Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 14:09:55 GMT
From: cornets-AT-2005.bart.nl (cornets de groot)
Subject: Re: On-line reading


Malgosia:

>My dear RC;

Don't be condescendent please.

>sorry; I would have thought that after all the quoting of 
>Deleuze that has been going on, referring to "D-man" would have been a pretty
>obvious in-thing.  Apparently not.

Perhaps because you presented it as the new thing to do ("is it time
for...?") since indeed it's what has been going on all along.
>
>But here is a question for you.  How in the word do you know that the
>use of these "alien terms" such as assemblage, milieu, derive,
>deterritorialization is _not_ the best possible way of saying the things
>that the people who use them are saying?

Because I'm not familiar with them, although I'm not a 2 year old child.
It's too esoteric. And the repeated use of such jargon may very well lead to
inbreeding. What is the relevance of words that are only understood between
the walls of the academia? (Didn't Nietzsche give up his career because he
wanted to broaden his mind outside those very walls?). Yes, I do mistrust
those words - for what could it be that we're dealing with, if it can't be
expressed in common language? Is it that refined, delicate? Then what's the
relevance? Maybe it would do your thinking some good if you stepped out of
there, and tried to start saying things without the D-man (or the N-man, or
the C-man for that matter) watching over you.
In fact, as far as I'm concerned, we did not elaborate any further on that
autism thing, because you and I speak different languages. That was the
uncomfort. Now tell me, should I knock on the academy door and ask to be
admitted to the (autistic) in-group? Or should you try to make yourself
understandable to the world, which after all is the very object of your
investigations?

 Do you think that everything can
>be said best using only the language that you already understand?  That 
>a 2-year old child already understands?  Or what is the exact criterion
>you are proposing?  In _whose_ already pre-formed language do things have
>to be expressed to meet your standards?
>
It is Deleuze who pre-formed a language, not me. My standards are not as
high as his or yours. If that means you can disregard me, then fine.
However, as a philosopher I would very seriously question the merits of my
thinking if it would take me that far from the crowd. And mind you, a
Hyperborean is not the same as a philosophy professor.

>If you think Deleuze's and the SI's terms are downright ugly (a perception
>I completely fail to share), I very warmly invite you to say these things
>in more beautiful terms, in terms you find more acceptable, in "as few words
>as possible".  For me, right now, it is quite a difficult task to say 
>some of these things _at all_, in any language.
>
I understand that. I respect it, too. Still I believe it is not my task to
say your things more "beautiful" (a term I did not use btw). Why do you
always ask me to do your things?

RC



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---