Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 15:14:01 -0500 From: aden-AT-user1.channel1.com (Aden Evens) Subject: Re: Anti-Oedipus, inter alia This message, the continuation of a conversation I was having with Andrew, didn't get to my mailbox in one piece, so I assume it didn't get to other mailboxes in one piece. The stuff about the unconscious at the end is what was garbled before, so . . . Andrew wrote back: >Perhaps I >could check whether or not I've got "it": if desire desires non-identity (or >non-interruption), then desire seeks to return always to the BwO (is this >D's interpretation of Nietzsche's "Eternal Return"?). If so, then are >interruptions (desiring-machines) the equivalent to the Nietzschean "Will to >Power"? It is frightening to see written back to me in your words what I wrote before in mine. What you say seems to be just what I said, but to see you write it makes me feel so didactic and overcommitted to a certain reading. Can you hedge a little bit and make it more vague, so I will be more comfortable????? As far as the Nietzsche stuff goes, D's 'interpretation' of e.r. varied from book to book, but in the book, _Nietzsche and Philosophy_, his reading is something like what you suggest. There he calls e.r. a "selective ontology" which transmutes or revalues the whole world, tearing asunder identity and making an affirmation of everything. However, this Dionysian post-e.r. world of affirmation is not presented as a limit, nor does it have the somewhat dark character of the BwO. As a limit, the BwO can play the paradoxical dual role of being both the possibility of freedom and the necessity of death. Affirmation is not as paradoxical in itself (for the death of humanity is the birth of the Ubermensch), though perhaps affirmation bears a paradoxical relation to the reactive world in which Nietzsche claims that we live. >I appreciated your characterization of the BwO as a "sort of primordial >virtuality", and have tried to understand this in terms of: "Body" = >flow/hylé; "without organs" = without interruptions. Would this be an >accurate understanding? Makes sense to me, but remember that it operates as a limit. >Another aspect of my lack of comprehension is why D&G would posit an >unconscious as a system, when they evidently question most other structures ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005