Jon...
Here's an exchange between Alan R. and myself to get things started on either
or both lists...
If you think it worthwhile, please feel free to respond to whatever you find
provocative and edit my few remarks into your response and post away on
list(s)...(I wasn't sure if this was worthy on my own to see list light). I
don't think Alan will mind, and if he does I'll just tell him it was my idea
and that he shouldn't be that way about us.... :)
The first quote is from my most recent post...
______________
JO> Are deconstruction, grammatology, dissemination or the operations of
hymens,
JO> spurs, cinders, parerga, etc... acts of deterritorialization?
AR> Doesn't seem to use D&G's language. Wouldn't these be "states or
AR> modes of the abstract machine" coexisting in "the machinic
AR> assemblage"? (145) If so, they would have two vectors (which, IMHO,
AR> line up quite nicely with JD's two interpretations of
AR> interpretation): one which is oriented toward the strata (relative
AR> deterritorialization, or play), and an other which is oriented
AR> toward the plane of consistency (the conjugation of processes of
AR> deterritorialization, or origin search[...])
My most recent response to AR:
I think we're both right in the case of the vocabulary -- yes, of course the
machinic assemblages metaphors are appropriate in the case of anyone so
written by and through the tradition as JD and the operation is, as you point
out, always doubled (re: the reterritorializing machinery of the various
institutions -- though I'm not sure this can be read as a new search for
"origins" (here we go again) -- and the conjugation of processes). But, for
instance, would *Freud's Legacy* be a schizoreading to the point that it can
be said to deterritorialize the *fort/da* of Beyond the PP? (I think so.)
I'm even more curious as to whether others read JD as minor lit. (This is
the concept that drives their book *Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature*) If
we can find some way to account for D&G's notions of "individual" and
"collective assemblage" as written into the idea of signature -- and given
JD's remarks on Nietzsche's signature and its completion by those who read
it, who hear it in the ear of the other, I think it might be possible -- then
we can argue that JD's writing, like Kafka's (despite the Oedipalization of
FK at the hands of critics or the Romanticization of the author as
private/epistolary sufferer) carries a constant political immediacy not in
the sense of "JD has written this, this, or this about politics" but in the
sense that his language, as it resonates from the (Algerian, Jewish, even
"Literary" margins of French philosophy and educational narratives),
constitutes a complex series of deterritorializing gestures.
Jon,
This might at least be a place to start in order to get then to the
differences that you points out and that I think are also in D&G -- although
I suspect D&G of relying on a slightly formalist reading of JD's work --
after all, what could be more schizo than what Genet does to Hegel in Glas?
Anyway, that's a couple of thoughts for an early Saturday morning.
--John
------------------
Here's an exchange between Alan R. and myself to get things started on either
or both lists...
If you think it worthwhile, please feel free to respond to whatever you find
provocative and edit my few remarks into your response and post away on
list(s)...(I wasn't sure if this was worthy on my own to see list light). I
don't think Alan will mind, and if he does I'll just tell him it was my idea
and that he shouldn't be that way about us.... :)
The first quote is from my most recent post...
______________
JO> Are deconstruction, grammatology, dissemination or the operations of
hymens,
JO> spurs, cinders, parerga, etc... acts of deterritorialization?
AR> Doesn't seem to use D&G's language. Wouldn't these be "states or
AR> modes of the abstract machine" coexisting in "the machinic
AR> assemblage"? (145) If so, they would have two vectors (which, IMHO,
AR> line up quite nicely with JD's two interpretations of
AR> interpretation): one which is oriented toward the strata (relative
AR> deterritorialization, or play), and an other which is oriented
AR> toward the plane of consistency (the conjugation of processes of
AR> deterritorialization, or origin search[...])
My most recent response to AR:
I think we're both right in the case of the vocabulary -- yes, of course the
machinic assemblages metaphors are appropriate in the case of anyone so
written by and through the tradition as JD and the operation is, as you point
out, always doubled (re: the reterritorializing machinery of the various
institutions -- though I'm not sure this can be read as a new search for
"origins" (here we go again) -- and the conjugation of processes). But, for
instance, would *Freud's Legacy* be a schizoreading to the point that it can
be said to deterritorialize the *fort/da* of Beyond the PP? (I think so.)
I'm even more curious as to whether others read JD as minor lit. (This is
the concept that drives their book *Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature*) If
we can find some way to account for D&G's notions of "individual" and
"collective assemblage" as written into the idea of signature -- and given
JD's remarks on Nietzsche's signature and its completion by those who read
it, who hear it in the ear of the other, I think it might be possible -- then
we can argue that JD's writing, like Kafka's (despite the Oedipalization of
FK at the hands of critics or the Romanticization of the author as
private/epistolary sufferer) carries a constant political immediacy not in
the sense of "JD has written this, this, or this about politics" but in the
sense that his language, as it resonates from the (Algerian, Jewish, even
"Literary" margins of French philosophy and educational narratives),
constitutes a complex series of deterritorializing gestures.
Jon,
This might at least be a place to start in order to get then to the
differences that you points out and that I think are also in D&G -- although
I suspect D&G of relying on a slightly formalist reading of JD's work --
after all, what could be more schizo than what Genet does to Hegel in Glas?
Anyway, that's a couple of thoughts for an early Saturday morning.
--John
------------------