> > > you're speaking as if castration doesn't exist!
> >
> >how shocking of me! i will continue to do so, however... "Flying anuses,
> >speeding vaginas, there is no castration." (A Thousand Plateaus, p. 32).
>
> if i remember correctly, that quote is attacking the psychoanalytical
> tendency to view the human genitalia as natural holes, natural lack. they
> make a very schizo reference to physics in order to posit the genital
> "holes" as positive machines. it is a criticism of the use of the concept
> of castration as parametric, that is, assuming lack from the start. miles
> away from what i was talking about.
yes, no connection at all, obviously...
> > > there's a huge difference between
> > > endorsing lack and doing its genealogy.
> >
> >i wonder? are you sure? how huge?? why, then, do d&g abandon genealogy
and
> >institute a nomadology?
>
> abandon? institute? how do you jump from the genealogical explanation of
the
> phallus in AO (apropos lacan) to an unrelated plateau in ATP that
discusses
> nomads and war-machines? i mean, jeez...
another of my non-connections??? -i meant "nomadology" in a more general
sense, not just the war-machine machine plateau - _all_ the plateaus
institute a nomadology. A Thousand Plateaus generally invokes a concept of
nomadololgy. amongst other things... what exactly is the basis, on what
ground do you set up, your exclusion of these connections, bobo? why is ATP
"unrelated".... i am not denying differences and shifts between them, but
the two books are volumes of another called "Capitalism & Schizophrenia",
after all...
> > > there's also a huge difference between
> > > happy-little-organic-wholeness and happy-little-organic-wholeness
VIEWED
> >AS
> > > LOST.
> >
> >except inasmuch as they are both imaginary? both variations of a
> >"metaphysics of presence"? both equally nostalgic?
>
> um, no.
would you care to elaborate on that?
> yeah, in the same way that d&g talk about machines, rhizomes, assemblages,
> flows...all these things on the subrepresentative level, yet all named and
> represented in d&g's books.
no: these are concepts. they produce their own content, their own limits.
they do not represent "things on the subrepresentative level".
> the destruction of oedipus certainly is important, and if you grant me
that,
> then certainly you'll agree that destroying things with a blindfold on
isn't
> very efficient, now, is it? do you expect not talking about the phallus
and
> castration will make them go away?
I would take this as a modus operandi: "As Charlus say, 'A lot we care about
your grandmother, you little shit!' Oedipus and castration are no more than
reactional formations, resistances, blockages, and armorings whose
destruction can't comes fast enough..." (AO, p. 314). That seems very much
to suggest that continuing to moan on about castration, how important it is,
is the wrong way to destroy it. you end up reinscribing it, making it
stronger. isn't that just what psycho-analysis does, in part?
> now it's my turn to sigh.
why does that make you sigh, bobo...?!
> first of all, the mother-infant assemblage lacks nothing, which is why I
> called it a true assemblage previously (notice that i said A true
> assemblage, not THE true assemblage). talking about this would not be
> talking about lack.
"a", "the", same difference: it's the word "TRUE" which i was primarily
objecting too. "the" was only adding insult to injury, so to speak... maybe
i have been misunderstanding you, but it appears that you are saying the the
"mother-infant assemblage" lacks nothing because is has "symbiotic oneness"
which = an originary wholeness/ organic unity. whereas i think that
assemblages (i really have no idea what a "true" or "false" assemblage would
be, this seems an entirely meaningless designation) lack nothing because
they are multiplicities - heterogenous, intensive, differential relations of
forces which do not exist in relation to a transcendent principle of unity,
and which therefore don't "lack" unity.
> and neither, surprisingly, would talking about the
> phallus. the phallus is a real element, and castration is a real effect,
> although it is only real in the sense of a real image: the image of lack
is
> real, lack is real insofar as it is imaginary, but lack itself is not
real.
i find that a rather byzantine piece of reasoning. are you castrated or
not? are you lacking or not? not: what does psycho-analysis tell you? what
do you even mean by the "reality" of castration, given that "castration"
itself only a metaphor drawn from a myth in this context anyway?
> >note the words here, translations as they may be: castration is a
> >"principle", an "idea", the "basis" for a "representation", a "belief",
a
> >"yoke", and an "illusion".
>
> all real.
real representations, certainly. but the pages you cite (p. 308-10) and
what comes immediately before and after make it clear that all this consists
of an "anthropomorphic representation of sex" which bears no real--in the
(rather problematic!) sense of being transparently referential--relationship
to the molecular unconscious, to desiring production, etc. if i can get
away with plucking a word from its (Lacanian) context: castration, oedipus,
they involve a kind of _meconnaisance _ on the part of psychoanalysis!! they
found and follow from its fundamental misrecogition of desire. ;-)
> what we're really doing is talking about castration, plain and simple.
but you are also talking as if castration itself _were_ "plain and simple".
> they're lacanian concepts, although i view the infant-mother dyad in
> deleuzian view. and believe it or not, a large part of AO is based on
these
> concepts. read (carefully!) pages 308-310, for example.
i am not claiming otherwise... but i don't think you can reduce d&g to Lacan
by a long shot. i think that as much is obvious in the pages you point out
for me to read "carefully". but i'm not claiming that what i'm saying here
dovetails with d&g entirely, by any means. maybe it is quite legitimate
within a d&g frame to speak of "the symbiotic oneness of a true assemblage."
if so, that is where i leave the frame... i would still, anyway, like to
know why this way of speaking resists falling into nostalgia for a unity of
(lost) presence?
dan
http://on.to/machine
http://switch.to/capital
"The immediate thought was too dreadful to
articulate: August had been right and, for all
we knew, horrific microbes were right now
invading our every pore" - EIGHTBALL #20
> >
> >how shocking of me! i will continue to do so, however... "Flying anuses,
> >speeding vaginas, there is no castration." (A Thousand Plateaus, p. 32).
