Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 19:18:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Guillaume Ollendorff <ollendor-AT-grolier.fr>
Subject: Re: time (slipping through my fingers) vol 2.



this is a bit lately posted to the entire list, so if you do not know what
it is about, find the other mails following that thread. or delete it. i
will not consider it as a single fascit action :)
be your own censor !
thanxx.



>10 MAY 97
>sure, there's fear which makes us prisoners to "OEDIPUS", but more
>important is another fear which makes us blind to the inadequacies of an
>ANTI-Oedipal program. Ona cursory reading the latter is so enchanting!
>
>
>
>

dear vadim :

at first i will say, due to my bad english, that i do not get everything of
your mail. and due to this bad english, you will perhap's have problems to
read mly answer !!

i would like you to tell me more about the inadequaties of an AO programm.
are you talking of a danger, a sort of romantism with schizophrenia, or just
saying : D&G are more or less conservative ?

i will say that they do not really say something new. free your self, "think
about becomings and not about models "(in the french sense of modele,
etalon...). that's really important, even if they are not the first one to
say free yourself. 

Unconsciously we do sense that smth is wrong but the fear of loosing the
>only alternaative available makes us resist any attempts to really READ
>D/G (PoMo in general). 

what is "smth" ??
and specially what do you mean by 'really reading' ??
does it mean : do not find what you want, find what's written really in it ?

i can't see how objective you can be about reading such a work. cos it's not
science (human science is something really stupid, basicly, all you can do
with human science is a bit like epidemiology : yu can make statistics, find
out what can of situation is created by this kind of problems bla bla, but
don't tell me you believe in any human laws.oedipe should be the only one,
regarding to psychanalyse, but speaking about it, having your own lecture of
the phenomena kills any objectivity.  i think that if D&G are so aware of
litterature, it's because it's related to individuals, to dream, madness...
all these  things that you can only talk about with case/case methods. no
?), it's more or less made of intensities, strenghts, slogans, mauvaise foi
(i think this is really important in their works.), humour. poetry and
militantism in a way. 

so of course you react to the things that speaks to you. i can't pretend
that i get their whole message, if there is any, simply cos a lot of things
just pass over my head. but i can find coherent reading of their works :

i have this idea that this is what they want to say about becomings
(exemple), then i read another book of them, and find that they are more or
less saying what i thought they said (oops ! NOTE  :if you begin to be bored
by this post, you can amuse yourself in repeating 10 times this last
sentence the faster you can)


The result: we become leftist conservatives,
>theory comes to be institutionalized. Has not it occured to you that
>there may be more radical/anti-oedipal theories thatn the
>anti-oedipalism of D/G?... 

i'm sure there is some. but what means more radical ?
i'm not looking for the extremiest theory. just the one that will reveal
something new, and gives creterias, ETHIQUE, of independance/ autonomy.
Then i'm not looking to any left oriented theory. in france at the moment,
the only left is the persons who act/resist (sans papiers, SDF (homeless))
to the fascist / capitalist politix, not the one who theorise. and as a lot
of person here, i don't throw a penny to thanx the institutionised left,
even the exrem/anarchic one. their discours is old, tiring, dated,
uninteresting (speking of maoist, CNT, and all those surviving post 68
movment). and i don't think you can really be a communist, a maoist
deleuzian or a social democrat deleuzian !!!
in fact yu are not a deleuzian.just yourself picking some stuff in some
books. or u  will be going exactly to the inverse of what they say


deleuze theorise ? yes, but theorise the way of action, not the purpose you
should look for. the only purpose i see is indepndance/autonomy/being
yourself, at the border etc. etc. Not a global political, molar purpose.
the question is capitalism, how it descend to your deepest intimity, how you
have to fight it from their at first. and not : the system you have to
create to kill it, how you have to take the power bla bla. that's the whole
difference with traditionnal marxism no ? if i get something to those hard
debates !
Another exemple. the zappatist revolution is interesting because it's more a
revolution, actions, becomings than a theorical debate. they are fighting to
eat, and to live, not to force the other to their society models.
same for underground music/cinema/thatre/alternative press bla bla.


in any event the contre-culture remains the
>aim thus far unattained......
you are right. at the moment a movment becomes 'culturised' then it's often
not a movment any more, a model, static, dying.
so where is the solution ??

this leads us far from the time subject !

hugs !

guillaume.


by the way :  i fuck j chirac on a regular basis...woooooo