Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 01:32:26 +0800 (CST)
From: Liano Sharon <lsharon-AT-ms2.hinet.net>
Subject: Re: time (slipping through my fingers) vol 2.




On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Vadim Linetski wrote:

> 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.

	You have forgotten the most important part of your analogy 
--The Drinker.  Anything you care to write down can be interpreted as a 
program, and most likely will be by some one some where, but its only a 
program if people do infact interpret it as such--interms of your 
analogy this would be equivalent to some form of fetishized drinking 
ritual or out right collectorism.  But there is  no reason anything 
anyone writes needs to be taken as a program--the writer doesn't make 
anything s/he writes a program however much s/he may or may not want to, 
it becomes a program _only when the reader(s) accept it as programming_ 
and act accordingly.  When you read something you have to make a choice: 
enshrine it 
(collectorism so to speak), fetishize it, or take a swig and  water the 
plannts with the rest . . . dump some in the soup, wash some down the 
drain . . . feed the cat, stick a candel in the top and read something 
else tonight.  Do whatever you like with it--this is entierly up to you, 
and if you decide its a program and follow it that is also your choice.  
And you can also of course, as you seem to do Vadim, decide it is a 
program and argue against it, but in this case arguing against what 
has been written is useless because it did not attain the quality you 
wish to expose (programmism) before you brought this quality to the text 
yourself by reading it this way.  Didn't you say you didn't like the 
idea of established theories imposing themselves on new textual bodies?  
Well, when you come to a text you haven't read before it is (to you) a 
new textual body and your ideas form your personal established theory, I 
humbly suggest that you may wish to watch for your own impositions.  By 
saying it _is_ a program, you are infusing it with an intent--the 
intent to program.  It should be noted that you say (above): "I do not 
question the intentions which prompted them to write AO & ThPl," thus you 
do not question their intentions, but instead--by insisting that they 
have laid out a program--you ascribe to them a result which, by the 
argument I have just made, is in fact not theirs, but yours.  You read 
their writting as a program, and thus to you it is a program.  I read 
their writting as a late night conversation, or message from a far-off 
place, or a poem, or whatever may feel appropriet at the time, but never as 
a program, because I reserve the right to guide myself by whatever lights 
I may find beautiful.  (no I am not suggesting beauty as some standard by 
which to choose paths, I'm only using it as a weak metaphore for 
something which has no standard and thus no category and thus no name by 
which to refer to it convieniently)



> 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.

	As an illustration of what I was arguing above: Lacanian (or any 
other) desire does not itself function, rather, people use it as they see 
fit to use it--you may want to be more specific about the particular uses 
to whiich it is put that disturb you.  Similarly for D&G's desier.


> Propounded as a continuous flaw it

	[flow]??


> 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.

	Please explain the relationship between objectivity and 
repression that you are refering to.



> - 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.

	Sorry, but would you mind actually supporting this claim rather than 
simply asserting it?
	Possibly by actually responding to the arguments I have presented,
instead of consistently avoiding them?
	It is preciesly instances such as this that have prompted my 
annoyance as detailed in my previous post.

> 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. 

	It is even more obvious (to me at least) that this is not at all 
a question of what schiz.ana. _is_, but one of what different people try 
to do with it.


> You prefer to
> treat D/G work as "poetry", and in so doing avoid again the problem
> which should be addressedat long last.

	Only if you continue to assume that how you read smething is more 
importan than what you do with it.



> 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).

Two comments

	1) you seem to equate fictionalization with peotry here.  I don't 
see how this paragraph makes sense otherwise.  I will have to strongly 
dissagree with you here.

	2) If I understand the idea of "transferential mode of 
interpretation" correctly (I may well not as it seems to come from 
psych.an, an area that I am none too familiar with), I must still 
disagree with your interpretation of the paradox(es) in question.  It 
seems to me that a transferential mode of interpretation must involve two 
separate frames of reference between which a transfer takes place via 
interpretation.  I'm guessing that you see a paradox arising whenever 
(and this may well be in every case) these two frames of reference are 
incompatile.  If this is the case then once again you have a 
contradiction (see my previous posts) and not a paradox, and further you 
have a contradiction that is not particularly structurally similar to 
either the Liar or Achilles and the Tortoise because the Liar does not 
involve a frame of reference at all and A&T only invovels a single frame 
of reference.


> 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! - 

	Gee, am I supposed to guess how this relates to any of my posts?


> as an analysis of
> detective fiction (a genre denigrated in PoMo as a privileged locus of
> logocentric biases) shows

	Could you summarise how this demonstration is made?


> 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: 

	What do you mean by this "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. 

	I totally agree with you, but would add that this theorizing (it 
seems to me) must be an aspect of the way of action itself and not 
something carried out separately.  In short, we need to rethink what we 
mean by theory.


> > 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.

	I'm definetly with you here.  By the way, as a useless bit of 
trivia, it happens that I'm named "Liano" after Emilliano Zapata.


> > 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?

	Why should intellectual labor be separated from any other kind of labor?




> 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.

	Ok.


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



Your Friend,

	Liano