John Appleby wrote:
>
> Yes I'd like to hear what they as well. The only people I know who have
> read the book have done so because they were already into D&G.
>
i will report when ny non-d&g familiar friend has finished. they said
they're enjoying it so far...
> > I don't know exactly what you mean by "the tradition" here -
> philosophy? why shouldn't it be more rootless??
>
> I mean D&G's (or more particularly Deleuze's) engagement with, and
> reworking of, previous philosophers and their works. Philosphy per se can
> be as rootless as you like, but one level of engagement with D&G (and I am
> not going to prioritize it) is to situate it in relation to the texts
> which they discuss.
i guess. but that kind of engagement would have made it a very
different kind of book...
> > i'd really appreciate it if you'd elabourate on what you mean by this...
> > as i suspect this is what i'd see as a "normal" reading!! how does this
> > take differ to, say , your own reading?
>
> Okay, three points:
>
> I would see a 'normal' reading of D&G as prioritizing Deleuze's
> contribution over that of Guattari and then sanitizing _Capitalism and
> Schizophrenia_ by recuperating it into a supposed post-structuralist or
> postmodernist tradition (take your pick). Additionally, C&S then becomes
> seen as some sort of aberation from the more 'academic' works which
> Deleuze produced himself (notably _Difference and Repetition_). I'm sure
> that you are familiar with this sort of stuff from the secondary
> literature.
i try and avoid most secondary literature for exactly the reasons you've
just outlined! and, yeah, that dropping guattari thing is all to
common, and very limiting. ATP by deleuze... yeah right!
interestingly, when you read guattari on his own, so much of the stuff
that nick emphasised is coming from him... the more activist, radical
machine stuff... a lot of the writing in that guattari reader is not
really different from ATP... ( having said that, though, neither is a
lot of deleuze stuff, so go figure - maybe we should called "it" dogon
after all...!!)
> This would be followed by the other common use of D&G, which is as a
> source of buzz-words to augment a frankly vacuous dialogue which is
> usually connected to very poorly thought out notions of supposed
> post-human or technical evolution which, whilst they 'talk the talk',
> actually owe more to Kant than anything else. Some of this would manifest
> itself as a sci-fi take on D&G, although it has little to do with what
> they are actually saying.
>
> The third use would be one that blends D&G's monstrous application of the
> tradition, and their own concepts to something further which would be
> either concrete or speculative. I think that this is what you believe to
> be the 'normal' reading, but it rarer than you imagine. It would be the
> one that I subscribe to, although we might well differ in applications.
yeah, i like the sound of that! seriously, i think you're spot on here.
this is a really helpful bit of mapping. it's partly difficult for me
to seperate out these perspectives because i'm pretty vague on derrida,
kant, and even - to a lesser extent - baudrillard; and partly because i
don't really like secondary sources, so i don't really know a
non-warwick approach (if i can get away with calling it that) very well.
i prefer to read what d&g wrote, then what they read, rather than read
about them. although i probably should read some of the secondary
stuff! - it's just a habit i picked up during my degree, as a result of
looking at the secondary stuff and thinking (usually) that it was all
crap...
i think possibly we necessarily differ in applications..?!!
> > i got a mail from jim flint the other day regarding this thread - to
> > quote him :
> >
> > "[the end of Habitus is] not supposed to be some kind of crude
> > illustration of a
> > rhizome - it hadn't even occured to me that it could be read that way. I
> > tried to incorporate 'rhizomatic structures' into the architecture of
> > the
> > book, not to try and provide more or less artless metaphors. "
>
> Thanks for sharing this. So what the hell is going on at the end of the
> book?
i don't know if i can answer that... jim ??
> As for Nick's reading of D&G, I too would be interested to hear what other
> people think, but I have gone on too long already (I don't like lengthy
> e-mails). I think that he is one of the most interesting commentators out
> there. I'm not sure what this ambiguity which you detected consists of,
> but I will say that I have no intention of following him down his
> Artaudian line of death...
"libidinal, materialist, and a little bit morbid..." !!!! yeah... i know
what you mean.
dan h.
