Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 13:02:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Beasley-Murray <jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: inside/ouside explanations


I got my formulation wrong:

On Thu, 4 May 1995 rego-AT-mmand.demon.co.uk wrote:

> After I'd said:
> > On the other hand, what need explanation is also the need for an 
> > explanation of the outside: ie. the stubborn-ness of institutional and 
> > other hierarchical forms, which just don't get wished away.

I should have said "what needs explanation is also the need for an 
explanation of the inside"

The rest of what M said I agree with.

The point is that while, on the one hand, we are always outside of 
representation anyhow (through material affects and immediate bodily 
processes etc.)--so that questions such as "how do we get outiside of 
representation/institutions etc.?" are cock-eyed from the start; on the 
other hand, even if D&G don't share the pessimism of insitutional 
inevitability expressed by Erik (for example), it isn't such an easy 
step to the plane of immanence (just to muddle some of the terminology, 
because I think the spatiality of inside/outside can be misleading).

Hence, I think, the discussion of becomings and other mediatory ways 
towards molecularity or the line of flight (even if it is not "mediation" 
strictly speaking that's at issue).

Are not becomings ways to use the inside, to use the institution 
favorably, if "perversely"?

> M

Take care

Jon

Jon Beasley-Murray
Literature Program
Duke University
jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons

     ------------------