Lycée (Centre pour les Sciences Libidinales, Alphaville, Paris) and Grayson Darkling-Furniss (Black Hart University, New Crobuzon)]

Becoming-Minoritarian in the Banlieues

From the Wonderful blog.urbanomic.com

Council estate of mind..."A demand for recognition, fuelled by ressentiment" (Zizek)...really? (photo by Jean-Michel Turpin)

Becoming-Minoritarian...It's not only the irresistible Mille-Plateaux-refuting(?) killer line that makes this article from Le Monde Dossiers & Documents very interesting . It gives a portrait of "Christine C., a 28-year-old from Corneuve" and shows how right (despite the strange misinterpretation he gives it – see above) Zizek was to point out that the problem is not one of justice for those in desperate poverty: it's something more interesting than this, perhaps (as Badiou says) an 'ontological' issue, or indeed even a 'crise du sens'. The article is interesting on the hybrid culture of the young people in the banlieues (but this will sound familiar enough to any of us who use London buses) and the rise of Islam since 9/11 (giving pause for thought on that other 'philosophe's' call for 'more religion' as the solution). This is actually the first thing I've read that gives a convincing account of all the complexities involved (needless to say, this complex picture painted is not special to Paris). The general situation is the singular result of the meeting of various social tendencies, and thus must be addressed in very specific terms – specificity of the desiring-machines of consumer capitalism and the tangled lines of youth culture, specificity of the desiring-machines of Islam in their encounter with social (national, community) disintegrations (a task Reza has embarked upon in admirable fashion), and the reactions and counter-reactions consequent on liberal quasi-interventionism.


Portrait of Christine C., twenty-eight years old, Courneuve.

In twenty-eight years in Courneuve, Christine has learnt a lot. "To look more carefully at people, to like some, and to hate others." In Paris, her father sent her into the factory at sixteen, so as to help the family survive to the end of each month. She was left to her own devices, met her ex-husband, and found herself pregnant.

Their relations led them to Courneuve. "My biggest mistake. Once you set foot in this place, you never leave." She's been a cashier, a cleaner, a nanny, delivered leaflets, done ironing. She's brought up her five children, two girls and three boys, now aged between 19 and 28. Who she rules with an iron hand.

"The banlieues explode ....' for More follow the linky link, i.e. external 'link' . anyhow, reader, external points out as in the points-signs.

all of this makes me think of lines in that old Song by the Sex Pistols

Anarchy in UK

I thought it was the u.k

or just Another country

Another council tenancy

I wanna be an anarchis


Just another country where you can die.

Another council estate.

the fear to leave to go back to fear to leave to go back to leave to go fear go to too fear to leave to go go go fear fear back back back

'that freedom of mind I call poetry' poetry is a way of life , a stance not a mere aesthestic stance paying for courses,and stupid training workshops for middle class distracted neurotic who want to express themselves. god forbid they do! let me them shut up! finally and great silence's 'll envelope the globe... in breaths of peace and plenty ...

peace sister Catherine ...


What is code? A conversation with Deleuze, Guattari and code by David M. Berry and Jo Pawlik

Interesting interesting interesting and
more interesting.
Said Mona __ pointing to this thing!

What is code? A conversation with Deleuze, Guattari and code*David M. Berry & Jo Pawlik

The two of us wrote this article together.

Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd. We have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away. We have been aided, inspired multiplied.[1]

JP: Code is described as many things: it is a cultural logic, a machinic operation or a process that is unfolding. It is becoming, today's hegemonic metaphor; inspiring quasi-semiotic investigations within cultural and artistic practice (e.g. The Matrix). No-one leaves before it has set its mark on them...DB: Yes, it has become a narrative, a genre, a structural feature of contemporary society, an architecture for our technologically controlled societies (e.g. Lessig) and a tool of technocracy and of capitalism and law (Ellul/Winner/Feenberg).

It is both metaphor and reality, it serves as a translation between different discourses and spheres, DNA code, computer code, code as law, cultural code, aristocratic code, encrypted code (Latour).


Interview Deleuze & Guattari: Capitalism: a very special delirium

Via  Nomadolgiaz (which has since closed or/moved)__ the blog  "the blogosphere's a myth" world's unstable /by definition

This interview of Guattari and Deleuze is from the middle seventies given after Antioedipus and before the publication of  A Thousand Plateaus.

Interview  Deleuze & Guattari: Capitalism: a very special delirium

["Chaosophy", ed. Sylvere Lothringer, Autonomedia/Semiotexte 1995]

QUESTION: When you describe capitalism, you say: "There isn't the slightest operation, the slightest industrial or financial mechanism that does not reveal the dementia of the capitalist machine and the pathological character of its rationality (not at all a false rationality, but a true rationality of *this* pathology, of *this madness*, for the machine does work, be sure of it). There is no danger of this machine going mad, it has been mad from the beginning and that's where its rationality comes from. Does this mean that after this "abnormal" society, or outside of it, there can be a "normal" society?

