From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Rhizo-Matic . Morbid Potato.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 14:05:09 +0100




>
> "The text is lived as either the basis of a healthy rational good
> life or as
>
> this isn't possible as the script of madness (madness has no
> script).. Both
>
> utterly normalise it."
>
> I'm not entirely certain I accept this binary either-or. In fact,
> I'm certain
> that I don't. And madness may be informed by many scripts.

I think that was my too rapid flourish...  Daniel Haines has pointed out the
risk of overstatement...however if neither are possible then distinction
between them isn't either... what's a binary opposition between impossible
terms ?...I mean't that madness in general does not have a particular
rational script.. it looses the plot at some point(s), even monomania surely
gets so locked in to a particular story that  it eventually loses the
script.. either by itself eventually or with the help of  heavies with
electro shock or with the use of drugs. Perhaps it might lose the
superational plan that it has by getting so close to it.  What I meant was
to affirm was that it would be o.k if madness didn't live out the script(s)
pre-written for it and that  we tried not to read it as if we knew what it
was or where it was headed.. hence an affirmation that 'madness has no
script' An over-statement made in the context of Puritan thought which
sticks to the word of God.


> "No ammount
>
> of rubbing down a partner,walking around with pages stuck to one's head or
>
> organising texts into 'happenings' is going to get away from the cruel
>
> persistence of the  Same, or provide protection against the pain of its
>
> affects. "
>
> These things don't GUARANTEE anything, but I also think they cannot be so
> easily dismissed and swept aside. They may very well open up away from the
> Same ; we can never tell when difference will erupt which is why
> it is deadly
> to be indifferent.
>

Who is talking about guarantees ?... I was approaching it from the direction
of the difficulty of getting intimate with the same.. not getting away from
it.. being patient... waiting as close to indifference as possible.  I
wouldn't want to over-state this however.. you're dead right.. who can tell?

> As far as Wendy and Peter, actually it is Wendy who leaves Never
> Never Land,
> but Peter doesn't. Peter won't go into a Victorian domesticated
> lifestyle ;
> doesn't care to have his schiz stroll cut short. He flirted with
> Oedipus, with
> calling in a mommy-figure, and had his turn with it, it's over
> ... now he'll
> turn it into a celibate machine by reproducing multiple mommy figures by
> kidnapping Wendy's daughter, and then later her daughter, and so
> on, giving
> Oedipus a range of play, but only so much. Oedipus is never going
> to pull Pan
> out of Never Never Land.

Never Never land is the current infantalised consumer society. I was
thinking of Spielberg's film Captain Hook where Peter has turned into...
Robin Williams!I can't remember the end of that either.. Everything gets all
mixed up.. does this mean we are all now living in the promise of an anti
oedipal society full of little boys who won't grow up? Dream-works I love
it.

> I'm not sure how to work with the Bataille-lines. I think they're
> very poetic,
> but I can't quite hook my machine up to them. Different size connectors, I
> suppose. I guess I'm more Epicurean : death is a nothing, it's a no-
> experience, all there is is life, whereas Bataille seems a little
> more, well,
> morbid.
>
Well an ethics of hedonism is certainly  one way to go.. can't argue with
that.. death is definitly an absence : this doesn't mean it isn't there .My
suspicion is that this ethics links too happily to an "imaginary of
eternity" a foreclosing never never land to which one can appropriate
anything at all into a kind of illusion which carries its subjects endlessly
along.

phil.

"But only intuition decides between the true and the false in the problems
that are stated, even if this means driving the intelligence to turn back
against itself." Gilles Deleuze. Intuition as Method. Bergsonism pp/21

p.s a script may be informed by many madnesses.