>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...
i'm aware of all the connections between the books. what i don't find
connecting, so to speak, is the phrase 'then why do d&g abandon genealogy
and institute a nomadology'. i don't accept that as a decent objection.
> > > > 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?
what i meant was that i don't agree with those equalizations, at all.
> > 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".
right! so when i talk about the infant-mother assemblage, let's call it a
concept and let me talk about, okay?
> > 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?
i wasn't moaning, i was trying to establish that it is important to
conceptualize the phallic situation and all its many social implications,
because after we do so we can diagnose, then cure. i was diagnosing from
the start, re the phallic character of the list.
but i like that quote up there: "oedipus and castration are no more than
reactional formations, resistances, blockages, and armorings whose
destruction can't come fast enough..."
> > 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
no, not at all! it's a very important distinction!
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,
yeah, 'maybe'
lol ;)
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.
try putting two rocks beside eachother. that's not a true assemblage.
'true' is a rather arbitrary word here, but there are degrees of
communication between the machines which would constitute true communication
in an assemblage, a true assemblage or a faulty one. i'm using the word
true as it is sometimes used in french, if that helps: 'une vraie
agencement!'. perhaps in english it would be better as veritable: a
veritable assemblage.
as to unity, there IS such thing as immanent unity. unity according to a
trancendent principle of unity would be a distorted wholeness.
>
> > 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?
a real myth, a real metaphor, given that they are myths and metaphors.
> > >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. ;-)
but they do have a real relationship with the molecular unconscious, they
cause blockages and such.
>
> > 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".
it is...that doesn't mean i'm raising it to the transcendental level. why
can't we talk about castration, as an emprical fact, 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.
no...you can't reduce deleuze to nietzsche either.
bobo :)
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
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com