4/21/2009

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
bum
wayward
off the wall
off the right track ... dig....
dig
d_g


[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
flutterfallow