thanks erik for another great outpouring of words & feeling. are d&g not
daughters of enthusiasm? they seem, in any case, to demand a certain
enthusiasm in order to be understood. i guess that's what you meant by saying
> Just don't read it like "theory" or "philosophy," with the attitude of
> suspicious critique at the forefront.
if i demur here it's only because i believe suspicious enthusiasm is
possible, is perhaps what d&g call into being *as* "theory" and
"philosophy"
we live in a world where every burble of a baby, where every fart & every
striation in the earth, meaningless twitch of the mentally ill, cough of
the president, where the order of songs in a band's set, collage of objects
in a pile of animal shit, where every sound & sensible object, invisible as
a wave of light or monumental as a cascade of stones, can be read, is text.
& this has nothing to do with the so-called postmodern condition. it's as
ancient as divination by birds.
what d&g reinvent as their own, their gift--a gift bestowed on the reader--
is thus precisely the ability & willingness to read, their willingness &
ability to read in every mode & according to every logic available, including
those of traditional philosophy. isn't this the source of *their* enthusiasm?
we're brought up to read as technicians, as poets, as consumers, if we're
curious we learn along the way to read as dogs & cats. some few of us can
also read as other, more exotic animals, and as other kinds of humans do.
(& i would note, or perhaps suggest, that the appeal of books like *iron
john* and of movies like *dances with wolves* is not so different than that
of *a thousand plateau*. the desire to become ourselves by becoming
something else, to perceive the world according to a new logic, a new
system of meaning.)
myself am not that gifted a reader. i can respond to the book as a child
might, as a cretin would, as an angry parent, i can read *thousand
plateau* as i read theory & as i read poetry. & though i would not insist
on these as the best or even most immediately accessible modes of reading,
i *would* defend them as useful ones, as deserving of their say.
not to defend school or skull as the necessary sites of discovery...just to
say that they *are* sites, turf to explore, perhaps even to mark, to piss on,
to defend...
by the way, thinking of that classmate of yours who attacked d&g for being
> Orientalist
maybe he wasn't wrong. because if i had to name d&g's spiritual ancestors i
would have to include herman hesse, & i would fit anti-o & thou plateau
within as well as without the great & problematic tradition of german
orientalism. isn't it richard wilhelm as much as king wen to whom we
(americans) owe the i ching? the scoffing of your classmate aside, it's
worth asking precisely how d&g escape the limitations of their many
antecedents.
just some thoughts.
GOOFUS "we choose no kin
but adopted strangers"
V080L3NP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --jane's addiction
------------------
daughters of enthusiasm? they seem, in any case, to demand a certain
enthusiasm in order to be understood. i guess that's what you meant by saying
> Just don't read it like "theory" or "philosophy," with the attitude of
> suspicious critique at the forefront.
if i demur here it's only because i believe suspicious enthusiasm is
possible, is perhaps what d&g call into being *as* "theory" and
"philosophy"
we live in a world where every burble of a baby, where every fart & every
striation in the earth, meaningless twitch of the mentally ill, cough of
the president, where the order of songs in a band's set, collage of objects
in a pile of animal shit, where every sound & sensible object, invisible as
a wave of light or monumental as a cascade of stones, can be read, is text.
& this has nothing to do with the so-called postmodern condition. it's as
ancient as divination by birds.
what d&g reinvent as their own, their gift--a gift bestowed on the reader--
is thus precisely the ability & willingness to read, their willingness &
ability to read in every mode & according to every logic available, including
those of traditional philosophy. isn't this the source of *their* enthusiasm?
we're brought up to read as technicians, as poets, as consumers, if we're
curious we learn along the way to read as dogs & cats. some few of us can
also read as other, more exotic animals, and as other kinds of humans do.
(& i would note, or perhaps suggest, that the appeal of books like *iron
john* and of movies like *dances with wolves* is not so different than that
of *a thousand plateau*. the desire to become ourselves by becoming
something else, to perceive the world according to a new logic, a new
system of meaning.)
myself am not that gifted a reader. i can respond to the book as a child
might, as a cretin would, as an angry parent, i can read *thousand
plateau* as i read theory & as i read poetry. & though i would not insist
on these as the best or even most immediately accessible modes of reading,
i *would* defend them as useful ones, as deserving of their say.
not to defend school or skull as the necessary sites of discovery...just to
say that they *are* sites, turf to explore, perhaps even to mark, to piss on,
to defend...
by the way, thinking of that classmate of yours who attacked d&g for being
> Orientalist
maybe he wasn't wrong. because if i had to name d&g's spiritual ancestors i
would have to include herman hesse, & i would fit anti-o & thou plateau
within as well as without the great & problematic tradition of german
orientalism. isn't it richard wilhelm as much as king wen to whom we
(americans) owe the i ching? the scoffing of your classmate aside, it's
worth asking precisely how d&g escape the limitations of their many
antecedents.
just some thoughts.
GOOFUS "we choose no kin
but adopted strangers"
V080L3NP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --jane's addiction
------------------