Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:48:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Rooney <rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)




On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis-king wrote:

> 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.

And Guattari goes on to criticize the notion of
archi-ecriture (e.g., in Molecular Revolution).


> 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..
> 
> (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".)

Naw, I'm just making a pragmatic machine. 


> 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.

How do you know I'm not?


Cordially,

M.