From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:13:55 -0000




>
>
>
> 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).

no, he doesn't. He makes the same point as is made in A.O, that Imperial
Representation is an arche-writing but not in Derrida's sense.
>
>
> > 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.

"A real hatred inspires logic's rivalry, or its will to supplant
philosophy." W.i.P


>
>
> > 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?

If you can't accept it, you can't experience it thefore you can't read it.
Submit.

Phil.