>
> if i remember correctly, that quote is attacking the psychoanalytical
> tendency to view the human genitalia as natural holes, natural lack. they
> make a very schizo reference to physics in order to posit the genital
> "holes" as positive machines. it is a criticism of the use of the concept
> of castration as parametric, that is, assuming lack from the start. miles
> away from what i was talking about.
yes, no connection at all, obviously...
> > > there's a huge difference between
> > > endorsing lack and doing its genealogy.
> >
> >i wonder? are you sure? how huge?? why, then, do d&g abandon genealogy
and
> >institute a nomadology?
>
> abandon? institute? how do you jump from the genealogical explanation of
the
> phallus in AO (apropos lacan) to an unrelated plateau in ATP that
discusses
> nomads and war-machines? i mean, jeez...
another of my non-connections??? -i meant "nomadology" in a more general
sense, not just the war-machine machine plateau - _all_ the plateaus
institute a nomadology. A Thousand Plateaus generally invokes a concept of
nomadololgy. amongst other things... what exactly is the basis, on what
ground do you set up, your exclusion of these connections, bobo? why is ATP
"unrelated".... i am not denying differences and shifts between them, but
the two books are volumes of another called "Capitalism & Schizophrenia",
after all...
> > > there's also a huge difference between
> > > happy-little-organic-wholeness and happy-little-organic-wholeness
VIEWED
> >AS
> > > LOST.
> >
> >except inasmuch as they are both imaginary? both variations of a
> >"metaphysics of presence"? both equally nostalgic?
>
> um, no.
would you care to elaborate on that?
> yeah, in the same way that d&g talk about machines, rhizomes, assemblages,
> flows...all these things on the subrepresentative level, yet all named and
> represented in d&g's books.
no: these are concepts. they produce their own content, their own limits.
they do not represent "things on the subrepresentative level".
> the destruction of oedipus certainly is important, and if you grant me
that,
> then certainly you'll agree that destroying things with a blindfold on
isn't
> very efficient, now, is it? do you expect not talking about the phallus
and
> castration will make them go away?
I would take this as a modus operandi: "As Charlus say, 'A lot we care about
your grandmother, you little shit!' Oedipus and castration are no more than
reactional formations, resistances, blockages, and armorings whose
destruction can't comes fast enough..." (AO, p. 314). That seems very much
to suggest that continuing to moan on about castration, how important it is,
is the wrong way to destroy it. you end up reinscribing it, making it
stronger. isn't that just what psycho-analysis does, in part?
> now it's my turn to sigh.
why does that make you sigh, bobo...?!
> first of all, the mother-infant assemblage lacks nothing, which is why I
> called it a true assemblage previously (notice that i said A true
> assemblage, not THE true assemblage). talking about this would not be
> talking about lack.
"a", "the", same difference: it's the word "TRUE" which i was primarily
objecting too. "the" was only adding insult to injury, so to speak... maybe
i have been misunderstanding you, but it appears that you are saying the the
"mother-infant assemblage" lacks nothing because is has "symbiotic oneness"
which = an originary wholeness/ organic unity. whereas i think that
assemblages (i really have no idea what a "true" or "false" assemblage would
be, this seems an entirely meaningless designation) lack nothing because
they are multiplicities - heterogenous, intensive, differential relations of
forces which do not exist in relation to a transcendent principle of unity,
and which therefore don't "lack" unity.
> and neither, surprisingly, would talking about the
> phallus. the phallus is a real element, and castration is a real effect,
> although it is only real in the sense of a real image: the image of lack
is
> real, lack is real insofar as it is imaginary, but lack itself is not
real.
i find that a rather byzantine piece of reasoning. are you castrated or
not? are you lacking or not? not: what does psycho-analysis tell you? what
do you even mean by the "reality" of castration, given that "castration"
itself only a metaphor drawn from a myth in this context anyway?
> >note the words here, translations as they may be: castration is a
> >"principle", an "idea", the "basis" for a "representation", a "belief",
a
> >"yoke", and an "illusion".
>
> all real.
real representations, certainly. but the pages you cite (p. 308-10) and
what comes immediately before and after make it clear that all this consists
of an "anthropomorphic representation of sex" which bears no real--in the
(rather problematic!) sense of being transparently referential--relationship
to the molecular unconscious, to desiring production, etc. if i can get
away with plucking a word from its (Lacanian) context: castration, oedipus,
they involve a kind of _meconnaisance _ on the part of psychoanalysis!! they
found and follow from its fundamental misrecogition of desire. ;-)
> what we're really doing is talking about castration, plain and simple.
but you are also talking as if castration itself _were_ "plain and simple".
> they're lacanian concepts, although i view the infant-mother dyad in
> deleuzian view. and believe it or not, a large part of AO is based on
these
> concepts. read (carefully!) pages 308-310, for example.
i am not claiming otherwise... but i don't think you can reduce d&g to Lacan
by a long shot. i think that as much is obvious in the pages you point out
for me to read "carefully". but i'm not claiming that what i'm saying here
dovetails with d&g entirely, by any means. maybe it is quite legitimate
within a d&g frame to speak of "the symbiotic oneness of a true assemblage."
if so, that is where i leave the frame... i would still, anyway, like to
know why this way of speaking resists falling into nostalgia for a unity of
(lost) presence?
dan
http://on.to/machine
http://switch.to/capital
"The immediate thought was too dreadful to
articulate: August had been right and, for all
we knew, horrific microbes were right now
invading our every pore" - EIGHTBALL #20