File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9812, message 402


From: "Jon Rubin" <j_rubin-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: To destratify or not to destratify
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 08:50:14 PST


hmmm, well given the choice of "hippy elf" or "Baconian positivist" I 
know which one I'd rather be called.
If you're talking about the Cutrofello piece where he calls Foucault a 
"beautiful soul" then all I can say is that I'd happily repressed my 
memory of reading it as it was pure shite - but at the time I thought it 
also bore no resemblance to his book. I'll have to reread it to see if 
its as bad as you make out.

I haven't done this problem any favours by not seeing that there should 
have been three, not two questions that I'd like Unleesh to answer:
1/ destratifactory means (depassing tropes, yipee)
2/ destratifactory ends (death to the strata)
3/ what the fuck happened.
I'd like to stick to my claim that (1) at least still needs 
experimentation - if it didn't somebody would have written the _Hippy 
Elves Armchair Destratifaction Book_  and the CIA would have paid for 
the publishing
as for (2) then yes we are back to where we started 

I don't really care whether (3) gets accurately (however you might 
decide this should be cashed out) reported by Unleesh BUT D&G make it 
quite clear that historians (their word) can only see revolutions, which 
always go wrong and cannot see the revolutionary becomings.
Now this might be cos they have no criteria to differentiate 
revoutionary from non-revoutionary (if I turn in any more circles, I'm 
going to give up) becomings but it might also be something that history 
is blind to. "All history does is to translate a coexistence of 
becomings into a succession." [ATP] 430 - was the quote I was groping 
for.


Jon

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005