GILLES DELEUZE: We do not use the terms "normal" or "abnormal". All societies are rational and irrational at the same time. They are perforce rational in their mechanisms, their cogs and wheels, their connecting systems, and even by the place they assign to the irrational. Yet all this presuposes codes or axioms which are not the products of chance, but which are not intrinsically rational either. It's like theology: everything about it is rational if you accept sin, immaculate conception, incarnation. Reason is always a region cut out of the irrational -- not sheltered from the irrational at all, but a region traveresed by the irrational and defined only by a certain type of relation between irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium, drift. Everything is rational in capitalism, except capital or capitalism itself. The stock market is certainly rational; one can understand it, study it, the capitalists know how to use it, and yet it is completely delirious, it's mad. It is in this sense that we say: the rational is always the rationality of an irrational. Something that hasn't been adequately discussed about Marx's *Capital* is the extent to which he is fascinated by capitalists mechanisms, precisely because the system is demented, yet works very well at the same time. So what is rational in a society? It is -- the interests being defined in the framework of this society -- the way people pursue those interests, their realisation. But down below, there are desires, investments of desire that cannot be confused with the investments of interest, and on which interests depend in their determination and distribution: an enormous flux, all kinds of libidinal-unconscious flows that make up the delirium of this society. The true story is the history of desire. A capitalist, or today's technocrat, does not desire in the same way as a slave merchant or official of the ancient Chinese empire would. That people in a society desire repression, both for others and *for themselves*, that there are always people who want to bug others and who have the opportunity to do so, the "right" to do so, it is this that reveals the problem of a deep link between libidinal desire and the social domain. A "disinterested" love for the oppressive machine: Nietzsche said some beautiful things about this permanent triumph of slaves, on how the embittered, the depressed and the weak, impose their mode of life upon us all.

Q: So what is specific to capitalism in all this?

DELEUZE: Are delirium and interest, or rather desire and reason, distributed in... a completely new, particularly "abnormal" way in capitalism? I believe so. Capital, or money, is at such a level of insanity that psychiatry has but one clinical equivalent: the terminal stage. It is too complicated to describe here, but one detail should be mentioned. In other societies, there is exploitation, there are also scandals and secrets, but that is part of the "code", there are even explicitly secret codes. With capitalism, it is very different: nothing is secret, at least in principle and according to the code (this is why capitalism is "democratic" and can "publicize" itself, even in a juridical sense). And yet nothing is admissable. Legality itself is inadmissable. By contrast to other societies, it is a regime born of the public *and* the admissable. A very special delirium inherent to the regime of money. Take what are called scandals today: newspapers talk a lot about them, some people pretend to defend themselves, others go on the attack, yet it would be hard to find anything illegal in terms of the capitalist regime. The prime minister's tax returns, real estate deals, pressure groups, and more generally the economical and financial mechanisms of capital -- in sum, everything is legal, except for little blunders, what is more, everything is public, yet nothing is admissable. If the left was "reasonable," it would content itself with vulgarizing economic and financial mechanisms. There's no need to publicize what is private, just make sure that what is already public is beeing admitted publicly. One would find oneself in a state of dementia without equivalent in the hospitals.

Instead, one talks of "ideology". But ideology has no importance whatsoever: what matters is not ideology, not even the "economico-ideological" distinction or opposition, but the *organisation of power*. Because organization of power -- that is, the manner in which desire is already in the economic, in which libido invests the economic -- haunts the exonomic and nourishes political forms of repression.

Q: So is ideology a trompe l'oeil?

DELEUZE: Not at all. To say "ideology is a trompe l'oeil, " that's still the traditional thesis. One puts the infrastructure on one side -- the economic, the serious -- and on the other, the superstructure, of which ideology is a part, thus rejecting the phenomena of desire in ideology. It's a perfect way to ignore how desire works within the infrastructure, how it invests in it, how it takes part in it, how, in this respect, it organizes power and the repressive system. We do not say: ideology is a trompe l'oeil (or a concept that refers to certain illusions) We say: there is no ideology, it is an illusion. That's why it suits orthodox Marxism and the Communist Party so well. Marxism has put so much emphasis on the theme of ideology to better conceal what was happening in the USSR: a new organization of repressive power. There is no ideology, there are only organizations of power once it is admitted that the organization of power is the unity of desire and the economic infrastructure. Take two examples. Education: in May 1968 the leftists lost a lot of time insisting that professors engage in public self-criticism as agents of bourgeois ideology. It's stupid, and simply fuels the masochistic impulses of academics. The struggle against the competitive examination was abandoned for the benefit of the controversy, or the great anti-ideological public confession. In the meantime, the more conservative professors had no difficulty reorganizing their power. The problem of education is not an ideological problem, but a problem of the organization of power: it is the specificity of educational power that makes it appear to be an ideology, but it's pure illusion. Power in the primary schools, that means something, it affects all children. Second example: Christianity. The church is perfectly pleased to be treated as an ideology. This can be argued; it feeds ecumenism. But Christianity has never been an ideology; it's a very specific organization of power that has assumed diverse forms since the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, and which was able to invent the idea of international power. It's far more important than ideology.

FELIX GUATTARI: It's the same thing in traditional political structures. One finds the old trick being played everywhere again and again: a big ideological debate in the general assembly and questions of organization reserved for special commissions. These questions appear secondary, determinded by political options. While on the contrary, the real problems are those of organization, never specified or rationalized, but projected afterwards in ideological terms. There the real divisions show up: a treatment of desire and power, of investments, of group Oedipus, of group "superegos", of perverse phenomena, etc. And then political oppositions are bilt up: the individual takes such a position against another one, because in the scheme of organization of power, he has already chosen and hates his adversary.

Q: Your analysis is convincing in the case of the Soviet Union and of capitalism. But in the particulars? If all ideological oppositions mask, by definition, the conflicts of desire, how would you analyze, for example, the divergences of three Trotskyite groupuscules? Of what conflict of desire can this be the result? Despite the political quarrels, each group seems to fulfill the same function vis-a-vis its militants: a reassuring hierarchy, the reconstitution of a small social milieu, a final explanation of the world.... I don't see the difference.