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.
>
> Yes I'd like to hear what they as well. The only people I know who have
> read the book have done so because they were already into D&G.
>
i will report when ny non-d&g familiar friend has finished. they said
they're enjoying it so far...
> > I don't know exactly what you mean by "the tradition" here -
> philosophy? why shouldn't it be more rootless??
>
> I mean D&G's (or more particularly Deleuze's) engagement with, and
> reworking of, previous philosophers and their works. Philosphy per se can
> be as rootless as you like, but one level of engagement with D&G (and I am
> not going to prioritize it) is to situate it in relation to the texts
> which they discuss.
i guess. but that kind of engagement would have made it a very
different kind of book...
> > i'd really appreciate it if you'd elabourate on what you mean by this...
> > as i suspect this is what i'd see as a "normal" reading!! how does this
> > take differ to, say , your own reading?
>
> Okay, three points:
>
> I would see a 'normal' reading of D&G as prioritizing Deleuze's
> contribution over that of Guattari and then sanitizing _Capitalism and
> Schizophrenia_ by recuperating it into a supposed post-structuralist or
> postmodernist tradition (take your pick). Additionally, C&S then becomes
> seen as some sort of aberation from the more 'academic' works which
> Deleuze produced himself (notably _Difference and Repetition_). I'm sure
> that you are familiar with this sort of stuff from the secondary
> literature.
i try and avoid most secondary literature for exactly the reasons you've
just outlined! and, yeah, that dropping guattari thing is all to
common, and very limiting. ATP by deleuze... yeah right!
interestingly, when you read guattari on his own, so much of the stuff
that nick emphasised is coming from him... the more activist, radical
machine stuff... a lot of the writing in that guattari reader is not
really different from ATP... ( having said that, though, neither is a
lot of deleuze stuff, so go figure - maybe we should called "it" dogon
after all...!!)
> This would be followed by the other common use of D&G, which is as a
> source of buzz-words to augment a frankly vacuous dialogue which is
> usually connected to very poorly thought out notions of supposed
> post-human or technical evolution which, whilst they 'talk the talk',
> actually owe more to Kant than anything else. Some of this would manifest
> itself as a sci-fi take on D&G, although it has little to do with what
> they are actually saying.
>
> The third use would be one that blends D&G's monstrous application of the
> tradition, and their own concepts to something further which would be
> either concrete or speculative. I think that this is what you believe to
> be the 'normal' reading, but it rarer than you imagine. It would be the
> one that I subscribe to, although we might well differ in applications.
yeah, i like the sound of that! seriously, i think you're spot on here.
this is a really helpful bit of mapping. it's partly difficult for me
to seperate out these perspectives because i'm pretty vague on derrida,
kant, and even - to a lesser extent - baudrillard; and partly because i
don't really like secondary sources, so i don't really know a
non-warwick approach (if i can get away with calling it that) very well.
i prefer to read what d&g wrote, then what they read, rather than read
about them. although i probably should read some of the secondary
stuff! - it's just a habit i picked up during my degree, as a result of
looking at the secondary stuff and thinking (usually) that it was all
crap...
i think possibly we necessarily differ in applications..?!!
> > i got a mail from jim flint the other day regarding this thread - to
> > quote him :
> >
> > "[the end of Habitus is] not supposed to be some kind of crude
> > illustration of a
> > rhizome - it hadn't even occured to me that it could be read that way. I
> > tried to incorporate 'rhizomatic structures' into the architecture of
> > the
> > book, not to try and provide more or less artless metaphors. "
>
> Thanks for sharing this. So what the hell is going on at the end of the
> book?
i don't know if i can answer that... jim ??
> As for Nick's reading of D&G, I too would be interested to hear what other
> people think, but I have gone on too long already (I don't like lengthy
> e-mails). I think that he is one of the most interesting commentators out
> there. I'm not sure what this ambiguity which you detected consists of,
> but I will say that I have no intention of following him down his
> Artaudian line of death...
"libidinal, materialist, and a little bit morbid..." !!!! yeah... i know
what you mean.
dan h.
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.