From: amd <A.M.Dib-AT-lboro.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Is Guattari criticizing Derrida in Molecular Revolution?
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:46:47 +0000



Michael, and Michelle,

I do not want to get involved in the discussion. It is a long thread weaved
between both of you. I do not feel well these days. January was terrible for
me. I was all the month ill with the flu. Anyway, this is beside the point. 

My feelings, with the fact that Derrida is still clarifying his various
position- practices until the moment, Guattari's criticism in "The place of
the Signifier in the Institution" is somehow crude and accusative. It just
provides a generalisation which adapts more with some reception formation of
Derrida undertaken by many American academic and intellectual circles. I am
not trying to defend Derrida, but I think that this particular notice of
Guattari is a bit monstrous, if not an exposition emerging from the war
positions in France (perhaps here I am myself too crude on Guattari!!!). 

By coincidence, I was re- reading Ronald Bogue's epilogue in his
Deleuze-Guattari book, I found a very illustrative and potent
differentiation between Deleuze- Guattari and Derrida's thought. I guess
that Bogue did a very wonderful job in the differentiation from within the
presumed similarities. Michael and Michelle, I advice you to return to that
epilogue as it touches right onto your question. Also, the advise recurs to
Daniele Heines (perhaps here I mispelled your name:). Bogue's epilogue
answers your worries:)

nice weekened

amd     

At 03:21 PM 1/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>I have excerpted this particular threadlet of
>discussion since I doubt that anyone besides
>myself and MPLK are reading out exchanges, and
>I would appreciate an outside party to look at
>the text in question ("The Place of the Signifier
>in the Institution"), especially since I don't
>have a copy of MR (or the Guattari Reader) with
>me.
>
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis king wrote:
>
>> >And this passage strikes me as plainly critical
>> >of Derrida -- that JD's archi-ecriture is too
>> >textual, not concrete and historical.  Perhaps
>> >we can look at this passage explicitly.  But as
>> >I don't have a copy of MR handy, I'll concede
>> >the issue.
>> >
>> You are so wrong. Guattari critises an arche-writing that is signifying 
>> and seperates it very clearly from Derrida's notion. 
>
>When I re-read the passage several days ago, it
>seemed clear that the signifying archi-writing which
>Guattari is criticizing is that of Derrida.  When
>Guattari says "but not Derrida's archi-ecriture"
>he is distinguishing JD's writing from his historical,
>concrete notion.
>
>
>> I'm sorry to keep 
>> hammering away pedantically but your 'concession' is too reserved for me 
>> to accept. I'll post the passage in a later post. 
>
>Please do.
> 
>
>Cordially,
>
>M.
>
>
>