hi ja'far
yes-yes where's the play-its a bit difficult to express(!) especially as i
have a slight political conflict going on within my (selves) about it. on
the one hand, i find readings of D that don't deal with the issue of
maternal disavowal impoverished-what i would want to assert-not as universal
truth but as fairly widespread sedimentation of a habitual false probelm is
that oedipal machines do fabricate psychic interiorities which b) are
predicated on verticality b)render a kind of maternal imperceptible,
fragmented scattered and so on. hence the startegic importance of
becoming-woman- so far -so ordinary-i think breaking through these kinds of
local habit structure does, initially, entail the kinds of encounter you
describe in so far as a retrograde regressive kind of mnemomnic mapping
needs to be opened out for most of already triangulated-i don't think it is
feasible-or at least i find it politically stupid- to suggest this kind of
operation without consideration of the kinds of maternal disavowals which
bind the machine. i.e there is nothing more aggravating than 'profound
commentary ' on becoming-minor, molecular et al which is not willing to
first engage with the discomfort of becoming-woman ( as difficult for women
as men i would stress) it would be wrong to assume that everyone has been
triangulated, yet it is also foolish not to account startegically for a
majoritarian praxis most often named 'daddy'.
in this sense Araidne's substantial ears serve a valuable but limited
purpose in insisting that women's composites become visible or
re-subjectivised. as a sonorous set of affects its quite easy to work 's an
account of pre-embryonic noise, gesture etc into D's alimentary pre-oedipal
readings. yet to stay with natality as molar sign also means an acceptance
of a paranoic, nostalgic and despotic kind of temporality as trade off for
poltical recognition. for Irigaray, especially, death is simply a falling
away of angelic flesh yet her time for love between does not really do much
than slightly extend the serial monotony of the 'nuclear family' getting to
some kind of way of thinking about 'daughters of the future'-(see thirteenth
series LOS) is very much a question of being able to leave this first
immemorial home-not achieved through denial so some point in re-membering
the maternal to leave as well transvaluing its mnemonomic. the idea of
thinking about substance re the incorporeal time of the Aion is absurd-so,
arguably, room for some adjustment of Irigaray's immanent femnine divine. by
definition the singularities of birth must be included in the dice throw
that affirms all throws- yet castration effects, false problem as they
are-seem to need a separate kind of treatment.
cutting out Ariadne's ears is my way of alluding to the
de-substantialisation of new maternal idols without ignoring the way
natality has been devalued historically.
ciao
Ruth.C
>>> ja'far railton <railton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/22 8:30 pm >>>
Hi Ruth
sounds alluring...I'm all ears...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruth Chandler" <R.Chandler@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 21. July. 2000 03:02
Subject: Re: "speaking as if castration doesn't exist!"
> hi Ja'far
> might it be worth considering an account expereienced and active in
memory
> ( a second immemorial) that overlays the first immemorial of carnal birth?
> not a simple disavowal but an active re-membering and dissipation of
> Ariadnes ears? how else can a radical fissure occur between the time of
> retrogression and the compulsion to repeat and a future active
understanding
> of the event?
> Ruth.C
>
> >>> Ja'far Railton <jrailton@xxxxxxxxxx> 07/20 12:57 pm >>>
> S'il vroummmm plait:
>
> Castration: (could be) the event, experienced (in memory) as the (more or
> less violent) dismemberment which inaugurates forced entry into the
symbolic
> realm of order-words, where the thing is absent and therefore brutally
> represented, the body of flying signifiers marking out the space of the
now
> fragmented body; the loss of an imagined or imaginary plenitude (for which
> one must atone); a rupture, severing the fusional connection to the full
> body of the mother -- which is itself an extension of the partial object
> (breast) and is also, incidentally, projected onto the father; OR, the
> dissolution of the infant-mother BwO [?].
>
> ...and then the father gets the blame as he was seen acting suspiciously
at
> the scene of the crime...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "vroummmm" <vroummmm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 19 July 2000 15:39
> Subject: RE: "speaking as if castration doesn't exist!"
