Hi Bobo
I think this is what i've been saying, the importance of becoming-woman
first, before even trying to talk 'profoundly' about all the other
becomings...or else, yes, very aggravating and noisy!
for N, 'noise' is precisely the place of 'women' as man stands deafened in
the surf of his own making-what nets to use for 'we' revengeful guppie
envelopes ? no matter- fish, as Robert Musil once remarked, are the great
middle classes of civilisation, so hope returns become woman- become fish
and free Alice's sieve for an ungendered world of chaos-which, of course,
does not strictly speaking exist.
anyhow back to sense
in Charle's Stivale's Twofold thought, the interview with Guattari makes the
position of BW (and its despotic risks) as strategic hinge really clear.
just as important to be able to let go of the relative and culturally
specific importance of this re-memberence as one aggregate of sonorous
affects. this it seems is where a lot of feminism(s) get kind of libidinally
stuck- a partial aggregate of qualities affects and so on becomes deified as
the end in itself of the praxis-there is a sense that having had a gutful of
imperceptibility already-one fights all the harder to hang on to defend
small territories gained but its a slave revolt all the same.
the biggest problem i find in the infant-mother thing is D's jeckell and
hyde as parnet says, the break between LoS and AO, D's psychoanalytic
commentary, you know? in AO the pre-oedipal stuff is all about machines and
such, rather simplistic compared to in LoS with the details about
destructive drives and all that. a preliminary difficulty would be working
out this gap before getting into becoming-W convos.
despite the change in vocab and a lot less sympoathy for Psychoanalysis (
and a certain mysterious mammosection)i don't think there is as much
disparity between LOS and AO as has been put forward-a lot of key ideas in
AO machines just would not hold without concepts developed in LOS and, as
the Difficulty of Deleuze post suggest are perhaps more active as work
already assumed- there does seems to be a much greater schism between ATP
(mind you i don't pretend to have grasped all of LOS-just a case of
conceptual indigestion around some fragments--dream- re-arrange all the bits
long enough and the complete works of Beckett might miraculate anyway.)
anyhow, to connect to your point- i think it is worth keeping hold of an
idea of becoming-woman as a kind of relative invisible re the way
majoritarian grammar enforces and distributes certain molar erogenous zones
but this is not the same as saying that becoming woman is the substratum of
all becomings-otherwise there would be no becoming molecular, imperceptible
and so on-in short becoming would have been given, as it too often is, a
feminine predicate. one of the great achievemnets of LOS is to
simultaneously account for the sonorous terrors of grammar and their limits
of sense and to posit becoming as non-linguistic.
but i think, for one thing, becoming-W is a very common becoming (love);
even the most phallic love has a becoming-woman 'beneath' the molarity.
love is a kind of tricky one! how many loves could there be that might pass
through becoming- woman and not become Woman- would there be a point, do you
think. that the idea of becoming woman might ( hopefully) exhaust itself
-all one really needs is a line of flight from the molar aggregate and it is
not inconceivable that molar aggregates might not always posit themselves in
such dialectical terms
also important, the faciality of the whole thing, D&G say that the mirror
stage should be read while keeping the faciality machine in mind. the gaze
as a partial object transformed into...what?
in Lacan the mirror stage is the mechanism by which 'face' the gaze,
especially gets on top, as it were- 'basically, an ideal topography of unity
is posited which is disparate to the infants actual condition as
unco-ordinated bag of shit! thus a temporal set of co-ordinates is laid
down ( allegedly-the first phenomenological map between what the infant is
but has no grammatical structure to convey and what s/he will become which
is equally unrealisable. these are, allegedly, the fundamental structures
of nostalgia and utopian promise- kind of discursive carrot theory
'mama' tends in Lacanian theory to either be the surface of the mirror-in
cultures where women are the primary caregivers then it is quite easy to
posit her face as first mirror (or white wall) which,in effect, renders this
first face faceless. hence the political dilemma for feminists concerned to
oppose further de-subjectivisation by making qualitative definitions here.
yours truly eleanor rigby
that's all i have to say for now
>>> I Am Bobo <boboii@xxxxxxxxxxx> 07/27 1:28 am >>>
hiya Ruth,
>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'.
I think this is what i've been saying, the importance of becoming-woman
first, before even trying to talk 'profoundly' about all the other
becomings...or else, yes, very aggravating and noisy!
the biggest problem i find in the infant-mother thing is D's jeckell and
hyde as parnet says, the break between LoS and AO, D's psychoanalytic
commentary, you know? in AO the pre-oedipal stuff is all about machines and
such, rather simplistic compared to in LoS with the details about
destructive drives and all that. a preliminary difficulty would be working
out this gap before getting into becoming-W convos.
but i think, for one thing, becoming-W is a very common becoming (love);
even the most phallic love has a becoming-woman 'beneath' the molarity.
also important, the faciality of the whole thing, D&G say that the mirror
stage should be read while keeping the faciality machine in mind. the gaze
as a partial object transformed into...what?
