File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9810, message 284


From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 21:28:34 EST
Subject: Re: boundaries in flow


In a message dated 10/26/98 5:47:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Kalapsyche-AT-aol.com writes:

<< this notion is necessary for any sort of practical
 interaction, knowledge aquisition, and practice.  A dismissal of this notion
 would then leave us in a world of flux in which no orientation was possible.
>>

I think we can legitimately question this approach. Simply because a notion
"works" does not mean that it is the "only" way to work, and if we can
illuminate certain negative side effects of that "operationalism", then it is
only conventionality that keeps us from constructing new concepts that are
more marvelous and specific.

And perhaps it would behoove us to enter into the acid trip of "a world of
flux in which no orientation was possible".

Is that really true? Or would orientation occur along other sorts of
coordinates? A smooth space rather than a striated space, perhaps?

There's a danger in a conventionalized pragmatics. "It works" is not enough.
How marvelously does it work? The segregation, compartmentalization, and
quarantining of disciplinary boundaries is what Guattari wanted to supercede
in his notion of "transversality". Ultimately these notions are notions of
"private property" which is ultimately what AntiOedipus is attempting to
supercede. Capitalism wants to project property lines everywhere, even into
its knowledge realms. But flows don't respect those property lines. They won't
stay within the house, the family, or any institution. They won't stay within
one department, and the repression necessary to force them to do so on any
sort of a molar level is disturbing.

All sorts of alternative conceptions are conceivable. One could discuss
"contiguities" where two flows touch and differentiate. One could discuss
"agoras" where exchange takes place. Why project a Statist notion onto the
universe? Why not a marketplace notion? Why not a sexual notion? (Indeed in
your reference to lovemaking you open up this option.) To give the word
"boundary" an alternative definition is all fine and good for those who are
privy to the new definition, but most are going to hear the social meanings in
circulation.

One could discuss "multiple contact points". Or one could, radically,
delineate those conditions where "boundaries" of any sort are even possible,
and in so doing, discover they are a minority amongst phenomena! For
"intermix" may be the norm, and "boundary" becomes an issue with relatively
homogenous or purified forms.

(un)leash

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005