Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 22:21:12 +0800 (CST)
From: Liano Sharon <lsharon-AT-ms2.hinet.net>
Subject: Re: Orpheus and Re.to.Th.



> 
> Vadim (and everyone who wants to chime in)-
>      Thanks for the reply.  I think I understood it everything you said, 
> although I could do with a specific definition of 'continuum'.  I like your 
> conception of literature which has no use.  I suppose my next question 
> would be "Does any such lit. exist?"  As literature is one of my prime 
> interests, this is of utmost concern to me.  Has anything come close?  
>      Another problem for me seems to be the fact that D/G cover EVERYTHING 
> with their theory.  They hit drug-users, masochists, Proust, Taoism, courtly 
> love, Thomas Hardy, chivalric romances...  nothing appears to be outside of 
> their ideas. 

	OR is it that they are not outside of their context?


> When I first approached D/G, I thought thought this was the 
> beauty of it-something all-encompassing (ah yes, those silly days when I 
> wanted an answer for everything).  Now, it almost seems restrictive in the 
> sense that it accounts for everything.

	Only if you happen to believe their account of evthing, which I 
see no particular reason to restrict myself to.  One thing D&G did write 
(WiP) that I do happen to believe at the moment (though this may change 
without warning), is that "philosophy does not consist in Knowing and is 
not inspired by Truth, rather, it is categories like Interesting, 
Remarkable or Important that determine success or failure".  
In reading D&G I interpret this to mean that there writting is not about 
"accounting for" anything, rather it is about outlining what they find 
interesting, remarkable or important, and why they find these things to 
be so.  If you read them with the assumption (possibly even justifiable 
by some other equally relevent quote) that they are trying to "account 
for" things, then they will indeed trap you.  I don't believe they were, 
at least in the latter years, trying to "account for" things, but even if 
they were its no reason to read them that way.

>  How can we escape?  How does one 
> go about resisting D/G theory?  The last bit may be blasphemy in this 
> particular forum, but what the hell!  Can we do away with Gilles and Felix?  
> Might they even want this themselves?

	To quote Deleuze "a philosopher creates, he does not reflect" 
(from "mediators" in Zone 6).
Stop worrying about D&G and proceed on your own creativity.  Perhaps I 
should add: this is a suggestion, not a command or a call to codify and 
institutionalize the underlying idea. 


> Questions, questions...
> Brian  
> 
> 
> 

Your Friend,

	Liano