From: omlor-AT-aol.com Date: Sat, 12 Mar 94 08:41:26 EST Subject: RE:JD/D&G/U&ME Jon... Here's an exchange between Alan R. and myself to get things started on either or both lists... If you think it worthwhile, please feel free to respond to whatever you find provocative and edit my few remarks into your response and post away on list(s)...(I wasn't sure if this was worthy on my own to see list light). I don't think Alan will mind, and if he does I'll just tell him it was my idea and that he shouldn't be that way about us.... :) The first quote is from my most recent post... ______________ JO> Are deconstruction, grammatology, dissemination or the operations of hymens, JO> spurs, cinders, parerga, etc... acts of deterritorialization? AR> Doesn't seem to use D&G's language. Wouldn't these be "states or AR> modes of the abstract machine" coexisting in "the machinic AR> assemblage"? (145) If so, they would have two vectors (which, IMHO, AR> line up quite nicely with JD's two interpretations of AR> interpretation): one which is oriented toward the strata (relative AR> deterritorialization, or play), and an other which is oriented AR> toward the plane of consistency (the conjugation of processes of AR> deterritorialization, or origin search[...]) My most recent response to AR: I think we're both right in the case of the vocabulary -- yes, of course the machinic assemblages metaphors are appropriate in the case of anyone so written by and through the tradition as JD and the operation is, as you point out, always doubled (re: the reterritorializing machinery of the various institutions -- though I'm not sure this can be read as a new search for "origins" (here we go again) -- and the conjugation of processes). But, for instance, would *Freud's Legacy* be a schizoreading to the point that it can be said to deterritorialize the *fort/da* of Beyond the PP? (I think so.) I'm even more curious as to whether others read JD as minor lit. (This is the concept that drives their book *Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature*) If we can find some way to account for D&G's notions of "individual" and "collective assemblage" as written into the idea of signature -- and given JD's remarks on Nietzsche's signature and its completion by those who read it, who hear it in the ear of the other, I think it might be possible -- then we can argue that JD's writing, like Kafka's (despite the Oedipalization of FK at the hands of critics or the Romanticization of the author as private/epistolary sufferer) carries a constant political immediacy not in the sense of "JD has written this, this, or this about politics" but in the sense that his language, as it resonates from the (Algerian, Jewish, even "Literary" margins of French philosophy and educational narratives), constitutes a complex series of deterritorializing gestures. Jon, This might at least be a place to start in order to get then to the differences that you points out and that I think are also in D&G -- although I suspect D&G of relying on a slightly formalist reading of JD's work -- after all, what could be more schizo than what Genet does to Hegel in Glas? Anyway, that's a couple of thoughts for an early Saturday morning. --John ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005