GUATTARI: Because any resemblance to existing groups is merely fortuitous, one can well imagine one of these groups defining itself first by its fidelity to hardened positions of the communist left after the creation of the Third International. It's a whole axiomatics, down to the phonological level -- the way of articulating certain words, the gesture that accompanies them -- and then the structures of organization, the conception of what sort of relationships to maintain with the allies, the centrists, the adversaries.... This may correspond to a certain figure of Oedipalization, a reassuring, intangible universe like that of the obsessive who loses his sense of security if one shifts the position of a single, familar object. It's a question of reaching, through this kind of identification with recurrent figures and images, a certain type of efficiency that characterized Stalinism -- except for its ideology, prescisely. In other respects, one keeps the general framework of the method, but adapts oneself to it very carefully: "The enemy is the same, comrades, but the conditions have changed." Then one has a more open groupuscule. It's a compromise: one has crossed out the first image, whilst maintaining it, and injected other notions. One multiplies meetings and training sessions, but also the external interventions. For the desiring will, there is -- - as Zazie says -- a certain way of bugging students and militants, among others.

In the final analysis, all these groupuscules say basically the same thing. But they are radically opposed in their *style*: the definition of the leader, of propaganda, a conception of discipline, loyality, modesty, and the asceticism of the militant. How does one account for these polarities without rummaging in the economy of desire of the social machine? >From anarchists to Maoists the spread is very wide, politically as much as analytically. Without even considering the mass of people, outside the limited range of the groupuscules, who do not quite know how to distinguish between the leftist elan, the appeal of union action, revolt, hesitation of indifference...

One must explain the role of these machines.. these goupuscules and their work of stacking and sifting -- in cr*shing desire. It's a dilemma: to be broken by the social system of to be integrated in the pre-established structure of these little churches. In a way, May 1968 was an astonishing revelation. The desiring power became so accelerated that it broke up the groupuscules. These later pulled themselves together; they participated in the reordering business with the other repressive forces, the CGT [Communist worker's union], the PC, the CRS [riot police]. I don't say this to be provocative. Of course, the militants courageously fought the police. But if one leaves the sphere of struggle to consider the function of desire, one must recognize that certain groupuscules approached the youth in a spirit of repression: to contain liberated desire in order to re-channel it.

Q: What is liverated desire? I certainly see how this can be translated at the level of an individual or small group: an artistic creation, or breaking windows, bnurning things, or even simply an orgy or letting things go to hell through laziness or vegetating. But then what? What could a collectively liberated desire be at the level of a social group? And what does this signify in relation to t"the totality of society", if you do not reject this term as Michel Foucault does.

GUATTARI: We have taken desire in one of its most critical, most acute stages: that of the schizophrenic -- and the schizo that can produce something within or beyond the scope of the confined schizo, battered down with drugs and social repression. It appears to us that certain schizophrenics directly express a free deciphering of desire. But now does one conceive a collective form of the economy of desire? Certainly not at the local level. I would have a lot of difficulty imagining a small, liberated community maintaining itself against the flows of a repressive society, like the addition of individuals emancipated one by one. If, on the contrary, desire constitutes the very texture of society in its entirety, including in its mechanisms of reproduction, a movement of liberation can "crystallize" in the whole of society. In May 1968, from the first sparks to local clashes, the shake-up was brutally transmitted to the whole of society, ncluding some groups that had nothing remotely to do with the revolutionary movement -- doctors, lawyers, grocers. Yet it was vested interests that carried the day, but only after a month of burning. We are moving toward explosions of this type, yet more profound.

Q: Might there have already been a vigorous and durable liberation of desire in hostpry, apart from brief periods. a celebration, cartnage, war, opr revolutionary upheavals? Or do you really believe in an end of history. after millenia of alienation, social evolution will suddenly turn around in a final revolution that will liberate desire forever?

GUATTARI: Neither the one nor the other. Neither a final end to history, nor provisional excess. All civilizations, all periods have known ends of history -- this is not necessarily convincing and not necessarily liberating. As for excewss, or moments of celebration, this is no more reassuring. There are militant revolutionaries who feel a sense of responsibility and say: Yes excess "at the first stage of revolution," serious things... Or desire is not liberated in simple moments of celebration. See the discussion between Victor and Foucault in the issue of *Les Temps Modernes* on the Maoists. Victor consents to excess, but at the "first stage". As for the rest, as for the real thing, Vicotr calls for a new apparatus of state, new norms, a popular justice with a tribunal, a legal process external to the masses, a third party capable of resolving contradictions among the masses. One always finds the old schema: the detachment of a pseude-avant-garde capable of bringing about syntheses, of forming a party as an embryo of state apparatus, of drawing out a well brought up, well educated working class; and the rest is a residue, a lumpen-proletariat one should always mistrust (the same old condemnation of desire). But these distinctions themselves are another way of trapping desire for the advantage of a bureaucratic caste. Foucault reacts by denounding the third party, saying that if there is popular justice, it does not issue from a tribunal. He shows very well that the distinction "avant-garde-lumpen-proletariat" is first of all a distinction introduced by the bourgeoise to the masses, and therefore serves to crush the phenomena of desire, to *marginalize* desire. The whole question is that of state apparatus. It would be strange to rely on a party or state apparatus for the liberation of desire. To want better justice is like wanting better judges, better cops, better bosses, a cleaner France, etc. And then we are told: how would you unify isolated struggles without a party? How do you make the machine work without a state apparatus? It is evident that a revolution requires a war machine, out this is not a state apparatus, it is also certain that it requires an instance of analysis, an analysis of the desires of the masses, yet this is not an apparatus external to the synthesis. Liberated desire means that desire escapes the impasse of private fantasy: it is not a question of adapting it, socializing it, disciplining it, but of plugging it in in such a way that its process not be interrupted in the social body, and that its expression be collective. What counts is not hte authoritarian unification, but rather a sort of infinite spreading: desire in the schools, the factories, the neighborhoods, the nursery schools, the prisons, etc. It is not a question of directing, of tatalizing, but of plugging into the same plan of oscillation. As long as one alternates between the impotent spontaneity of anarchy and the bureaucratic and hierarchic coding of a party organization, there is no liberation of desire.

