From: sgoode-AT-nrv.net
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 14:22:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Becoming-woman


perhaps in "avoiding" the term"structure", we could imagine an alternative,
similar and expansive, of a way of connection(s) of things.  coming from a
discipline that _should_ speak of structure, I find that it is invisible,
non-apparent, and negligent to the way of "doing" structure.  in other
words, we can't make it go away, but we do require other processes/modes of
thought so that a chaos of order can be understood.  of course, becoming
could be understood as the making of structure ( i am gesturing ) because
structure is "fixed" in that it is a system of place, places, but not
necessarily placing.  becoming-woman, then leaves the structure at that
moment, the moment we cannot place.  obviously we do not disregard
structure and its places, for we require this system in order to take our
line-of-flight.  structure, i am searching, is not confined to
concrescence; hence our avoidance of using the word:  although its
connotations refer us to hierarchy, order, and relations of place, its
plane of consistency is the potential of becoming-tuber.  yes, even
architecture can be an onion ( or a potato ).


i think i've just found the analogical figure for my own work.  anyways,  i
was wondering of the equation of space=structure (space/structure), as i
believe to have learned that they should be distinct.  does this have a
relation to the molecular detail?

regarding the reference to Massumi, i find interesting as i am reading
E.Grosz' essay which was brought up last week in this _space_, and she uses
some of his texts in the context of her discussion of the possibilities for
architecture-deleuze.  "Becoming is th4e way eac of the two series can
transform:  becoming is bodily thought...."  interesting - bodily thought-
and how is that different for man, for woman?

am i a taker or a flamer?


sgoode-AT-nrv.net



sgoode-AT-nrv.net (new address)
blacksburg, virginia



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