I apologize for the earlier ghost posting. I missed a qualifier in the mail
system here.. That taken care of, I've made a few ellipses in the discussion
quoted below in the interest of conserving bandwidth. I trust this won't lead
to anyone's confusion..
>>>[five lines from BJFC00, quoted by Mandoki Winkler Catalina]
>>[fifteen lines from Mandoki Winkler Catalina, quoted by Michael J. Current]
>Um, Katya - I don't know the poster in question, but I was fairly sure
>she was intending to be a just a bit ironic.
>
>I don't know if you are on this list, or if so, for how long you have
>been, but I know that a lot of people have been impressed by the
>discussion of the rhizome that has take place here - with very little
>participation from me. That discussion has not been at all in the
>nature of circumsciption. In fact, I am very pleased with the extend
>to which people have taken to heart the fact that the rhizome is part
>of an OPEN system and have helped to proliferate the concept.
>
>There are many reasons why the list falls silent from time to time -
>this is certainly not the first, and partly it is my fault for not
>pressing the discussion forward - both because I have been ill (again!)
>and because I am trying to walk a fine line between coordinating the
>reading group and dominating it. And we don't have anybody in
>constant, several-post-a-day mode as there is on PHIL-LIT. It is a
>very different type of list. Also, even though I am not an academic,
>I happen to know that this is the very WORST, most hectic, most
>stressful time of the academic year for most graduate students and
>professors. I expect discussion to pick up here, especially as the
>end-of-the-school year pressures come to an end.
>
>I've enjoyed your posts on PHIL-LIT. But I think you have misunderstood
>and misjudged so far as our rhizome discussions are concerned.
>
>Michael
That repeated, I'll say that I've have no contact with PHIL-LIT, or with any
discussions or debates that have occured there. This leaves me no basis, let
alone no motivation, for any pretensions involving any engagements in that list
as they extend themselves over here. My own motivations for responding to this
thread involve the last sentence of your above post, Michael. Having followed
this list -- through textual deluge and drought and, I'll admit, from a
detachment of not having replyed -- one dimension _I_ have not discerned would
involve an answer to a question of what, at this point, I'll just call the
possibilities of any positive criteria for just the sort of response you have
given to Mandoki. "Charge" is certainly not a fair word here for this, your
response, but even if it is given as a "suggestion," the question of
_misunderstandings_ and _misjudgements_ stand out rather brightly for me in
this context.
I'll try further to articulate what I think I'm after by describing the two
possible answers I'm currently entertaining for this question of mine. With
Deleuze, for me, there stands out those sections of _Nietzsche and Philosophy_
which I have gone over, for which a good example would be his explications of
the thought of eternal recurrence as a selective principle ["The eternal
recurrence gives the will a rule as rigorous as the Kantian one."]. How, and
why? The answer seems to be: follow the analysis, keep it in mind, see where
it goes. [Think also of, "There is no possible compromise between Hegel and
Nietzsche."; such are pretty strong words, no?]
What also stands out, but to a lesser extent than with _Nietzsche and
Philosophy_ and with what might seem greater proximity to my second possible
answer to my question here, are the statements in the _Anti Oedipus_ to the
effect that that book's greatest impact has been in "short-circuiting" the
connections between Psychoanalysis and Marxism in France. What I am trying to
show for my first possibility here is a Deleuze confident enough to pass
judgements on himself and the status of his work, a Deleuze who allows himself
the capacity of knowledge of his work and with that with, across, over, under,
or through which his work treats. Of course, some person (or, stretching the
possibility, _persons_) named Deleuze wrote all of this! An assumption of this
order seems an essential precondition to the existence of this very mailing
list, does it not?
There is, however, a second possibility. This might be better approached by
saying, there _are_ second possibiliti_es_ to the first. We could, instead,
follow the lines of, say, _A Thousand Plateaus_ more closely, those expressions
of Deleuze which are more contradictory and vaporish, the ones we can't nail
down and, perhaps even admit it, sometimes don't want to nail down squarely.
[Letting the book fall open to a page at random I find, "The becoming-child of
the musician is coupled with a becoming-aerial of the child, in a
nondecomposible block. The memory of an angel, or rather the becoming of a
cosmos. Crystal: the becoming-bird of Mozart is inseparable from the
becoming-initiate of the bird, and forms a block with it." - out of "1837: Of
the Refrain," p. 350].
