Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:21:48 +0200
From: Vadim Linetski <picador-AT-luckynet.co.il>
Subject: Re: time (slipping through my fingers) vol 2.


15 MAY 97
Dear Guillaume ,

> >
> >
> >
> 
> 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 ?<
> 
First, no need to apologize for yyour "bad English": English isn't my
mother tongue, so we are "quit" on this score: moreover it's me who has
to humbly ask you as well as the whole Group to be indulgent: if my
argument appears sometime obscure it might well be due to this
predicament.(BTW one of the ironies of PoMo qua policy is that all that
noise about "giving voice to minorities silenced and repressed" etc, the
advocates of PoMo are guardians of "standard English" which
historically/linguistically was (still is?) the tool of colonialism)
To your first question: sure, i'd like to believe that D/G were not
"conservatives" in a mundane/practical sense: i do not question the
intentions which prompted them to write AO & ThPl. As for the
inadequacies of the AO-program, i.e. of schiz.anal. project in general,
they stem from the fact that the latter cannot be said to
replace/subvert Freudian/Lacanian psych.anal. in any fundamental sense.
I.e. it remains a PROGRAM, a de jure declaration whereas on atheoretical
level (WINE VS. BOTTLES) the fundamental concepts have not undergone
re/destructuration. Take such a basic notion as desire. As i've tried to
show in "THE PROMISE OF EXPRESSION..."
(http://www.pd.org/topos/perforations/perf11/unspkable_chld.html)
Lacanian desire functions in exactly the same way as D/G one which
should have disruptedd the former. Propounded as a continuous flaw it
appears to fit the khoraic structure of gaps which cannot be dissociated
from the notion of repression that AO should have done away with. And it
is at this juncture that the problem of objectivity arises. - Liano!
once again i have to apologize: it turns out that in answering Guillaume
i answer some of your questions: be indulgent for economy's sake! -
Liano's initial objection to my posts have been that i propound a "true"
D/Ganism. The trouble is however primarily not mine. It's far from being
clear what schiz.anal. is: a description of how "IT"/ID functions or a
prescription how it should? Obviously this question begs evry system,
and the history of science is a history of its avoidance. You prefer to
treat D/G work as "poetry", and in so doing avoid again the problem
which should be addressedat long last. Your option, forgive my saying
so! is an instance of PoMo basic strategy which as its practitioners
assure us, is a potent weapon against truth/objectivity claims peculiar
of the Western tradition. Allegedly, it suffices to "fictionalize" a
given discourse which gives itself as a scientific one in order to
deconstruct/subvert it (e.g.Derrida's POSTCARD). Since this strategy is
psych.an.informed it is only fair to dub it a trabsferential mode of
interpretation which - structurally! Liano, Liano! - is a neat
counterpart of the Cretan paradox(es). As i argue in "BAKHTIN'S WORDS
'THERE IS NO ALIBI FOR BEING': WHY FREUD WAS NOT A CREATIVE WRITER?" (a
chapter of my BARED BAKHTIN) this strategy answers the most strict
requirements of scientificity which logocentric science was never able
to attain. On the other hand - Liano! Liano! - as an analysis of
detective fiction (a genre denigrated in PoMo as a privileged locus of
logocentric biases) shows it is precisely the subversion of transference
(and all the derivatives which i make this term cover) and the
introduction of the discontinuity which might prove actualy
subversive/deconstructive. I hope that this allows me to propound my
elaborations as a positive critique/launching of deconstruction of the
second degree: obviously the notion of the khora/gap - one of the
fundamental concepts of PoMo - should be endowed with new meaning.

<<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 ??
>

-- Well, all i can say that on the mundane /practical level, as a
subject of the practice of everyday life i wholeheartedly share your
sympathies (zappatism etc). But, sure, you do not suggest that we should
abandon intellectual labour? that would be luddism of sorts.
> this leads us far from the time subject !
-- towards the "shit/res.to theory" problematics - a subject of my
exchange with Liano to whom i'd like to offer this post as a preliminary
answer to his questions.




> 
> hugs !
> 
> guillaume.
> 
> by the way :  i fuck j chirac on a regular basis...woooooo<
that's my attitude towards ben natanijahu!
vadim