> i agree with most of this, but i still hold that there is such thing as
> molecular identity, as fuzzy as it is. a multiplicity is this kind of
> identity. you used the example of the mouth-breast machine, but what is
> this except the identificatory grouping of thousands of nerve endings and
> milk molecules? in the same way, partial objects on the mother's body
will
> eventually group together in proximity to form a territorial assemblage
that
> we can call the mother. a fuzzy aggregate. this is a natural process as
> opposed to the phallic intervention which will impose molar identities.
what is unnatural about molar identities? there is surely no connection
between the pair molar/molecular and the pair natural/unnatural??
> lol, psychoanalysis has no status in N. America! (at least i hope not).
> anyway, i'll take the example of d&g's 'becoming-woman' to show how the
> phallus illuminates things. d&g contrast becomings to an 'empty
standard'.
> the empty standard, the majority, really isn't anybody, it's a nobody.
this
> empty standard is the phallus. now, becoming-woman, that's the
> infant-mother assemblage. becomings-woman/mother, multiple
> differenciations/repititions of this important assemblage. why is it so
> important? because you need a background territory to deterritorialize
off
> of, a home to become strong enough...or else you're dead, a dead baby.
> scary nightmare stuff. d&g sometimes say that you have to become woman
> 'first', before reaching the other becomings. both men and women have to
> become woman in order to escape the empty standard of the phallus.
what does calling it the phallus add, exactly? seems to me you can do this
analysis with just the concept of the empty standard. calling it "the
phallus" introduces anthropomorphic representational elements that inject
oedipus...
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
> molecular identity, as fuzzy as it is. a multiplicity is this kind of
> identity. you used the example of the mouth-breast machine, but what is
> this except the identificatory grouping of thousands of nerve endings and
> milk molecules? in the same way, partial objects on the mother's body
will
> eventually group together in proximity to form a territorial assemblage
that
> we can call the mother. a fuzzy aggregate. this is a natural process as
> opposed to the phallic intervention which will impose molar identities.
what is unnatural about molar identities? there is surely no connection
between the pair molar/molecular and the pair natural/unnatural??
> lol, psychoanalysis has no status in N. America! (at least i hope not).
> anyway, i'll take the example of d&g's 'becoming-woman' to show how the
> phallus illuminates things. d&g contrast becomings to an 'empty
standard'.
> the empty standard, the majority, really isn't anybody, it's a nobody.
this
> empty standard is the phallus. now, becoming-woman, that's the
> infant-mother assemblage. becomings-woman/mother, multiple
> differenciations/repititions of this important assemblage. why is it so
> important? because you need a background territory to deterritorialize
off
> of, a home to become strong enough...or else you're dead, a dead baby.
> scary nightmare stuff. d&g sometimes say that you have to become woman
> 'first', before reaching the other becomings. both men and women have to
> become woman in order to escape the empty standard of the phallus.
what does calling it the phallus add, exactly? seems to me you can do this
analysis with just the concept of the empty standard. calling it "the
phallus" introduces anthropomorphic representational elements that inject
oedipus...
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