a beautiful ....

O philo thinkers and would be ones I write as poet. Yes, one writes from the poem. to the _________________________>


A beautiful question:

What has capitalism done to desire?

posed by a member of the audience
just atthe end of the second video

re capital


the story
of the
two hands of desire

[his reply]( strikes me as naive
and reverting to something not said nor seen...
while grabbing for something

the quadruple claws

But Bifo Bifo (god of deterritorialization bless him) Bifo's
to my
a complete


O you know the dark quarter of desire, shit man,
give me some poetry....
as he seems to puck around
plucking a thought here there
not picking up at all
and going


what to me
are false
(he states as much asserting a legitimacy
to some ofthe former's criticism!~ of the philosphy of desire)

to terms
that compound Foucault

(Foucault as compassionate Christian!~ this is a fracas of a farce Mister Bifo)

and references
Hardt's ideas
of Multitude
and he goes
on about self love
and to me he is blabbling
mixing old notions
with rather tired ones that dont create but mimic
in a pervers e econony
a sort of alchemy
of hope
yes, yes
and the other
but self
love as he is using it__ we cant love the other
except by way of our self love
shit man ? what is this?
'encounter group 34?'

a la palto alto?
____ where is the great idea of abandoning self
and ego
the line the line
of no more I
auditioned to disappearance ~

sounds like late
chrisitanization__ O you Poor Nazarene
if only you heard it ~
had said you were too young
to understand his ideas
you died too young
yes yes, indeed
too young
too 'jung and easily freudened'

blended to
a lesser
milder version
of milles plateau
visioning of Hardt and Negri

all which is fine
for it is fine

but what it has to say
(re G&D)

thir thrust toward something

the people to come

almost unspeakable

far to grasp
in the distant becoming future
of what has been
to bode



& vague
and even
I hate to say
rationalizing ....




as the movement
of the


the problem is that Bifo__Beradi's answer is no answer at all.

Which is perhaps as it should be. ___ but then one has to say, why did he bother to speak __ and take questions __ the pretence of taking questions when all you can say, really, is to speak of your own practice, to say here is what I do, yes, yes, __________here is what we do ____ yes, mix ideas from all over but not from a salad_______but his statement as I understood it, is simply a reiteration of the old
one of the intellectual as stimulator. this seems to me a move back __ Seems ___ but is not.

( Sartre articulated this problem much better in his later years, in his essay discussion __ What is the role of the Intellectual _ I think the discussion was with Michel Contat __ the essay is from the series of essays entitled Situations __ in French I cant remember what the English translatiion was claled )

___ Sartre __ stating something along these lines ~

one cannot go back ___ one is already in the atmosphere of present the new concepts and vocabularies .... Hence his criticism (In Search for A Method) is valuable once more : One cannot return to the ideas of a previous generation, or rather a previous epoch's notions_ they have been surpassed by the needs of the time, _-__ the conditions that produced them are gone __ and so have their rulers, _____ AND the great thinkers of the Present Moment __> ie Deleuze Guattari's combinatory in this case is what has not been surpassed< __and their efforts of their history and meaning have past _ his criticism was directed a t that time to the thinkers,, so called thinkers really who wanted to go back behind Marx ______(similarly to those who want to get to a time they imagine before the D&G philosophy__ it is not possible becuase the conditions they described have not been surpassed__ if anything we in the thick of them __ even more -- we are in their midst the high peak perhaps to last till the times change and the capitalization of desire continues __ and this is not a simple question of good versus bad yes, yes we know that)___ this Sartre said was not possible and would only produce something that falsely resembled the true idea that had been expressed.... Well, Sartre went on to write the Critique of Dialectical Reason to drive home his ideas further and to demonstrate the action of history and totalities. This is also where I believe some of Zizek's ideas __ especially in his book on Lenin ring true __ _ i dont think Zizek remotely ___right in his critique of Guattari against Deleuze , but I do think much of what he stated about the "left's " pretences were accurate_(albeit he too confuses the pratical and the specific __ No No Zizek dont cry for a so called universal narrative __ its Not the grand narrative we need __ we Do require many (actually we dont need narratives at all ) [we make others] ___the more multiple the better and each to their Own Specificity to create their Own City __[each her own hamburger and potatoe salad with whatever dressing suits yer fancy folks ]__ But he is as i understand him right in his polemic against the watered _ the "left" leaning postmodernist thought as p0tato salad cocktail of thought ___ wha tthey do is not DeleuzoGuattarian combinatories but rather they never look at the becomings and the in-betweens.

its the in-betweens where things happen. Not in the big words nor in the big places. ....