This (These) second possibility (possibilites) is (are) marked less by heads
nodding in agreement than by those shaking in disbelief, or perhaps still in
rapture with the continual pulling-off of such wicked feats of thought. How
could anyone think these ways? from which soon follows How can _I_ think these
ways? In text, one with a sufficiently bent mind finds, it is approachable.
One starts gronking the jargon, running after, along with, and perhaps even in
front of Deleuze's texts, and it is an exhilaration to, shall we say, "join the
Deleuzian club" in this way. I think we've seen these aspects here in this
mailing list.
Now, the two possibilities seem both to be suggested out of Deleuze's texts.
Both in this articulation of mine are an attempt to partially encapsulate two
outstanding trends in his thought. That is, it seems safe to say that Deleuze
draws both possibilties out for us, both approaches from which his texts can be
travelled through. With that accomplished, it seems possible to discern a line
passing through his thought/thoughts which allows for a decision between a
strict, if taut, doctrinairism and an explosively open jargonism. The first
side informs us in interesting and significant ways about Nietzsche, Spinoza,
Deleuze himself, all important figures. The second propells us into new and
ever-newer discourses in uncontainable multiplicites. Each side seems to
undercut the possibility of the other, in some superficial ways, ay least.
I've probably written enough at this time; any inadequacies of expression here
are probably not going to be correct with further editing on my part. So I'll
cap this off by asking: is this division not superficial, or else how is it?
How do we decide with Deleuze, or if we want, with rhizomes, what can and can
not be said about them? Can we ask what might seem to be basic questions such
as "How do we think rhizomatically?" or even "How _can_ we think
rhizomatically?"; or do we just leap to the evident assumption that we _do_
think in this way? [Deleuze says, "A rhizome as a subterranean stem is
absolutely different from roots and radicals"; in what ground can such an
absolute distinction be made?]
I just hope this made some modicum of sense.
--
acemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacem
a nurnberp@xxxxxxxxxxxx = paul nurnberger m
acemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacem
------------------
system here.. That taken care of, I've made a few ellipses in the discussion
quoted below in the interest of conserving bandwidth. I trust this won't lead
to anyone's confusion..
>>>[five lines from BJFC00, quoted by Mandoki Winkler Catalina]
>>[fifteen lines from Mandoki Winkler Catalina, quoted by Michael J. Current]
>Um, Katya - I don't know the poster in question, but I was fairly sure
>she was intending to be a just a bit ironic.
>
>I don't know if you are on this list, or if so, for how long you have
>been, but I know that a lot of people have been impressed by the
>discussion of the rhizome that has take place here - with very little
>participation from me. That discussion has not been at all in the
>nature of circumsciption. In fact, I am very pleased with the extend
>to which people have taken to heart the fact that the rhizome is part
>of an OPEN system and have helped to proliferate the concept.
>
>There are many reasons why the list falls silent from time to time -
>this is certainly not the first, and partly it is my fault for not
>pressing the discussion forward - both because I have been ill (again!)
>and because I am trying to walk a fine line between coordinating the
>reading group and dominating it. And we don't have anybody in
>constant, several-post-a-day mode as there is on PHIL-LIT. It is a
>very different type of list. Also, even though I am not an academic,
>I happen to know that this is the very WORST, most hectic, most
>stressful time of the academic year for most graduate students and
>professors. I expect discussion to pick up here, especially as the
>end-of-the-school year pressures come to an end.
>
>I've enjoyed your posts on PHIL-LIT. But I think you have misunderstood
>and misjudged so far as our rhizome discussions are concerned.
>
>Michael
That repeated, I'll say that I've have no contact with PHIL-LIT, or with any
discussions or debates that have occured there. This leaves me no basis, let
alone no motivation, for any pretensions involving any engagements in that list
as they extend themselves over here. My own motivations for responding to this
thread involve the last sentence of your above post, Michael. Having followed
this list -- through textual deluge and drought and, I'll admit, from a
detachment of not having replyed -- one dimension _I_ have not discerned would
involve an answer to a question of what, at this point, I'll just call the
possibilities of any positive criteria for just the sort of response you have
given to Mandoki. "Charge" is certainly not a fair word here for this, your
response, but even if it is given as a "suggestion," the question of
_misunderstandings_ and _misjudgements_ stand out rather brightly for me in
this context.