Q: In the beginning, was capitalism able to assume the social desires?

DELEUZE: Of course, capitalism was and remains a formidable desiring machine. The monary flux, the means of production, of manpower, of new markets, all that is the flow of desire. It's enough to consider the sum of contingencies at the origin of capitalism to see to what degree it has been a crossroads of desires, and that its infrastructure, even its economy, was inseparable from the phenomnea of desire. And fascism too -- one must say that it has "assumed the social desires", including the desires of repression and death. People got hard-ons for Hitler, for the beautiful fascist machine. But if your question means: was capitalism revolutionary in its beginnings, has the industrial revolution ever coincided with a social revolution? No, I don't thing so. Capitalism has been tied from its birth to a savage repressiveness; it had it's organization of power and its state apparatus from the start. Did capitalism imply a dissolution of the previous social codes and powers? Certainly. But it had alread established its wheels of power, including its power of state, in the fissures of previous regimes. It is always like that: things are not so progressive; even before a social formation is established, its instruments of exploitation and repression are already there, still turning in the vaccuum, but ready to work at full capacity. The first capitalists are like waiting birds of prey. They wait for their meeting with the worker, the one who drops through the cracks of the preceding system. It is even, in every sense, what one calls primitive accumulation.

Q: On the contrary, I think that the rising bourgoisie imagined and prepared its revolution throughout the Enlightment. From its point of view, it was a revolutionary class "to the bitter end", since it had shaken up the *ancien regime* and swept into power. Whatever parallel movements took place amomng the peasantry and in the suburbs, the bourgeois revolution is a revolution made by the bopurgoiseie -- the terms are hardly distinguishable -- and to judge it in the name of 19th or 20th centurey socialist utopias introduces, by anachronism, a category that did not exist.

DELEUZE: Here again, what you say fits a certain Marxist schema. At one point in history, the bourgoisie was revolutionary, it was even necessary -- necessary to pass thorugh a stage of capitalism, through a bourgois revolutionary stage. It'S a Stalinist point of view, but you can't take that seriously. When a social formation exhausts itself, draining out of every gap, all sorts of things decode themselves, all sorts of uncontrolled flows start pouring out, like the peasant migrations in fudal Europe, the phenomenona of "deterritorialization." The bourgoisie imposes a new code, both economic and political, so that one can believe it was a revolution. Not at all. Daniel Guerin has said some profound things about the revolution of 1789. The bourgoisie never had illusions about who its real enemy was. Its real enemy was not the previous system, but what escaped the previous systems's control, and what the bourgoisie strove to master in its turn. It too owed its power to the ruin of the old system, but this power could only be exerciced insofar as it opposed everything else that was in rebellion against the old system. The bourgoiseie has never been revolutionary. It simply made sure others pulled of the revolution for it. It manipulated, channeled, and repressed an enormous surge of popular desire. The people were finally beaten down at Valmy.

Q: They were certainly beaten down at Verdun.

GUATTARI: Exactly. And that's what interests us. Where do these eruptions, these uprisings, these enthusiasms come from that cannot be explained by a social rationality and that are diverted, captured by the power at the moment they are born? One cannot account for a revolutionary situation by a simple analysis of the interests of the time. In 1903 the Russian Social Democratic Party debated the alliances and organization of the proletariat, and the role of the avant-garde. While pretending to prepare for the revolution, it was suddenly shaken up by the events of 1095 and had to jump on board a moving train. There was a crystallization of desire on board a wide social scale created by a yet incomprehensible situation. Same thing in 1917. And there too, the politicians climbed on board a moving train, finally getting control of it. Yet no revolutionary tendency was able or willing to assume the need for a soviet-style organization that could permit the masses to take real charge of their interests and their desire. Instead, one put machines in circulation, so-called political organizations, that functioned on the model elaborated by Dimitrov at the Seventh International Congress -- alternating between popular fronts and sectarian retractions -- and that always led to the same repressive results. We saw it in 1936, in 1945, in 1968. By their very axiomatic, these mass machines refuse to liberate revolutionary energy. It is, in an underhanded way, a politics comparable to that of the President of the Republic or of the clergy, but with red flag in hand. And we think that this corresponds to a certain position vis-a-vis desire, a profound way of envisioning the ego, the individual, the family. This raises a simple dilemma: either one finds a new type of structure that finally moves toward the fusion of collective desire and revolutionary organization: or one continues on the present path and, going from repression to repression, heads for a new fascism that makes Hitler and Mussolini look like a joke.

Q: But then what is the nature of this profound, fundamental desire which one sees as beeing constitutive of man and social man, but which is constantly betrayed? Why does it always invest itself in antinomic machines of the dominant machine, and yet remain so similar to it? Could this mean that desire is condemned to a pure explosion without consequence or to perpetual betrayal? I have to insist: can there ever be, one fine day in history, a collective and during expression of liberated desire, and how?

