Douglas Edric wrote:
Reducing an event to a "conscious" effort to prove a point is totally to
miss the milieu. Deleuze could have chosen "consciously" or not but this is
of no importance to us. His gesture itself became consciousness, whatever
the subjective side had to say about it. What is important to us is that he
was there, falling and it had everything to do with what he was about.
Dear Douglas,
I was not singling out anyone in what you misinterpret as my criticism of
your account AS assigning consciousness to Deleuze's suicide. Though I know
from the outset that my query was not assuming to agree to speak as or
think as a Deleuzian, I was attempting to introduce something that might be
outside his theories, stemming from his own death, as a means to see how
that might be responded to (as other, as death in its absoluteness).
Melissa and Karen have opened up a very nice focus that I now they seem to
be in some agreement regarding subjectivity. Your response is different
however. I wasn't reducing anything, I was introducing the specificity of
Deleuze's death act as something unthought not as a conscious choice. Even
outside of the Deleuzian specificity of one singular issue, in a milieu
shoving against the next: sliding out of the bed. move across the floor.
edge to the window. place one's body through its frame. plumment. ....
If we can discuss the subjectivity of this series and perhaps speculate
that the first few up to that moment when there is no return to life in his
actions, over the edge, were of the desire of an animal and not a thinking
subject, person, philosopher or otherwise, but a desiring body to end
suffering. The cat going off into the corner. But my problem is in trying
to make the distinction that even though it is easy to say this event had
everything to do with what he was about, "sorry but that makes it more of a
conscious act," that is might have been some other kind of very base
reflex. Like a body going into shock. I guess my point is that yes, you are
on the side of life, "what does it mean to us, the living," I see that as a
colonization of life and a refusal of the utter nothingness of death FOR US
the living.
Douglas, who is this "for us" that you speak of? Why is it privileged in
your reading of Deleuze and his suicide? I am not after the affirmation of
life that you joyously celebrate, but I am after the inadequacy of theory,
and that...is Deleuzian.
thanks for your response..
stephen perrella
------------------
Reducing an event to a "conscious" effort to prove a point is totally to
miss the milieu. Deleuze could have chosen "consciously" or not but this is
of no importance to us. His gesture itself became consciousness, whatever
the subjective side had to say about it. What is important to us is that he
was there, falling and it had everything to do with what he was about.
Dear Douglas,
I was not singling out anyone in what you misinterpret as my criticism of
your account AS assigning consciousness to Deleuze's suicide. Though I know
from the outset that my query was not assuming to agree to speak as or
think as a Deleuzian, I was attempting to introduce something that might be
outside his theories, stemming from his own death, as a means to see how
that might be responded to (as other, as death in its absoluteness).
Melissa and Karen have opened up a very nice focus that I now they seem to
be in some agreement regarding subjectivity. Your response is different
however. I wasn't reducing anything, I was introducing the specificity of
Deleuze's death act as something unthought not as a conscious choice. Even
outside of the Deleuzian specificity of one singular issue, in a milieu
shoving against the next: sliding out of the bed. move across the floor.
edge to the window. place one's body through its frame. plumment. ....
If we can discuss the subjectivity of this series and perhaps speculate
that the first few up to that moment when there is no return to life in his
actions, over the edge, were of the desire of an animal and not a thinking
subject, person, philosopher or otherwise, but a desiring body to end
suffering. The cat going off into the corner. But my problem is in trying
to make the distinction that even though it is easy to say this event had
everything to do with what he was about, "sorry but that makes it more of a
conscious act," that is might have been some other kind of very base
reflex. Like a body going into shock. I guess my point is that yes, you are
on the side of life, "what does it mean to us, the living," I see that as a
colonization of life and a refusal of the utter nothingness of death FOR US
the living.
Douglas, who is this "for us" that you speak of? Why is it privileged in
your reading of Deleuze and his suicide? I am not after the affirmation of
life that you joyously celebrate, but I am after the inadequacy of theory,
and that...is Deleuzian.
thanks for your response..
stephen perrella
------------------