in response to this:
>
>in response to Karen:
>as you might be aware, i am the one who has been pushing that D&G reject
>communication (common sense kind of came on its coattails i guess, i don't
>know, it popped in their, but i don't know who popped it in). Although
>D&G do not ever come right out and say that language is not communicational,
>they do emphasize that the function of language is not to communicate, but
>rather to move bodies. ON pp. 78-9 of ATP, D&G wriet that information
wasn't actually aware of your pushing the non-communicational idea,
as haven't been reading posts carefully in the past 6 wks or so.
>and communication are basically misnomers because laguahge operates
>by means of the order-word and pass-word. the order-word is effectuated
>by a redundancy and the pass-word names the flight. order-words and
>pass-words are the contractions and dialations of llanguage.
>common sense is also heavily critiqued by Deleuze in DIFFERENCE & REPETITION
>and THE LOGIC OF SENSE, and i'm sure he does so elsewhere as well.
was aware of the critique of common sense, and wariness of signifying
regimes of signs, and of the order-word, all language going from a
second person to a third person or sth? all language being hearsay,
always going from a hearer to a hearer, never from a seer to a hearer,
not like in the buzzes of bees, it's coming back ...
>D&G's pragmatics, built around content and expression, relates sign
>systems and language to force. communication may not be expressly
>rejected (although ideology is) but it is nonetheless made into a
>non-factor with regard to the functioning of regimes of signs. Brian
>Massumi (the translator of ATP) has written a book, A USER'S GUIDE TO
>CAPITALISM AND SCHIZOPHRENIA in which he singles out the communication
>question as an important one. He writes that D&G 'reject' communication
>and that their semiotic concepts (along with Foucault's) are quite
>different from other 'poststructuralist' thnkers, who massumi
>writes 'stand in the shadow of Saussure', or something like that.
>Doesn't Massumi teach at McGill?
Massumi taught at McGill, in CompLit, and then in the Communications
Dept. !! , but is now on sabbatical in Brisbane, Australia. But may be
returning to McGill to teach 1/2 time. I know Force, Habit, &
Monstrosity, but not as well as all that, having speedread them out
of order maybe two years ago. Brian was unhappy in Communications!
and is much happier as an avant-gardener, and prospective newt and
tree-frog husbander.
>D&G do not afford communication any place whatsoever when dealing with
>sign systems. in fact, they see it as form of negative deterritoralization.
>positive deterritorialization is postsignigying (without communication).
>
i'm not altogether sure postsignifying and without communication
are the same. The regimes of signs business is a tricky one. Regimes
are tricky, even in AO. There's the business of formation and
function with respect to desiring machines, and how it's desirable
for (I can't be bothered looking up quotes) for desire to take on a
form and function in the same regime...desiring-production and
social production being one, but there are times when the formation
happens in one regime, and the functioning in another. O bother!
In any case, what I'm interested in is the real. REal-desire,
and desire materializing reality. Looking at materialisms.
Yes, I can see how there's not much communication in the way a
blade meets wood. And yet, and yet, must look at that again.
Unless you can speak of a communication of force but there's
no mediation, nothing doing the communication, it's a meeting of
forces (phylogenetic forces?), where expression overpowers content,
to give rise to a new expression, the carved wood?
What continues to puzzle me sometimes, perhaps it's a question of
translation, but context usually clears up my puzzlement anyway,
is the way expression, expressing is valued sometimes and some-
times devalued in favour of production. In AO production is
everything (and sexuality everywhere), whereas in ATP expression,
matters of expression, etc play a big role, and production has
all but evaporated.
Tha's all/ ------karen
------------------
>
>in response to Karen:
>as you might be aware, i am the one who has been pushing that D&G reject
>communication (common sense kind of came on its coattails i guess, i don't
>know, it popped in their, but i don't know who popped it in). Although
>D&G do not ever come right out and say that language is not communicational,
>they do emphasize that the function of language is not to communicate, but
>rather to move bodies. ON pp. 78-9 of ATP, D&G wriet that information
wasn't actually aware of your pushing the non-communicational idea,
as haven't been reading posts carefully in the past 6 wks or so.
>and communication are basically misnomers because laguahge operates
>by means of the order-word and pass-word. the order-word is effectuated
>by a redundancy and the pass-word names the flight. order-words and
>pass-words are the contractions and dialations of llanguage.
>common sense is also heavily critiqued by Deleuze in DIFFERENCE & REPETITION
>and THE LOGIC OF SENSE, and i'm sure he does so elsewhere as well.
was aware of the critique of common sense, and wariness of signifying
regimes of signs, and of the order-word, all language going from a
second person to a third person or sth? all language being hearsay,
always going from a hearer to a hearer, never from a seer to a hearer,
not like in the buzzes of bees, it's coming back ...
>D&G's pragmatics, built around content and expression, relates sign
>systems and language to force. communication may not be expressly
>rejected (although ideology is) but it is nonetheless made into a
>non-factor with regard to the functioning of regimes of signs. Brian
>Massumi (the translator of ATP) has written a book, A USER'S GUIDE TO
>CAPITALISM AND SCHIZOPHRENIA in which he singles out the communication
>question as an important one. He writes that D&G 'reject' communication
>and that their semiotic concepts (along with Foucault's) are quite
>different from other 'poststructuralist' thnkers, who massumi
>writes 'stand in the shadow of Saussure', or something like that.
>Doesn't Massumi teach at McGill?
Massumi taught at McGill, in CompLit, and then in the Communications
Dept. !! , but is now on sabbatical in Brisbane, Australia. But may be
returning to McGill to teach 1/2 time. I know Force, Habit, &
Monstrosity, but not as well as all that, having speedread them out
of order maybe two years ago. Brian was unhappy in Communications!
and is much happier as an avant-gardener, and prospective newt and
tree-frog husbander.
>D&G do not afford communication any place whatsoever when dealing with
>sign systems. in fact, they see it as form of negative deterritoralization.
>positive deterritorialization is postsignigying (without communication).
>
i'm not altogether sure postsignifying and without communication
are the same. The regimes of signs business is a tricky one. Regimes
are tricky, even in AO. There's the business of formation and
function with respect to desiring machines, and how it's desirable
for (I can't be bothered looking up quotes) for desire to take on a
form and function in the same regime...desiring-production and
social production being one, but there are times when the formation
happens in one regime, and the functioning in another. O bother!
In any case, what I'm interested in is the real. REal-desire,
and desire materializing reality. Looking at materialisms.
Yes, I can see how there's not much communication in the way a
blade meets wood. And yet, and yet, must look at that again.
Unless you can speak of a communication of force but there's
no mediation, nothing doing the communication, it's a meeting of
forces (phylogenetic forces?), where expression overpowers content,
to give rise to a new expression, the carved wood?
What continues to puzzle me sometimes, perhaps it's a question of
translation, but context usually clears up my puzzlement anyway,
is the way expression, expressing is valued sometimes and some-
times devalued in favour of production. In AO production is
everything (and sexuality everywhere), whereas in ATP expression,
matters of expression, etc play a big role, and production has
all but evaporated.
Tha's all/ ------karen
------------------