Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 16:00:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Orpheus <cw_duff-AT-alcor.concordia.ca>
Subject: abc/discourses...


>      _________________________________________________________________
>   
=09 When one
>    does philosophy, for instance, remaining "in" philosophy is also to
>    get out of philosophy. This doesn't mean to do something else, but to
>    get out while remaining within, not necessarily by writing a novel.
>    Deleuze says he'd be unable to in any event, but even if he could, it
>    would be completely useless. Deleuze says that he gets out of or
>    beyond philosophy by means of philosophy.
 people thought that desire was a form of spontaneity,
>    others thought it was an occasion for partying <la f=EAte>. For D&G, it
>    was neither, but it mattered little since assemblages got created,
>    even those that Parnet (and Deleuze) refer to as "the nuts" <les fous>
>    who had their own discourse and constructed their own assemblages.

=09So we each create our discourse but there is no need to deny the
legitimacy ofthe others....

>    So, Deleuze continues, on the level of theory, these misunderstandings
>    -- spontaneity or _la fete_ -- was not the so-called philosophy of
>    desire, which was rather: don't go get psychoanalyzed,
>    stop interpreting, go construct and experience/experiment with
>    assemblages, search out the assemblages that suit you. What is an
>    assemblage, he asks? It's not what they thought it was, but for
>    Deleuze, an assemblage has four components or dimensions:
>    1) Assemblages referred to "states of things", so that each of us
>    might find the "state of things" that suit us (he gives the example of
>    drinking, even just drinking coffee, and that we find that "coffee
>    drinking" that suits us as a "state of thing").

Re the schizo state: Parnet points out that the book's enemies
criticized it
>    for seeming to be an apology for permissivity. Deleuze says that if
>    one reads it closely, one will see that it always marked out an
>    extreme prudence. The book's lesson: don't become a tattered rag; to
>    oppose processes of schizophrenization of the repressive hospital
>    type. For D&G, he says, their terror was in producing a "hospital
>    creature".
=09The value of what the anti-psychiatrists called the "trip"
>    of the schizophrenic process was precisely to avoid conjuring the
>    production of "loques d'h=F4pital", tattered creatures.


=09Excerpts from Charlie Stivale's summary of ABC