DELEUZE: If one knew, one wouldn't talk about it, one would do it. Anyway, Felx just said it: revolutionary organization must be that of the war machine and not of state apparatus, of an analyzer of desire and not an external systhesis. In every social system, there have always been lines of escape, and then also a rigidification to block off escape, or certainly (which is not the same thing) embryonic apparatuses that integrate them, that deflect or arrest them in a new system in preparation. The crusades should be analysed from this point of view. But in every respect, capitalism has a very particular character: its lines of escape are not just difficulties that arise, they are the conditions of its own operation. it is constituted by a generalized decoding of all flux, fluctuations of wealth, fluctuations of language, fluctuations of art, etc. It did not create any code, it has set up a sort of accountability, an axiomatic of decoded fluxes as the basis of its economy. It ligatures the points of escape and leaps itself having to seal new leaks at every limit. It doesn't resolve any of its fundamental problems, it can't even forsee the monetary increase in a country over a single year. It never stops crossing its own limits which keep reapperaing farther away. It puts itself in alarming situations with respect to its won production, its social life, its demographics, its borders with the Third World, its internal regions, etc. Its gaps are everwhere, forever giving rise to the displaced limits of capitalism. And doubtless, the revolutionary way out (the active escape of which Jackson spoke when he said: " I don't stop running, but while running, I look for weapons") is not at all the same thing as other kinds of esacpe, the schizo-escape, the drug-escape. But it is certainly the problem of the marginalized: to plug all these lines of escape into a revolutionary plateau. In capitalism, then, these lines of escape take on a new character, a new type of revolutionary potential. You see, there is hope.

Q: You spoke just now of the crusades. For you, this is one of the first manifestations of collective shizohrenia in the West.

GUATTARI: This was, in fact, an extraordinary schizophrenic movement. Basically, in an already schismatic and troubled world, thousands and thousands of people got fed up with the life they led, makeshift preachers rose up, people deserted entire villages. It's only later that the shocked papacy tried to give direction to the movement by leading it off to the Holy Land. A double advantage: to be rid of errant bands and to reinforce Christian outposts in the Near East thretened by the Turks. This didn't always work: the Venetian Crusade wound up in Constantinople, the Childrens Crusade veered off toward the South of France and very quickly lost all sympathy: there were entire villages taken and burned by these "crosses" children, who the regular armies finally had to round up. They were killed or sold into slavery.

Q: Can one find parallels with contemporary movements: communities and by-roads to escape the factory and the office? NAd would there be any pope to co-opt them? A Jesus Revolution?

GUATTARI: A recuperation by Christianity is not inconceivable. It is, up to a certain point, a reality in the United States, but much less so in Europe or in France. But there is already a latent return to it in the form of a Naturist tendency, the idea that one can retire from production and reconstruct a little society at a remove, as if one were not branded and hemmed in by the capitalist system.

Q: What role can still be attributed to the church in a country like ours? The church was at the center of power in Western civilization until the 18th Century, the bond and structure of the social machine until the emergence of the nation-state. Today, deproved by the technocracy of this essential function, it seems to have gone adrift, without a point of anchorage, and to have split up. One can only wonder if the church, pressured by the currents of Catholic progressivism, might not become less confessional than certain political organizations.

GUATTARI: And ecumenism? In't it a way of falling back on one's feet? THe church has never been stronger. There us bi reasiob ti oppose church and technocracy, there is a technocracy of the church. Historically, Christianity and positivism have always been good partners. The development of positive sciences has a Christian motor. One cannot say that the psychiatrist has replaced the priest. Nor can one say the cop has replaced the priest. There is always a use for everyone in repression. What has aged about Christianity is its ideology, not its organization of power.

Q: Let's get to this other aspect of yopur book: the critique of psychiatry. Can one say that France is already covered by the psychiatry of *Sectuer* -- and how far does this influence spread?

GUATTARI: The structure of psychiatric hospitals essentially depends on the state and the psychiatrists are mere functionaries. For a long time the state was content to practice a politics of coercion and didn't do anything for almost a century. One had to wait fot the Liberation for any signs of anxiety to appear: the first psychiatric revolution, the opening of the hospitals, the free services, instituional psychotherapy. All that has led to the great utopian politics of "Sectorization," which consisted in limiting the number of internments and of sending teams of psychiatrists out into the population like missionaries in the bush. Due to lack of credit and will, the reform got bogged down: a few model services for official visits, and here or there a hospital in the most underdeveloped regions. We are now moving toward a major crisis, comparable in size to the university crisis, a disaster at all levels: facilities, training of personnel, therapy, etc.

The instituional charting of childhood is, on the contrary, undertaken with better results. In this case, the initiative has escaped the state framework and its financing to return to all sorts of associations -- childhood protection or parental associations.... The establishments have proliferated, subsidized by Social Security. The child is immediately taken charge of by a network of psychologists, tagged at the age of three, and followed for life. One can expect to see solutions of this type for adult psychiatry. In the face of the present impasse, the state will try to de-nationalize institutions in favor of other institutions ruled by the law of 1901 and most certainly manipulated by political powers and reactionary family groups. We are moving toward a psychiatric surveillance of France, if the present scrises fail to liberate its revolutionary potentialities. Everywhere, the most conservative ideology is in bloom, a flat transposition of the concepts of Oedipalism. In the childrens's wards, one calls the director "uncle," the nurse, "mother." I have even heard distinctions like the following: group games obey a maternal principle, the workshops, a paternal one. The psychiatry of *Secteur* semms progressive because it opens the hospital. But if this means imposing a grid over the neighborhood, we will soon regret the loss of the closed asylums of yesterday. It's like psychoanalysis, it functions openly, so it is all the worse, much more dangerous as a repressive force.

DELEUZE: Here's a case. A woman arrives at a consultation. She explains that she takes tranquilizers. She asks for a glass of water. Then she speaks: "You understand I have a certain amount of culture. I have studied, i love to read, and there you have it. Now I spend all my time crying. I can't bear the subway. And the minute I read something, I start to cry. I watch television; I see images of Vietnam: I can't stand it ..." The doctor doesn't say much. The woman continues: "I was in the Resistance... a bit. I was a go-between." The doctor asks her to explain. "Well, yes, don't you understand, doctor? I went to a cafe and I asked, for example, is there something for Rene?" I would be given a letter to pass on." The doctor hears "Rene"; he wakes up: "Why do you say "Rene"? It's the first time he asks a question. Up to that point, she was speaking about the metro, Hiroshima, Vietnam, of the effect all that had on her body, the need to cry about it. But the doctor only asks: "Wait, wait, 'Rene' ... what dies 'Rene' mean to you?" Rene -- someone who is reborn [re-n'e]? The Renaissance, this fits into a universal schema, the archetype: "You want to be reborn." The doctor gets his bearings: at last he's on track. And he gets her to talk about her mother and her father.