that's all i have to say for now
:) bobo
>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
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
I think this is what i've been saying, the importance of becoming-woman
first, before even trying to talk 'profoundly' about all the other
becomings...or else, yes, very aggravating and noisy!
for N, 'noise' is precisely the place of 'women' as man stands deafened in
the surf of his own making-what nets to use for 'we' revengeful guppie
envelopes ? no matter- fish, as Robert Musil once remarked, are the great
middle classes of civilisation, so hope returns become woman- become fish
and free Alice's sieve for an ungendered world of chaos-which, of course,
does not strictly speaking exist.
anyhow back to sense
in Charle's Stivale's Twofold thought, the interview with Guattari makes the
position of BW (and its despotic risks) as strategic hinge really clear.
just as important to be able to let go of the relative and culturally
specific importance of this re-memberence as one aggregate of sonorous
affects. this it seems is where a lot of feminism(s) get kind of libidinally
stuck- a partial aggregate of qualities affects and so on becomes deified as
the end in itself of the praxis-there is a sense that having had a gutful of
imperceptibility already-one fights all the harder to hang on to defend
small territories gained but its a slave revolt all the same.
the biggest problem i find in the infant-mother thing is D's jeckell and
hyde as parnet says, the break between LoS and AO, D's psychoanalytic
commentary, you know? in AO the pre-oedipal stuff is all about machines and
such, rather simplistic compared to in LoS with the details about
destructive drives and all that. a preliminary difficulty would be working
out this gap before getting into becoming-W convos.
despite the change in vocab and a lot less sympoathy for Psychoanalysis (
and a certain mysterious mammosection)i don't think there is as much
disparity between LOS and AO as has been put forward-a lot of key ideas in
AO machines just would not hold without concepts developed in LOS and, as
the Difficulty of Deleuze post suggest are perhaps more active as work
already assumed- there does seems to be a much greater schism between ATP
(mind you i don't pretend to have grasped all of LOS-just a case of
conceptual indigestion around some fragments--dream- re-arrange all the bits
long enough and the complete works of Beckett might miraculate anyway.)
anyhow, to connect to your point- i think it is worth keeping hold of an
idea of becoming-woman as a kind of relative invisible re the way
majoritarian grammar enforces and distributes certain molar erogenous zones
but this is not the same as saying that becoming woman is the substratum of
all becomings-otherwise there would be no becoming molecular, imperceptible
and so on-in short becoming would have been given, as it too often is, a
feminine predicate. one of the great achievemnets of LOS is to
simultaneously account for the sonorous terrors of grammar and their limits
of sense and to posit becoming as non-linguistic.
but i think, for one thing, becoming-W is a very common becoming (love);
even the most phallic love has a becoming-woman 'beneath' the molarity.
love is a kind of tricky one! how many loves could there be that might pass
through becoming- woman and not become Woman- would there be a point, do you
think. that the idea of becoming woman might ( hopefully) exhaust itself
-all one really needs is a line of flight from the molar aggregate and it is
not inconceivable that molar aggregates might not always posit themselves in
such dialectical terms
also important, the faciality of the whole thing, D&G say that the mirror
stage should be read while keeping the faciality machine in mind. the gaze
as a partial object transformed into...what?
in Lacan the mirror stage is the mechanism by which 'face' the gaze,
especially gets on top, as it were- 'basically, an ideal topography of unity
is posited which is disparate to the infants actual condition as
unco-ordinated bag of shit! thus a temporal set of co-ordinates is laid
down ( allegedly-the first phenomenological map between what the infant is
but has no grammatical structure to convey and what s/he will become which
is equally unrealisable. these are, allegedly, the fundamental structures
of nostalgia and utopian promise- kind of discursive carrot theory
'mama' tends in Lacanian theory to either be the surface of the mirror-in
cultures where women are the primary caregivers then it is quite easy to
posit her face as first mirror (or white wall) which,in effect, renders this
first face faceless. hence the political dilemma for feminists concerned to
oppose further de-subjectivisation by making qualitative definitions here.
yours truly eleanor rigby
that's all i have to say for now
>>> I Am Bobo <boboii@xxxxxxxxxxx> 07/27 1:28 am >>>
hiya Ruth,
>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'.
I think this is what i've been saying, the importance of becoming-woman
first, before even trying to talk 'profoundly' about all the other
becomings...or else, yes, very aggravating and noisy!
the biggest problem i find in the infant-mother thing is D's jeckell and
hyde as parnet says, the break between LoS and AO, D's psychoanalytic
commentary, you know? in AO the pre-oedipal stuff is all about machines and
such, rather simplistic compared to in LoS with the details about
destructive drives and all that. a preliminary difficulty would be working
out this gap before getting into becoming-W convos.
but i think, for one thing, becoming-W is a very common becoming (love);
even the most phallic love has a becoming-woman 'beneath' the molarity.
also important, the faciality of the whole thing, D&G say that the mirror
stage should be read while keeping the faciality machine in mind. the gaze
as a partial object transformed into...what?
that's all i have to say for now
:) bobo
>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
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com