___ So ? So we negotiate eh? Why does Bifo not speak of this? because because because Bifo is a practice not a theory split from its self consideration. His assemblage is the he and his friends have made for themselves in the specific conditions of Italy in the present moment,

Bifo is beautiful passionate and ....

yes yes its possible and desirable to live without inhuman labour. yes, yes, everyone agreees. with this.

How does this connect to Bifo's ideas?

Problems to Pose for oneself :

________________ Read the discussion between Foucault and Deleuze on the practice and theory and how theory is its own practice.

Now Bifo must know this and is aware of it.

So perhaps I am unfair to him, but perhaps it is simply that Bifo is trying out his new ideas, or rather ideas which are not really ideas but that have been practices he has come to use ove the years, and this is good. A praxis has its own idea. its own chaosmosis yes, yes, but then why wrap it up in vain glorious packaging?

But to compromise the ideas of Guattari and Deleuze in this way, to lend Baudrillard's criticiism legitimacy?
to babble of compassion for the other by way of self love what is this

its not the Parhessia of Foucault __ Not surely the fierce Foucault that I know.

__________________ In any event the woman who posed the question will find her own answer because the only questions worth asking are the ones one has posed for oneself or as Deleuze once wrote to Parnet the only problems are the ones one poses for one self that let one get out....

-___________________> A further comment: the problem is how to get out.
if these notions, and techniques he describes aid one to get out to go where one has to go to get where one must go ___ yes,, yes, yet if they return to addled notions of compassion and twisted and perverse replies that are not replies at all, and a return to christian __ well, then it's time to take Guattari
and Deleuze's dear ideas and books to a new store.
but all power to them: Each Desire machine its own Compassionate wheels
if Compassion permits the combat and flight between and desire 's surge then grand

but I think, i have an inkling they are running the other way.

and who knows what is waiting for them? A pope perhaps dressed in red? the red velveteen robes of a new communist p0pe -----surrounded by compassionate troops of love?

and Caritas
and Agape?

Jesus Christ _____________ as the communist carrier of the hope?
of the practice of everyday life?
___________________________ Jesus the desiremachine captain Hiphop artist deluxe?nein deleuze? while my Guattari gently weeps?

Debord as cribbing Christian?

________ nay nay nay
______________________ we require Le Marteau de Deleuze as Rene Scherer speaks in his lectures of the Same ~ A body without organs of ferocity and mouths open to hunger ____

_____________________ lets not forget that christanity and its compassion killed millions and wont hesitate to do so again
if given a half chance

the only real christianity is the one that does not exist but is treated merely as a polemic.

Yes yes, love Love and Love.
and Desire
but to say O desire has a dark side
O jesus this is Just to Boring to Believe to hear it said again after all these years?

________________Shit man is that all it is ?

it is not and cannot be one must find and refind the diction and vocabularies attendant on the new visions.

Give me good Old Sartre before this

____________________________________ Rough speakings of love 's rude body ~

vague tumble dry version of ideas....
and perhaps Bifo is in his bones and daily practice
as I'd imagine he is a practioner of what he cannot say or articulate but his discussion of it is not as strong

I dont know about his books as Ive not read them

So to the woman who posed the question here then is what Deleuze said to Parnet in Dialogues

"If you aren't allowed to invent your questions, with elements from all over the place, from never mind where, if people 'pose' them to you, you haven't much to say. The art of constructing a problem is very important you invent a problem, a problem-position, before finding a solution."