It's an essential aspect of our book, and it's very concrete. The psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have never paid any attentiaon to delirium. It'S enough just to listen to someone who is delirious: it's the Russians that worry him, the Chinese; my mouth is dry; somebody buggered me in the metro; there are germs and spermatozoa swimming everywhere; it's Franco's fault, the Jews, the Maoists: all a delirium of the social field. Why shouldn't this concern the sexuality of the subject -- the relations it has with the Chinese, the whites, the blacks? Whith civilization, the crusades, the metro? Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts hear nothing of this, on the defensive as much as they are indefensible. They crush the contents of the unsoncious under prefab statements: "You speak to me of the Chinese, but what about your father? No, he isn't Chinese? THen , do you have a Chinese lover?" It's atz the same level of repressive work as the judge in the Angela Davis case who affirmed: "Her behavior can only be explained by her beeing in love." ANd what if, on the contrary, Angela Davis's libido was a social, revolutionary libido? What if she were in love because she was a revolutionary?

That is what we want to say to psychiatrists and psychoanalysts: yopu don't know what delirium is; you haven't understood anything. If our bnook has a meaning, it is that we have reached a stage where many people feel the psychoanalytif machine no longer works, where a whole generation is getting fed up with all-purpose schemas -- oedipus and castration, imaginary and symbolic -- which systematically efface the social, political, and cultural contents of any psychic disturbance.

Q: You associate schizophrenia with capitalism; it is the very foundation of your book. Are there cases of schizophrenia in other societies?

GUATTARI: Schizophrenia is indissocialble from the capitalist system, itself conceived as primary leakage (fuite): and exclusive malady. In other societies, escape and marginalization take on other aspects. The asocial individual of so-called primitive societies is not locked up. The prison and the asylum are resent notions. One chases him, he is exiled at the edge of the village and dies of it, unless he is integrated to a neighboring village. Besides, each system has its paricular sickness: the hysteric of so-called primitive societies, the manic-depressive paranoiacs of the great empires... The capitalist economy preoceeds by decoding and de-territorialization: it has its exterme cases, i.e., schzophrenics who decode and de-territorialize themselves to the limit; but also it has its extreme consequences -- revolutionaries.


we no

We no longer know if it is the process that must truly be called
madness, the sickness being only disguise or caricature, or if the
sickness is our only madness and the process our only cure

A/O 136

I am two fools, I know,
For loving, and for saying so
In whining poetry;
But where's the wiseman, that would not be I,
If she would not deny?
The Triple Fool _ Donne.

You can be late through speed .


Love is always late __ .

'Late, I learned to love thee, beauty . .. '

'Sero te amavi, Pulchritudo tam antiqua et tam nova.
Sero te amavi . '


pl ac e

empty page

empty page

"You can always replace one word with another."

"In becoming .... it is ...a matter.. . of involuting...."

love that dares not speak its name

-- Looking For Sartre and his many lovers, his infidelity to deBeauvoir, her acceptance ofthe same. their choice to live it out... and so . And to be Him and have hundreds of thousands at yer grave. Deleuze says, He was my teacher Il etait mon professeur. Did I spell that right, I Son of Genet, Son of Miller? I love them all.

"The total enslavement of the beloved kills the love of the lover. The end is surpassed; if the beloved is transformed into an automaton, the lover finds himself alone. Thus the lover does not desire to possess the beloved as one possesses a thing; he demands a special type of appropriation. He wants to possess a freedom as freedom.

On the other hand, the lover can not be satisfied with that superior form of freedom which is a free and voluntary engagement. Who would be content with a love given as pure loyalty to a sworn oath? Who would be satisfied with the words, 'I love you because I have freely engaged myself to love you and because I do not wish to go back on my word.'

Thus the lover demands a pledge, yet is irritated by a pledge. He wants to be loved by a freedom but demands that this freedom as freedom should no longer be free.

He wishes that the Other's freedom should determine itself to become love--and this not only at the beginning of the affair but at each instant--and at the same time he wants this freedom to be captured by itself, to turn back upon itself, as in madness, as in a dream, so as to will its own captivity."

(Being and Nothingness 478-79)

in place

empty page

empty page

"You can always replace one word with another." "In becoming .... it is ...a matter.. . of involuting...."

to reach

...In the literary machine... struck by the factthat all the parts are produced as asym-metrical sections,

...paths that suddenly come to an end... hermetically sealed boxes... noncommunicating vessels..
watertight compartments .. in which there are gaps
even between things that are
contiguous _ gaps that are affirmations

pieces of a puzzle
belonging not to any
one puzzle

but to many pieces assembled by forcing them
into a certain place where they may or may not
their unmatched edges
slightly bent out of shape

forcibly made to fit



with a number of pieces always left
over ...
left overs.. It is a schizoid work ...

“The two of us wrote AntiOedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd. Here we have made use of everything that came within range, what was closest as well as farthest away. We have assigned clever pseudonyms to prevent recognition. Why have we kept our own names?

Out of habit, purely out of habit. To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think” (514).

“To reach, not only the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I.

We are no longer ourselves. Each will know his own. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied” (514).