I'll try further to articulate what I think I'm after by describing the two
possible answers I'm currently entertaining for this question of mine. With
Deleuze, for me, there stands out those sections of _Nietzsche and Philosophy_
which I have gone over, for which a good example would be his explications of
the thought of eternal recurrence as a selective principle ["The eternal
recurrence gives the will a rule as rigorous as the Kantian one."]. How, and
why? The answer seems to be: follow the analysis, keep it in mind, see where
it goes. [Think also of, "There is no possible compromise between Hegel and
Nietzsche."; such are pretty strong words, no?]
What also stands out, but to a lesser extent than with _Nietzsche and
Philosophy_ and with what might seem greater proximity to my second possible
answer to my question here, are the statements in the _Anti Oedipus_ to the
effect that that book's greatest impact has been in "short-circuiting" the
connections between Psychoanalysis and Marxism in France. What I am trying to
show for my first possibility here is a Deleuze confident enough to pass
judgements on himself and the status of his work, a Deleuze who allows himself
the capacity of knowledge of his work and with that with, across, over, under,
or through which his work treats. Of course, some person (or, stretching the
possibility, _persons_) named Deleuze wrote all of this! An assumption of this
order seems an essential precondition to the existence of this very mailing
list, does it not?
There is, however, a second possibility. This might be better approached by
saying, there _are_ second possibiliti_es_ to the first. We could, instead,
follow the lines of, say, _A Thousand Plateaus_ more closely, those expressions
of Deleuze which are more contradictory and vaporish, the ones we can't nail
down and, perhaps even admit it, sometimes don't want to nail down squarely.
[Letting the book fall open to a page at random I find, "The becoming-child of
the musician is coupled with a becoming-aerial of the child, in a
nondecomposible block. The memory of an angel, or rather the becoming of a
cosmos. Crystal: the becoming-bird of Mozart is inseparable from the
becoming-initiate of the bird, and forms a block with it." - out of "1837: Of
the Refrain," p. 350].
This (These) second possibility (possibilites) is (are) marked less by heads
nodding in agreement than by those shaking in disbelief, or perhaps still in
rapture with the continual pulling-off of such wicked feats of thought. How
could anyone think these ways? from which soon follows How can _I_ think these
ways? In text, one with a sufficiently bent mind finds, it is approachable.
One starts gronking the jargon, running after, along with, and perhaps even in
front of Deleuze's texts, and it is an exhilaration to, shall we say, "join the
Deleuzian club" in this way. I think we've seen these aspects here in this
mailing list.
Now, the two possibilities seem both to be suggested out of Deleuze's texts.
Both in this articulation of mine are an attempt to partially encapsulate two
outstanding trends in his thought. That is, it seems safe to say that Deleuze
draws both possibilties out for us, both approaches from which his texts can be
travelled through. With that accomplished, it seems possible to discern a line
passing through his thought/thoughts which allows for a decision between a
strict, if taut, doctrinairism and an explosively open jargonism. The first
side informs us in interesting and significant ways about Nietzsche, Spinoza,
Deleuze himself, all important figures. The second propells us into new and
ever-newer discourses in uncontainable multiplicites. Each side seems to
undercut the possibility of the other, in some superficial ways, ay least.
I've probably written enough at this time; any inadequacies of expression here
are probably not going to be correct with further editing on my part. So I'll
cap this off by asking: is this division not superficial, or else how is it?
How do we decide with Deleuze, or if we want, with rhizomes, what can and can
not be said about them? Can we ask what might seem to be basic questions such
as "How do we think rhizomatically?" or even "How _can_ we think
rhizomatically?"; or do we just leap to the evident assumption that we _do_
think in this way? [Deleuze says, "A rhizome as a subterranean stem is
absolutely different from roots and radicals"; in what ground can such an
absolute distinction be made?]
I just hope this made some modicum of sense.
--
acemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacem
a nurnberp@xxxxxxxxxxxx = paul nurnberger m
acemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacemnorsuvwxzacem
------------------