From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:09:46 -0000


M.
In  Anti Oedipus D+G write about graphism, what they call writing in the
largest sense of the word. They agree with Derrida that a writing system is
the origin of the language that pressupposes it.pp203.

"The subordination of graphism to the voice induces a fictitious voice from
on high" a subordination by which writing supplants the voice, a dangerous
supplement that becomes a substitute for the voice.

Derrida links writing with incest.. at this point d+g seperate the 'graphic
machine' from writing.. they seperate writing in the narrow sense (a
graphism that, as they agree with Derrida, supplants the voice, a writing in
which pictographic, ideogrammatic, and phonetic proceedures are not
seperated. A writing which " knows nothing of linear subordination and its
reciprocity: neither pictogram nor ideogram, it is rhythm and not form,
zigzag and not line, artifact and not idea, production and not
expression." ) from writing in a broad sense: a graphism which leaves the
voice dominant. Remaining independent of it but connecting with it. A
graphism which becomes writing in a molar sense, writing of signs whose job
is to express a voice which has become flat.
"The voice no longer sings but dictates, decrees; the graphy no longer
dances, it ceases to animate bodies, but is set into writing on tablets,
stones, and books; the eye sets itself to reading."...(Hegel)
"The subordination of graphism to the voice induces a fictitious voice from
on high which, inversely no longer expresses itself except through the
writing signs that it emits "aopp205(Hegel dictating to his students) (and
if we are to 'know our enemy' it is important to know how he wrote.)

Two kinds of writing. Two forms of representation one in which things are
connected laterally, "a way of jumping that cannot be contained within an
order of meaning."aopp204

The other form a grim nature of slave writing in which signs  can only be
read in a linear fashion. A kind of writing merely  expressing a voice, a
suppressed graphism where..
"It is perhaps at this juncture that the question "what does it mean?"
begins to be heard, and that problems of exegis prevail over problems of use
and efficacy. The emperor, the god- what did he mean?"

(and here M. we come to your fetishization of Deleuze's voice as I would say
"a detatched partial object on which the whole chain depends".)

Derrida- Bataille -Deleuze a broken chain whose links jump about, part of a
network that doesn't depend on Deleuze's word for its  lateral unresolved
connectivity. A kind of primitive philosophising.A production. But no this
notional, superficial, figural writing is not M's thing.  He has to
translate it into something acceptable to discourse and will only accept
exchange as a  discursive exchange of points. He can only trade conclusions.
 He cannot read it.
Phil.