>
>
> > Anyway, I just want to suggest that some weird things happen when
> castration
> > gets metaphorized
> >
> > Dear Chris,
> >
> > Could you explain me: I have never read Freud or Laing, or Lacan etc.,
so
> > could you tell me, when they are talking castration, they are talking
like
> > about the mares and the stallions you said, people, for organization
> reasons,
> > actually cut (with scissors) the penis of the animal. I d appreciate
your
> > answer. Thanks,
> >
> > Cecile R.E.R.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
yes-yes where's the play-its a bit difficult to express(!) especially as i
have a slight political conflict going on within my (selves) about it. on
the one hand, i find readings of D that don't deal with the issue of
maternal disavowal impoverished-what i would want to assert-not as universal
truth but as fairly widespread sedimentation of a habitual false probelm is
that oedipal machines do fabricate psychic interiorities which b) are
predicated on verticality b)render a kind of maternal imperceptible,
fragmented scattered and so on. hence the startegic importance of
becoming-woman- so far -so ordinary-i think breaking through these kinds of
local habit structure does, initially, entail the kinds of encounter you
describe in so far as a retrograde regressive kind of mnemomnic mapping
needs to be opened out for most of already triangulated-i don't think it is
feasible-or at least i find it politically stupid- to suggest this kind of
operation without consideration of the kinds of maternal disavowals which
bind the machine. i.e there is nothing more aggravating than 'profound
commentary ' on becoming-minor, molecular et al which is not willing to
first engage with the discomfort of becoming-woman ( as difficult for women
as men i would stress) it would be wrong to assume that everyone has been
triangulated, yet it is also foolish not to account startegically for a
majoritarian praxis most often named 'daddy'.
in this sense Araidne's substantial ears serve a valuable but limited
purpose in insisting that women's composites become visible or
re-subjectivised. as a sonorous set of affects its quite easy to work 's an
account of pre-embryonic noise, gesture etc into D's alimentary pre-oedipal
readings. yet to stay with natality as molar sign also means an acceptance
of a paranoic, nostalgic and despotic kind of temporality as trade off for
poltical recognition. for Irigaray, especially, death is simply a falling
away of angelic flesh yet her time for love between does not really do much
than slightly extend the serial monotony of the 'nuclear family' getting to
some kind of way of thinking about 'daughters of the future'-(see thirteenth
series LOS) is very much a question of being able to leave this first
immemorial home-not achieved through denial so some point in re-membering
the maternal to leave as well transvaluing its mnemonomic. the idea of
thinking about substance re the incorporeal time of the Aion is absurd-so,
arguably, room for some adjustment of Irigaray's immanent femnine divine. by
definition the singularities of birth must be included in the dice throw
that affirms all throws- yet castration effects, false problem as they
are-seem to need a separate kind of treatment.
cutting out Ariadne's ears is my way of alluding to the
de-substantialisation of new maternal idols without ignoring the way
natality has been devalued historically.
ciao
Ruth.C
>>> ja'far railton <railton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 07/22 8:30 pm >>>
Hi Ruth
sounds alluring...I'm all ears...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruth Chandler" <R.Chandler@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 21. July. 2000 03:02
Subject: Re: "speaking as if castration doesn't exist!"
> hi Ja'far
> might it be worth considering an account expereienced and active in
memory
> ( a second immemorial) that overlays the first immemorial of carnal birth?
> not a simple disavowal but an active re-membering and dissipation of
> Ariadnes ears? how else can a radical fissure occur between the time of
> retrogression and the compulsion to repeat and a future active
understanding
> of the event?
> Ruth.C
>
> >>> Ja'far Railton <jrailton@xxxxxxxxxx> 07/20 12:57 pm >>>
> S'il vroummmm plait:
>
> Castration: (could be) the event, experienced (in memory) as the (more or
> less violent) dismemberment which inaugurates forced entry into the
symbolic
> realm of order-words, where the thing is absent and therefore brutally
> represented, the body of flying signifiers marking out the space of the
now
> fragmented body; the loss of an imagined or imaginary plenitude (for which
> one must atone); a rupture, severing the fusional connection to the full
> body of the mother -- which is itself an extension of the partial object
> (breast) and is also, incidentally, projected onto the father; OR, the
> dissolution of the infant-mother BwO [?].
>
> ...and then the father gets the blame as he was seen acting suspiciously
at
> the scene of the crime...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "vroummmm" <vroummmm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 19 July 2000 15:39
> Subject: RE: "speaking as if castration doesn't exist!"
>
>
> > Anyway, I just want to suggest that some weird things happen when
> castration
> > gets metaphorized
> >
> > Dear Chris,
> >
> > Could you explain me: I have never read Freud or Laing, or Lacan etc.,
so
> > could you tell me, when they are talking castration, they are talking
like
> > about the mares and the stallions you said, people, for organization
> reasons,
> > actually cut (with scissors) the penis of the animal. I d appreciate
your
> > answer. Thanks,
> >
> > Cecile R.E.R.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>