“..A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic... chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to.... the arts, sciences, and social struggles . . . there is no language in itself, nor are there any linguistic universals, only a throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized languages...'

..“.... can analyze language only be decentering it onto other dimensions and other registers. A language is never closed upon itself, except as a function of impotence” (517).

“The orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the wasp , becoming a piece in the orchid’s reproductive apparatus. But it reterritorializes the orchid by transporting its pollen. Wasp and orchid, as heterogeneous elements, form a rhizome . . . Each of these becomings brings about the deterritorireterritorializes on that image. The wasp is nevertheless deterritorializedalization of one term and the reterritorialization of the other; the two becomings interlink and form relays in a circulation of intensities pushing the deterritorialization even further” [519]






“[the book] forms a rhizome with the world, there is an aparallel evolution of the book and the world; the book assures the deterritorialization of the world, but the world effects a reterritorialization of the book, which in turn deterritorializes itself in the world .... (519).



not osmosis

« La grandeur de l'art ne commence à paraître qu'à la retombée de la vie. » (Debord)

chaosmosis not osmosis


thee proliferation

of text and text and spaced out there the territory


04.11.2005 _ In Memoriam

Ten years Since the Death of Deleuze

_ from Anaximandrake`s blog link above
In memoriam
« Silent... leges inter arma. » (Cicéron)
« C'est en ce sens que l'amor fati ne fait qu'un avec le combat des hommes libres. » (Deleuze)
« Oui, Deleuze aura été notre grand physicien, il aura contemplé pour nous le feu des étoiles, sondé le chaos, pris mesure de la vie inorganique, immergé nos maigres trajectoires dans l'immensité du virtuel. » (Badiou)

Il y a tout juste dix ans, le 4 novembre 1995, Gilles Deleuze se défenestrait. Il avait soixante-dix ans. En 1969, après avoir mis un point final à sa thèse (publiée sous le titre de Différence et répétition), il est hospitalisé d'urgence. On le découvre tuberculeux et l'on procède à l'ablation d'un de ses poumons. Sa santé se dégrade lentement au fil des années et la fin de sa vie est placée sous la dépendance d'une machine : un respirateur artificiel.Il est évident que le question du suicide de Gilles Deleuze reste un problème qui, de plein droit, fait partie de sa philosophie elle-même. En effet, en passant outre l'interdit spinoziste, il choisira de se retirer de la scène à l'instant de son choix : c'est bien le stoïcisme que ce philosophe vitaliste a choisi face aux forces composées qui s'appropriaient les parties extensives subsumées sous son essence de mode. Mais peut-être la question de sa dernière philosophie s'avère-t-elle, en ces termes, mal posée.... "

And there is this link to
Au Lait
Charko’s Weblog from Tokyo Part II

Mille Deleuze

Posted by Charko on November 11th, 2005 — Posted in Bookreviews, Philosophy
"It has been ten years since the death of Deleuze...."


Anti knew

Anti knew the battalions of bodies awaited her in her humdinger sweater

over sill and frail
a speed boat off to lip
off to lips sentence the lover strain frail
to lip . coming in to onto the heading
of its momentum the lover strains fading
a scope of sonnets in her mouth
she sings the place AntiOedpus
knowing always yer name

Latinate cognate gonads of

congress of shipbound


at the limite of accent and parsing


les marges

That the anomalous is the borderline makes it easier for us
to understand the various positions it occupies in relation to
the pack or the multiplicity it borders, and the various positions
occupied by a fascinated Self...In any event, the pack has a
borderline, and an anomalous position, whenever in a given space
an animal is on the line or in the act of drawing the line in relation to
that which all the other members of the pack will fall into one
of two halves, left or right : a peripheral poisition
, such that it is
impossible to tell if the nomalous is still in the band, already outside
the band, or at the shifting boundary of the
band. ... D&G .... how like so much in life

margins and margarine sliding pool or rather puddle of signifieds....

poets as tribe filiations but we must break molds
not carry over
repeats and repatriations of paranoias
excluses machines delirantes.


do not go gentle in

the slide of my body over yours.

"sweet heart"



Je pense. I think Fictions one is over. But over? what is over, only those who have money and power, who dictate the terms of dictation. What poet for a poet is over? and they smile so condescendingly to us.

even those us of us who're them. them.


Will you sing Antioedipus?

You sang and were silenced. Silenced, were silenced.

You sand.

Prose Poems. Those who have power and withold the key s to publi cation.

the desire to repress.

press to death with ill-well, good-well.

hammered yer face to .

I zing the place said Antioedipus

I zing I zong

I zing

looking for formations to make

shape the unshapeable chaos. 'asyntactic agrammatical... flow break.' she pretends not to write him because she pretends to be free she is not free she is not confident will never be she is a honey bee not a honey hasbeen it is not the way to be to be independent -- that is the false state

she want s to have my kid

no kidding baba black sheep said the guy from the cross

the forces of repression rushed in blocking the blog.

are We

...Are we to speak about Fitzgerald's and Lowry's alcoholism, Nietzsche's and Artaud's madness while rem...aining on the shore? Are we to wish o....nly tha....t those who have be....en struck down do not abuse themselves too much? Are we to take up collections and create special journ...al issues? Or s....hould we go a short way further to see for ourselves, be a little alco....holic, a little crazy, a little suicidal, a little of a gu....erilla--just enou....gh to extend the crack, but not enough to deepen it irremediably?.....

its odd to speak about being a little of this and a little of that. its more like we become a little bit of this

a n d then a little more of that.

