co hoho(in) (out) herence;words are inter. . .

what is a line? a light a flight from a point: in the beginning is the witch's line:What is the line of flight? Deleuze replies:

When a term is introduced and has the least bit of success, as has been the case for “desiring machine” or “schizoanalysis”, either one circulates it, which is already rather pernicious, a sort of coaptation, or one renounces it and seeks other terms to upset the order. These are words that Félix and I now feel it urgent not to use: ‘schizoanalysis,’ ‘desiring machine’ —it’s awful, if we use them, we’re caught in the trap. We don’t know very well what they mean, we no longer believe in the words; when we use a word, we want to say, if this word doesn’t agree with you, find another, there’s always a way. Words are totally interchangeable (Desert Islands 278 ).

In a discussion published after Anti-Oedipus and before A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze stressed the incoherence of what he and Guattari were doing: Imagine the beauty of it, the incoherent stress of chaosmosis:

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 278 Desert Islands )

It aint science ladies and genitalmen,
t'aint that at'll
its nomadic
off the wall
off the right track ... dig....

[I]t’s not science, it’s a monster slang, it’s nomadic. Even in the realm

of theory, any precarious and pragmatic framework is better than tracing

concepts, with their breaks and progress changing nothing. (ATP 24)


move on yer line