File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/d-g_Jan.96, message 80


Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:46:12 GMT
From: destanley-AT-teaser.fr (douglas edric stanley)
Subject: Re: "theoretical" implications


"theoretical implications". Those really are two ugly words aren't they?
Shouldn't we pay more attention to the charm, the weight, the elegance, the
affect, the force or the effort of the words we use to construct whatever
it is that we construct here?


Erik wrote,

>At the risk of beating a dead horse (ha ha), I agree that the
>poeticization of death makes more sense that its "theorization."
>
>What I was trying to say in my last sentence was that if this is what we
>have "really" been doing, all the discussion about the consequences of
>theorizing pauvre Gilles' death were misplaced.  I was hoping to get a
>discussion about the poetics of death going--so that its consequences
>might be discussed.

All I can say is that I have been trying to do this for three months now. I
began with the fall, moved on to effort through dance and somewhere in all
that tried to show to what extent thought could take place amongst an
event, take place amidst a problem, and all this without distancing itself
from the problem or extricating itself from the fall. If my own personal
example is of no use, find another. But I think I've stated more than once
what the "theoretical implications" are.

Although in a sense I just threw the theory out.

Douglas Edric Stanley
Paris. 15 jan. 1996



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005