re: the following message:
>Do D&G oversimply and so idealize the permeability of "common sense" to
>the alterior? How can "we" know that common sense is "common" or "sensical" in
>a unified field, if there is undecidably or undecipherably no communication?
Perhaps I'm not the only one to be befuddled by this message. Let's
start with common sense, no quotes. Deleuze and Guattari don't put it
in quotes. My readings of AO and Diff&Rep are as a comparative liter-
ature student and not from the philosophical standpoint, so my
Kant is almost nonexistant, whereas my Aristotle is _Poetic_ rather
than Logical. But, however much I may have missed as a result of
lacking a background in analytic logic and other philosophical staples,`
I'm rather sure not to have misconstrued d&g's criticism of common
sense so entirely. M. M's post on ideology, and D*G's critique of
common sense (I forget the Latin, the Greek), in _Diff-Rep_ simply
triggered a memory trace, for which i've now got the reference:
"Better the delirium of common sense than its platitude." (_AO_, 292)
Deleuze and Guattari don't ever state that language, that writing don't
communicate. Writing is based on a code, on despotic signification.
"The death of writing is like the death of God or the death of the
father: the thing was settled a long time ago, although the news of
the event is slow to reach us, and there survives in us the memory of
extinct signs with which we still write...." (AO 240) The voice of
the despot, of the psychoanalyst, of the prime minister, the voice
that says listen to me, let your desires by my desire, I know best,
is that voice, that silences you as it speaks. The molar voice of
overcoding and ideology, of patronizing regimes. Regimes of
masters and slaves. But this is not the voice and not the regime
of capitalism. Or at least this is the overriding impression I've
garnered as i get to the end of _AO_, finally, yippee. For
capitalism is even more insidious that imperialism. "Capitalism is
profoundly illiterate." (ao ibid). No more masters, only slaves.
So what happens then? Now? If signification is archaic, despotic,
if you can't even say we, or common sense, without putting them in
quotes to make sure people know you're not being archaic and patro-
nizing or matronizing, what then? Do we just drop the silly quotes
and take it for granted that language is despotic and universa-
lizing and that it's a tool for the communication of common sense
or at least generalities and particularities, but that it will
never be a good vehicle for the singularities. Or do we put every-
thing in quotes to show that they don't really refer to anything
under the sway of capitalism and decoded deterritorialized flows?
Do we give up writing? Not yet. No. Let's be sparing with the quotes,
though, please!! It's like the I, the "I", we take it for granted
by now, I should think, that it's riven, fissured, split. No, I
spose one should take nothing for granted.
Writing belongs to the paranoid regime, it would seem. So, what's
a schizo to do, poor thing? there's the rub. Go catatonic? Not yet.
No.
"And if it is true that delirium is coextensive with the social
field, these two poles are found to coexist in eery case of delirium,
and fragments of schizoid revolutionary investment are found to
coincide with blocks of paranoiac reactionary investment. The osci-
llation between the two poles is a constitutent aspect of the
delirium.
It appears, however, that the oscillation is not equal,
and that as a rule the schizoid pole is potential in relation to the
actual paranoiac pole ...." (AO 376)
Something to ponder further,
Karen Ocana
Montreal
------------------
>Do D&G oversimply and so idealize the permeability of "common sense" to
>the alterior? How can "we" know that common sense is "common" or "sensical" in
>a unified field, if there is undecidably or undecipherably no communication?
Perhaps I'm not the only one to be befuddled by this message. Let's
start with common sense, no quotes. Deleuze and Guattari don't put it
in quotes. My readings of AO and Diff&Rep are as a comparative liter-
ature student and not from the philosophical standpoint, so my
Kant is almost nonexistant, whereas my Aristotle is _Poetic_ rather
than Logical. But, however much I may have missed as a result of
lacking a background in analytic logic and other philosophical staples,`
I'm rather sure not to have misconstrued d&g's criticism of common
sense so entirely. M. M's post on ideology, and D*G's critique of
common sense (I forget the Latin, the Greek), in _Diff-Rep_ simply
triggered a memory trace, for which i've now got the reference:
"Better the delirium of common sense than its platitude." (_AO_, 292)
Deleuze and Guattari don't ever state that language, that writing don't
communicate. Writing is based on a code, on despotic signification.
"The death of writing is like the death of God or the death of the
father: the thing was settled a long time ago, although the news of
the event is slow to reach us, and there survives in us the memory of
extinct signs with which we still write...." (AO 240) The voice of
the despot, of the psychoanalyst, of the prime minister, the voice
that says listen to me, let your desires by my desire, I know best,
is that voice, that silences you as it speaks. The molar voice of
overcoding and ideology, of patronizing regimes. Regimes of
masters and slaves. But this is not the voice and not the regime
of capitalism. Or at least this is the overriding impression I've
garnered as i get to the end of _AO_, finally, yippee. For
capitalism is even more insidious that imperialism. "Capitalism is
profoundly illiterate." (ao ibid). No more masters, only slaves.
So what happens then? Now? If signification is archaic, despotic,
if you can't even say we, or common sense, without putting them in
quotes to make sure people know you're not being archaic and patro-
nizing or matronizing, what then? Do we just drop the silly quotes
and take it for granted that language is despotic and universa-
lizing and that it's a tool for the communication of common sense
or at least generalities and particularities, but that it will
never be a good vehicle for the singularities. Or do we put every-
thing in quotes to show that they don't really refer to anything
under the sway of capitalism and decoded deterritorialized flows?
Do we give up writing? Not yet. No. Let's be sparing with the quotes,
though, please!! It's like the I, the "I", we take it for granted
by now, I should think, that it's riven, fissured, split. No, I
spose one should take nothing for granted.
Writing belongs to the paranoid regime, it would seem. So, what's
a schizo to do, poor thing? there's the rub. Go catatonic? Not yet.
No.
"And if it is true that delirium is coextensive with the social
field, these two poles are found to coexist in eery case of delirium,
and fragments of schizoid revolutionary investment are found to
coincide with blocks of paranoiac reactionary investment. The osci-
llation between the two poles is a constitutent aspect of the
delirium.
It appears, however, that the oscillation is not equal,
and that as a rule the schizoid pole is potential in relation to the
actual paranoiac pole ...." (AO 376)
Something to ponder further,
Karen Ocana
Montreal
------------------