hailed by

to become a people to be hailed and becomed.historical group of desire

“The indiscernibility of the real and the imaginary, or of the present and the past, of the actual and the virtual, is definitely not produced in the head or in the mind, it is the objective characteristic of certain existing images which are by nature double. “- Gilles Deleuze: Cinema 2 The Time Image __

People sometimes criticize us for being
words to be trendy
That's not just malicious it's stupid.
A concept sometimes needs
a new word to express it,
sometimes it uses
an every day word
that gives
it a singular sense.

IN other words, C'est un sotisse!

Pathetic companions who can barely murmer, go,with your extinguished lamps, and give back the jewels.A new mystery sings in your bones. Develop your legitimate strangeness."
Rene Char, "Partage Formel"


The Sage hits his disciples with a stick

The Sage hits his disciples with a stick:
Deleuze is talking about Z; 'He reflects that Zen is the reverse of Nez (nose) which is also a zig zag,' and then he is talking about a scientific term for which he can't remember its name, it is a 'sombre precursor,' a phenomena that places two different potentialities into relation. [1]

(I have to quote all of this, its resonance with the eating-dog/ master-stick-beating story is intense, or even uncanny.)

'So, there is the sombre precursor and then a lightening bolt, and that's how the world was born. There is always a sombre precursor that no one sees, and then the lightening bolt that illuminates, and then there is the world. He says that's also what thought should be, and what philosophy must be, the grand Zen, but also the wisdom of the Zen. The sage is the sombre precursor and then the blow of the stick comes since the Zen master passes amongst his disciples striking them with his stick. So for Deleuze, the blow of the stick is the lightening that makes things visible �.' [2]

This is a little like the way Leibniz understands Locke's notion of disquiet - that it is only through a sense of disquiet that anything happens - as in 'the world loves suffering more than any other pleasure.' Leibniz isn't so sure that disquiet indicates only irritation, discomfort or suffering. He writes 'I would prefer to say [Leibniz is masquerading as Theophilus in conversation with Philathes, in turn a masquerade for John Locke. This allows Leibniz to quote Locke's Essay concerning Human Understanding (1700) wholesale and rebutt him willy nilly] that a desire in itself involves a disposition to suffering, a preparation for it, rather than suffering itself � there is disquiet even in joy, for th"

the plane of immanence

"The plane of immanence is like a section of chaos and acts like a sieve. In fact, chaos is characterized less by the absence of determinations than by the infinite speed with which they take shape and vanish. This is not a movement from one determination to the other but, on the contrary, the impossibility of a connection between them, since one does not appear without the other having already disappeared, and one appears as disappearance when the other disappears as outline. Chaos is not an inert or stationary state, nor is it a chance mixture. Chaos makes chaotic and undoes every consistency in the infinite. The problem of philosophy is to acquire a consistency without losing the infinite into which thought plunges (in this respect chaos has as much a mental as a physical existence). To give consistency without losing anything of the infinite is very different from the problem of science, which seeks to provide chaos with reference points, on condition of renouncing infinite movements and speeds and of carrying out a limitation of speed first of all. Light, or the relative horizon, is primary in science. Philosophy, on the other hand, proceeds by presupposing or by instituting the plane of immanence: it is the plane's variable curves that retain the infinite movements that turn back on themselves in incessant exchange, but which also continually free other movements which are retained. The concepts can then mark out the intensive ordinates of these infinite movements, as movements which are themselves finite which form, at infinite speed, variable contours inscribed on the plane. By making a section of chaos, the plane of immanence requires a creation of concepts." (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, "What Is Philosophy?", Columbia University Press, New York, 1994; page 42).




