Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:03:11 +0200
From: Vadim Linetski <picador-AT-luckynet.co.il>
Subject: Re: time (slipping through objectivity thread)


17 MAY 97
Dear Guillaume, 

 
> Ok. i still do not agree with you vadim perhap's because i stay fresh about
> that and i do not know anything about PoMo (it took me at least 10 times to
> get what mean this). i don't think you can classify people like this.
> Deleuze as foucault hated schools ("ecoles de pensee"), because they felt as
> individuals human being.the i=only thing is that you have to accept that
> what you write depends partly from the time, civilisation, country, culture,
> economic system you live in.<
whaich would only mean another clasiffication - a Chinese one which
Borges tells about in a well-known tale, quoted and discussed by
Foucault in his equally well-known work. what we will be left with will
be a neo-empiricism. would it satisfy you? it was not for nothing that
the original one was discarded...

< But i don't think you can reduce deleueze as a
> post modernist, just because this doesn't mean a lot of things.>

only if you prefer to practice in respect to PoMo that very archeology
of knowledge, i.e. the examination of the basic discursive moves,
propounded by Foucault. 'Tis strange indeed: so long as logocentrism is
concerned, Foucault's technique is welcomed, but if the object is PoMo
itself then: "do not tread on me"!  
> 
> coming back to objectivity i will say that it reminds me the kelsen debate
> you learn at law school.
> kelsen is considered as a positiviste because he refuse to consider justice
> (in the sens as the law as it should be, the general purpose of law). kelsen
> say, just consider the text/jurisprudence you have in front of you. this
> guys tells you it's not a question of devoir etre, but a question of etre.
> 
> so he attacks the naturalist who analyse the law in comparing it with the
> justice purpose : hey guys you can not analyse something you do not have
> right under your hand. the purpose is different for any individuals, you
> loose all objectivity.
> but at the end kelsen is more naturalist than the other.
> one of the major law principle is that a text is valid when a higher text
> validate it. that's how nazism is valid in a pure jurical reflexion.
> but...end with his thought kelsen tell us that the constitution his
> validated by a fondamental law : wich is : you have to abey to what's
> decided. the only way to make it works.
> this is not description anymore, this is prescription. and kelsen invent a
> fondamental law that is as much a fiction as 'l'etat de nature' is.
> result : kelsen was anti nazi also, which was a hole in his thought. he was
> more or less a naturalist.
> worst he was a naturalist who was not admitting it.<

BRAVO! i wonder that you fail to see that you've provided an excellent
example of what i was clumsily attempted to clarify. That's my objection
to the view of theorizing Liano is curreently defending.
> 
> so what you have, l'etre is also a devoir etre. can not separate one from
> the other, because, you human, read/see/live with it.
> you can not classify in schools...
> this is the same for D&G reading. their description of the world is a
> prescription, and their prescription can not have any objective reading TMO.
> because as said before it's related to intimacy and intensity, it's related
> to the border and the inbetween the line. that's why a 'poetic' reading of
> it (i find also than chaos theory is poetry, that's certainly because i do
> not know anything to physics) is an average reading of it.<

 an average reading - meaning the generally accepted one? yes it is, in
my opinion. and after this you say that PoMo does not mean much?! in
_BAKHTIN'S WORDS..._ i 've shown that this type of reading promotes
logocentrism by promoting Cretan discursivity. By saying "this is
poetry" you effectively avoid the examination of philosophy as
philosophy to the end of finding out its deficiencies. 

< i don't think
> that i plant a knife in the back of deleuze/guattari theory.<

that's problemtatic. you seem to suggest thaat D/G were not writing
philosophy?  Why did they then bothered to write _WHAT IS PHIL._? (
atext BTW which answers the strictest stylistic requirements of a phil.
discourse). Why then dub AO - schiz.ANALYSIS?

> >>
> >
> >-- 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.
> 
> of course not !
> but are you telling me than your intellectual labour can be differnet of
> your intimate/day to day convictions ? <

ANd are you going to tell me that an academic career is compatible with
"zapatist" convictions? i'd wish it to be of course. my experience
teaches me that the academy of today is a locus of resistance to
everything fresh.  (try to approach the editors of _DIACRITICS_, say,
and see what happens).we seem to share this discontent. Let's launch the
5th (or would it be already 6th?) International.

<that what you live is in
> contradiction whith what you think ? then you live in a "devoir etre" no ??
> you really make a differnece between practical and theory ? the BwO od
> deleuze comes from his practice of theory. no ?
> 
> i'm just saying : i read D&G because i find a higher level of discours for
> the action i do or intend to do, a sort of global line (un cadre) around my
> conviction.
> but as isaid i pick up, and forget what i do not get. and this is probably
> the source of misunderstandings i surely do.<
 Let's continue the disc in a humble hope to arrive at a better
understanding of one another
> 
> then comes your major argument : D&G uses the desire concept and they do not
> change it, move it towards something new, they keep all that oedipian
> reflexion in their arsenal concept. and all the repression that comes from it.
> i do not get it. cos' what i read was exactly the inverse !<

hope between friends such a statement implies no offense, but, allow me
to say, that that was 'cos you read them as "poetry".

> they say : desire is not this but that.<
 
to say is not enough, one has also to support his/her claims.

< if you follow my postulat, then you
> will act like this this -> BwO, nomadism, becomings....
> so where is the problem ?<
 the problem is that by acting like this to act according to the phallic
logic. Weird? sure, but only because thus far the adversaries have not
bothered to properly reconstruct the latter.
< are you saying that their conceptual arsenal is
> finally the same one and that they can't break barriers with that ?<

exactly!

> tell me more !!<
> 

it'd have been my pleasure to do this (thank you very much for your
interesst in my argument!) however, as i've written to Liano, the
argument is complicated and should be reproduced in full. perhaps it'd
better if i refer you to that essay where i develop it (analogies
between D/G and Lacanian desire etc.)?
_THE PROMISE OF EXPRESSION TO THE 'INEXPRESSIBLE CHILD'..._
-- http://www.pd.org/topos/perforations/perf11/unspkable_chld.html ---
vadim