and you shake it to the left
you shake it to the right
you do the hippy hip shake with all of your might now babaaaaaaaaaabyeeeeeeeeeeeee


the bks. I've|haunted wills

Even ``I`` __ fictional __ epistemes _
what is the I? that

"sheI've twenty-two" "bks.6 or 7 published. twenty two bks. five years radio 12-13 year" s performance. readin's" series in two citiesseveral" several fverses _ how to sepell versse? anorexic dyslexic _read yer text ANti

[not pure fiction but function] [across the esteems of time]
novels in various "states _ say 4? prose poems in the near 10,000. experiments. record""ings from the seventies. collages in varied sizes. most of these wreckd. "one Mister C. possesses "refuses to return. film footage owned by sundry" folk.
thousands of texts, say 30, ooo? one cannot count. really the production beneath capitalism. whatis capitalism _ the abil"""itee to produce more money. food banks, fer instance,

how does one assess this production? and the letters? hundreds, many containing verse, bits, poems, prose frag"ments, hun"dreds, school papers, a n archive of disaster. then one wonders who takes c""are or shall take care of this" upheaval and the"

endless unhappiness of the body

think of the waste

spille'd spoiled seed which others laugh at
[laugh if you are one of them_ who laugh]

think it's funny

endless con-versations __ none of which were paid for, spent fortune of __

miracle endless nightmare

if this was not a way of life , what was it?

"you" will never get this" [what is the you? what is an I, a You]

lost abandoned, and the videos" of a performance at les foufounes electrique destroyed.

thousands of photos from the ryan larkin days

in preparation

for shows


taped & stuffed in dusty basements


kisses fragmented in the


too easy

pulverized into dust

electronic or otherwise

bodi and bodhi dharma



this is your body

this is my body

& radios speak of noble prizes
for writers
whose books are endlessly libraried and sold bought given taught

to be a writer

the great rip-off

ripped off the skin of Oedipus

a machin for writing

Pierre Guyotat was right enuff of this writing of neurosis we need a writing of psychosis

the endless commercial of death

there will be no splendid ending
justa puking out of guts

and shit




for what

the dream



this is your body

this then

for culverts





thank-you .


linguals |a schizoanalysis in the ....

dire que Deleuze et Guattari aiment cherché à free to think that there is than in contrary read,but as an end or being a least only literature is contre sa ceux de ont pouvoirs liés à leur propre stroll, NijInSkKYinsky's pyschoanalysis neurotic pure and simpleproduces a solitary must of of being and its language,"transports the spare sublimation. Every pièges se laisser expulser neutraliser les effets de D'ou les jeux Other; the established literaturesince the work, irresponsible, illegible, nonmarketable, which on the that"ploughs the crap weak, the aphasiacs, the illiterate. At la rhétorique, d'invitations si peu le pouvoir qu'ils un peu partout dans even less dish...honesty in not only to be at least itself, instead writer is a sell-out. The ....ce ne sont pas expulser pièges le livre, et qui font de force. Mais LenzLenz's to translated and reduced.
She makes error in __that that itself that which places familiers de manipulation, la cause des auteurs discours. qu'on trouve de the turning back against oneself, and pay an values. Artaud puts it well: All is to cherchent à séduire le lecteur sans et finissent sont à et les direction given to ressentiment, the projection against the tact, does not spread his writing is so much pigshit process ceux qui qu'il soit conscient de la l'humour: tant sa traduction un véritable tour stroll, the promenades...We are finally an economic error, say __ any literature sets ends for les par le gagner à volonté. Les pièges de L’Anti-Œdipe
this does not mean that of the poles of schizophrenia. A/O 3
What an on Desert Island' Creation takes place in bottlenecks grabbed around the throat by a set someone who creates their own impossibilities and for me, a word that, taken in from my lungs, causes the stammering response how do I take 'Negotiations'? Twice a it to take me elsewhere. First, though, of the article For a start though, most 'of these are off the cuff' the link the aphasiacs, the illiterate. At la rhétorique, d'invitations si peu le pouvoir qu'ils un peu partout dans even less dish...honesty in not only to be at least itself, instead writer is a sell-out. The ....ce ne sont pas expulser we are attempting to make nature one amazing line of thought Here is Matt Lee ... A creator who isn't of impossibilities is no creator. A creator's thereby creates possibilities.' (133) 'Appearing' is the bottleneck its singularity as verb, chokes the air that follows. How do I take Deleuze, day, along with the anti-biotics perhaps. Taking the book.

Follow the link for the rest I do not agree with Matt that but be that as it may... follow much pigshit process ceux qui qu'il soit conscient de la l'humour: tant sa traduction un véritable tour stroll, the promenades...We are finally an economic error, say __ any literature sets ends for les par le gagner à volonté. Les pièges de L’Anti-Œdipe

Is a link a rhizome? expository pillows .

let double dealers 'f go


Siblings and Doppelgangers: Schizoanalysis and Video Games

thesewonderful links to others doing work or havin' done with the ideas of Deleuze and Guattari _ I often wonder what Jill, Franny, and Mona look like -these are the characters in
  • Fictions D&G 2
  • . It would be interesting to have some visual idea of how they appear. Who knows what artist would do this? None of these images are text lay-outs are my own but are from the external above.

    I wonder if this is how Jill Deleuze looks? And Mona? How about Franny??????????/ I dont think they look like this.. one day I might see them.

    Siblings, sister-brother, self as sibling

    Questions dominant structure by removing the parental control structure.

    Allows for subversive (or simply different) readings of seemingly traditional texts through alternate structures

    Micro structure not necessarily tied to world structure because micro structure unreliable and fluid.

    Tension of equals; siblings

    Founded in parent, child, lack
    || mother, child, father

    Reaffirms dominant structure by insisting on the power and presence, even in absence, of the adult-parent formation.

    Minor structure reflects world or macro structure

    Tensions are romantic; sexualized