So the replies Bifo gave were answers to his own questions really. and thus my response is my own position place as was the original question as posed by the woman in the audience....

"Objections are even worse"

"The aim is not to answer questions, it's to get out, to get out of it."

Chomsky, for instance, in a recent intervieww said that when he was in Latin America people didn't ask him what he thought they should do or be doing, they told him what they were doing, they showed him in some instances what they do. That was what was important....

that is getting out

People wont stop returning to the question to get out of it.

"But getting out never happens like that. Movement alwayhs happens behind the thinkers back ___ (and Bifo must have known this or did, or perhaps he forgot his job was not to answer questions but to show people how he gets out and where he is in flight ) ____Or

in the Moment when he Blinks __" Get that ? when he blinks __ Don't look But blink

__ was that Man blinking officer?


Getting is already achieved, or else it never will.

------------------------------------------------------ but during this time
while you turn
in circles
among these

there are becomings
which are silently at work
which are
almost imperceptible.

We think too much in terms
history ( the limit of Sartre's project in the Critique)

(history is the nightmare I am trying to escape _Dedalus)

( D& G's departure to geologies
their ___ attention to stratas & molecules
matter particles
ridges vacuoles gaping gaps...

and Foucault's geographies and
discourses of knowledge & archeologies)

whether personal or universal.

Becomings belong


they are orientations,

and exits

So the idea of political change
yes yes Mister Bifo
we know

we all know
desire has its nasty side

the Buddhists taught us that a long time
and we
know desire's jerked around by capital
you dont need
to soft pedal us
we're not dumb

You didnt reply to the question
because its not yours
and the woman

was posing her own

query with her own idea

and built in assumptions

perhaps ~

But that perhaps has yet to be seen
and her question and answer

are yet to be heard read and


and yer practice

could not answer

it and yes

we know
you are Alice in

Communist land

and its very good

dont jerk them around

with vagaries
and bemusements
of a past vocabulary

failed revolutionary hopes

and fancy ideas

mister mackenzie
giggling as he spoke
of tryin to live without





But please

Allow the Novel InIn In in
Let some Air
In ~

so the Stale ideas

get out
and the fresh faced troops of Others


Cause none of you seem to
Electrify these electricfying ideas

that were perhaps

once your own ~


The poet must be a creator

as the thinkers


and I recall

Sartre speaking about what he called the

parasites in philosophy

about those

that came after the great thinkers

not the creators


doesnt mean


something monstrous
or wicked

but as workers

who are often tired
and press forward faded ideas
no longer fired
by the struggles of the
original inventors of thought and practice

the interpretors


he calls existentialism itself
one of these

yet he also

says it must be doing it s


which is to work


between the great ideas

but not to water them
and thus
he offered his own

necessary criticism

of Stalinist marxist


So to say

O yes,

had a point

oh this is not treachery but mere trickery

pulling t he

wool over
the eyes
and ears
of the listeners

Because boring old baudrillard

has nothing
but butter in his ears

to bring a point
when you should be talking



is a backward


and Lope

to the 18th century

becuase baudrillard
was not

a thinker
and you Bifo

know that and you know
that Guattari

made this criticism
as well

he held in contempt this notion
of B's that the social
did not exist
that the baudrillardian

was a mere fanciful play
on words

and there's more in that sentence Of Guattari and several others too
than in all of baudrillard's

and when
the great Nietzsche

he spoke of

in contempt
one's enemies

because one knew one was stronger

and that ones ideas would not perish

inthe vacuum cleaner of time

watering down






ask your own


Do not ask




Abandon them

before the day is Over

Move on

Get out

Go over

Get past



I am sure yes yes, I amsure he is a very nice man.

that is not the question.___ there are many queries. One has the assemblages to build.
Oneself and the others near by.

_______ forgive my spelling as I write in a hybrid hurry between Mona Jill and the Franny Guattari train station.

___________________________ We dont forgive spelling mister Anti
because yer orthography is a desire. A mesh pulling the wheating times.

Love is what moves your machine  ~.