"Well, Graves has the following possible hints: In 131.1, he talks about the wedding of
Heracles and Admete, which he claims would have been preceded by a
battle analogous to the one which Thetis fought with Peleus and
Penthesilea with Achilles. During this battle, he says, the woman would
undergo a series of transformations -- he doesn't mention a dog,
but does mention a serpent, a crab, a doe, a wild mare, a cloud.
In 164.1, he says that according to Dictis the Cretan, when P lay dying
on the ground, killed by Achilles, the Greek soldiers shouted: "Toss this
witch to the dogs to be devoured; she has offended womanly nature."
- malgosia

Selections from
Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Translated by Brian Massumi


And it is Ulysses who inherits Achilles' arms, only to convert them to other uses, submitting them to the laws ofthe State--not Ajax, who is condemned by the goddess he defied and against whom he sinned.10 No one has portrayed the situation of the man of war, at once eccentric and conjemned, better than Kleist. In Penthesilea, Achilles is already separated from his power: the war machine has passed over to the Amazons, a Stateless woman-people whose justice, religion, and loves are organized uniquely in a war mode. Descendants ofthe Scythians, the Amazons spring forth like lightning, "between" the two States, the Greek and the Trojan. They sweep away everything in their path. Achilles is brought before his double, Penthesilea. And in his ambiguous struggle, Achilles is unable to
prevent himself from marrying the war machine, or from loving Penthesilea, and thus from betraying Agamemnon and Ulysses at the same time. Nevertheless, he already belongs enough to the Greek State that Penithesilea, for her part, cannot enter the passional relation of war with him without herself betraying the collective law of her people, the law of the pack that prohibits "choosing" the enemy and entering into one-to-one relationships or binary distinctions.
Throughout his work, Kleist celebrates the war machine, setting it against the State apparatus in a struggle that is lost from the start. Doubtless Arminius heralds a Germanic war machine that breaks with the imperial order of alliances and armies, and stands forever opposed to the Roman State. But the Prince of Homburg lives only in a dream and stands condemned for having reached victory in disobedience of the law of the State. As for Kohlhaas, his war machine can no longer be anything more than

As for Kohlhaas, his war machine can no longer be anything more than
banditry. Is it the destiny of the war machine, when the State triumphs, to be caught in this alternative: either to be nothing more than the disciplined, military organ of the State apparatus, or to turn aginst itself, to become a double suicide machine for a solitary man and a solitary woman? Goethe and Hegel, State thinkers both, see Kleist as a monster, and Kleist has lost from the start. Why is it, then, that the most uncanny modernity lies with him? It is because the elements of his work are secrecy, speed, and affect.11 And in Kleist the secret is no longer a content held within a form of interiority: rather, it becomes a form, identified with the form of exteriority that is always external to itself. Similarly, feelings become uprooted from the interiority of a "subject," to be projected violently outward into a milieu of pure exteriority that lends them an incredible velocity, a catapulting force: love or hate, they are no longer feelings but affects. And these affects are so many instances of the becoming-woman, the becoming-animal of the warrior (the bear, she-dogs). Affects transpierce the body like arrows, they are weapons of war. The deterritorialization velocity of affect. Even dreams (Homburg's, Pentheselea's) are externalized, by a system of relays and plug-ins, extrinsic linkages belonging to the war machine. Broken rings. This element of exteriority-which dominates everything, which Kleist invents in literature, which he is the first to invent--will give time a new rhythm: an endless succession of catatonic episodes or fainting spells, and flashes or rushes. Catatonia is: "This affect is too strong for me," and a flash is: "The power of this affect sweeps me away," so that the Self (Moi) is now nothing more than a character whose actions and emotions are desubjectified, perhaps even to the point of death. Such is Kleist's personal formula: a succession of flights of madness and catatonic freezes in which no subjective interiority remains. There is much of the East in Kleist: the Japanese fighter, interminably still, who then makes a move too quick to see. The Go player. Many things in modern art come from Kleist.

Goethe and Hegel are old men next to Kleist. Could it be that it is at the moment the war machine ceases to exist, conquered by the State, that it displays to the utmost its irreducibility, that it scatters into thinking, loving, dying, or creating machines that have at their disposal vital or revolutionary powers capable of challenging the conquering State? Is the war machine already overtaken, condemned, appropriated as part of thc same process whereby it takes on new forms, undergoes a metamorphosis, affirms its irreducibility and exteriority, and deploys that milieu of pure exteriority that the occidental man of the State, or the occidental thinker, continually reduces to something other than itself?



is this

is this your face?


have you lost it? dont be anal about indents