From: "michelle phil lewis king" <kinglewis-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:47:23 PST




>On Thu, 21 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.
>
>"Arche-ecriture: An expression advanced by Jacques
> Derrida, who puts forward the hypothesis of a writing
> at the basis of speech. [...]  Schizo-analysis objects
> that the vision of this conception of language is
> still too totalizing, too 'structuralist'." 
>
> --Molecular Revolution (English edition), p. 287.
>
This is a glossary note not written by Guattari.
In molecular revolution he clearly seperates derrida's arche writing 
from an arch writing subjegated to the signifying voice. He condemn that 
servile arch writing.


>> He makes the same point as is made in A.O, that Imperial
>> Representation is an arche-writing but not in Derrida's sense. 
>
>So d+g's concept of writing is not Derrida's.
>Gee, what have I been saying in this discussion
>all along?
>  

They base the concept of primitive barbarian representation on Derrida's 
'writing' and seperate it from 'Imperial' representation.


>> > > (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
>
>Now who's fetishizing Deleuze's voice?  Or does 
>this charge only apply when Deleuze disagrees 
>with Phil?
>

hey, to speak to you I have to use fixed sign that you can actually 
read.

>> > > 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.


again I'm talking to you in a voice that you might be able to accept, 
This doesn't leave many options.

>There you go, using logic to supplant philosophy.

nope. talking to you does not supplant philosophy.

>I have notionally, superficially, figurally noted 
>the similarity between your writing and the tedious
>banalities of an ignorant academic bullshitting
>his way through a Q&A session.  Now, if you can't
>accept that, you can't experience it, and therefore
>you cannot read it.  Q.E.D.
>
I can accept that you feel that way. I can experience it and I can read 
it .Oh, the bigoted dull  world of a micheal  Q+A session.

Phil.


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