un peu de bon sens deleuzien dans un monde de putes
nat.gatti
DELEUZE: 16/11/71 : Codes
Capitalism
Flows
The Decoding of Flows
Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Psychoanalysis
Translated by Rojan Josh
jdg...@is7.nyu.edu
What is it that moves over the body of a society? It is always flows, and a
person is always a cutting off [coupure] of a flow. A person is always a
point of departure for the production of a flow, a point of destination for
the reception of a flow, a flow of any kind; or, better yet, an interception
of many flows.
If a person has hair, this hair can move through many stages: the hairstyle
of a young girl is not the same as that of a married woman, it is not the
same as that of a widow: there is a whole hairstyle code. A person, insofar
as she styles her hair, typically presents herself as an interceptor in
relation to flows of hair that exceed her and exceed her case and these
flows of hair are themselves coded according to very different codes: widow
code, young girl code, married woman code, etc. This is ultimately the
essential problem of coding and of the territorialization which is always
coding flows with it, as a fundamental means of operation: marking persons
(because persons are situated at the interception and at the cutting off
[coupure] of flows, they exist at the points where flows are cut off
[coupure]).
But, now, more than marking persons--marking persons is the apparent means
of operation--coding has a deeper function, that is to say, a society is
only afraid of one thing: the deluge; it is not afraid of the void, it is
not afraid of dearth or scarcity. Over a society, over its social body,
something flows [coule] and we do not know what it is, something flows that
is not coded, and something which, in relation to this society, even appears
as the uncodable. Something which would flow and which would carry away this
society to a kind of deterritorialization which would make the earth upon
which it has set itself up dissolve: this, then, is the crisis. We encounter
something that crumbles and we do not know what it is, it responds to no
code, it flees underneath the codes; and this is even true, in this respect,
for capitalism, which for a long time believed it could always secure
simili-codes; this, then, is what we call the well-known power [puissance]
of recuperation within capitalism--when we say recuperate we mean: each time
something seems to escape capitalism, seems to pass beneath its
simili-codes; it reabsorbs all this, it adds one more axiom and the machine
starts up again; think of capitalism in the 19th century: it sees the
flowing of a pole of flow that is, literally, a flow, the flow of workers, a
proletariat flow: well, what is this which flows, which flows wickedly and
which carries away our earth, where are we headed? The thinkers of the 19th
century have a very strange response, notably the French historical school:
it was the first in the 19th century to have thought in terms of classes,
they are the ones who invent the theoretical notion of classes and invent it
precisely as an essential fragment of the capitalist code, namely: the
legitimacy of capitalism comes from this: the victory of the bourgeoisie as
a class opposed to the aristocracy.
The system that appears in the works of Saint Simon, A. Thierry, E. Quinet
is the radical seizure of consciousness by the bourgeoisie as a class and
they interpret all of history as a class struggle. It is not Marx who
invents the understanding of history as a class struggle, it is the
bourgeois historical school of the 19th century: 1789, yes, it is a class
struggle, they are struck blind when they see flowing, on the actual surface
of the social body, this weird flow that they do not recognize: the
proletariat flow. The idea that this is a class is not possible, it is not
one at this moment: the day when capitalism can no longer deny that the
proletariat is a class, this coincides with the moment when, in its head, it
found the moment to recode all this. That which we call the power
[puissance] of recuperation of capitalism, what is it?
[It consists] in having at its disposal a kind of axiomatic, and when it
sets upon [dispose de] some new thing which it does not recognize, as with
every axiomatic, it is an axiomatic with a limit that cannot be saturated:
it is always ready to add one more axiom to restore its functioning. When
capitalism can no longer deny that the proletariat is a class, when it comes
to recognize a type of class bipolarity, under the influence of workers'
struggles in the 19th century, and under the influence of the revolution,
this moment is extraordinarily ambiguous, for it is an important moment in
the revolutionary struggle, but it is also an essential moment in capitalist
recuperation: I make you one more axiom, I make you axioms for the working
class and for the union power [puissance] that represents them, and the
capitalist machine grinds its gears and starts up again, it has sealed the
breach. In other words, all the bodies of a society are essential: to
prevent the flowing over society, over its back, over its body, of flows
that it cannot code and to which it cannot assign a territoriality.
Need, scarcity, famine, a society can code these, what it cannot code, is
when this thing appears, when it says to itself: what is up with these guys?
So, in a first phase, the repressive apparatus puts itself into motion, if
we can't code it, we will try to annihilate it. In a second phase, we try to
find new axioms which allow it to be recoded for better or worse.
A social body is well defined as follows: there is perpetual trickery, flows
flow over from one pole to another, and they are perpetually coded, and
there are flows that escape from the codes and then there is the social
effort to recuperate all that, to axiomatize all this, to manipulate the
code a little, so as to make room for flows that are also dangerous: all of
a sudden, there are young people who do not respond to the code: they insist
on having a flow of hair which was not expected, what shall we do now? We
try to recode it, we will add an axiom, we will try to recuperate [it] but
then [if] there is something within it that continues not to let itself be
coded, what then?
In other words, this is the fundamental action of a society: to code the
flows and to treat as an enemy anyone who presents himself, in relation to
society, as an uncodable flow, because, once again, it challenges [met en
question] the entire earth, the whole body of this society.
I will say this of every society, except perhaps of our own--that is,
capitalism, even though just now I spoke of capitalism as if it coded all
the flows in the same way as all other societies and did not have any other
problems, but perhaps I was going too fast.
There is a fundamental paradox in capitalism as a social formation: if it is
true that the terror of all the other social formations was decoded flows,
capitalism, for its part, historically constituted itself on an unbelievable
thing: namely, that which was the terror of other societies: the existence
and the reality of decoded flows and these capitalism made its proper
concern. If this were true, it would explain that capitalism is, in a very
precise sense, the universal form of all societies: in a negative sense,
capitalism would be that which all societies dreaded above all, and we
cannot help but have the impression that, historically speaking,
capitalism...in a certain sense, is what every social formation constantly
tried to exorcise, what it constantly tried to avoid, why? Because it was
the ruin of every other social formation. And the paradox of capitalism is
that a social formation constituted itself on the basis of that which was
the negative of all the others. This means that capitalism was not able to
constitute itself except through a conjunction, an encounter between decoded
flows of all kinds. The thing which was dreaded most of all by every social
formation was the basis for a social formation that had to engulf all the
others: that what was the negative of all formations has become the very
positivity of ours, this makes one shudder. And in what sense was capitalism
constituted on the conjunction of decoded flows: it required extraordinary
encounters at the end of a process [processus] of decodings of every kind,
which were formed with the decline of feudalism. These decodings of all
kinds consisted in the decoding of land flows, under the form of the
constitution of large private properties, the decoding of monetary flows,
under the form of the development of merchant fortunes, the decoding of a
flow of workers under the form of expropriation, of the deterritorialization
of serfs and peasant landholders. And this is not enough, for if we take the
example of Rome, the decoding in decadent Rome, all this clearly happened:
the decoding of flows of property under the form of large private properties
, the decoding of monetary flows under the forms of large private fortunes,
the decoding of labourers with the formation of an urban sub-proletariat:
everything is found here, almost everything. The elements of capitalism are
found here all together, only there is no encounter. What was necessary for
the encounter to be made between the decoded flows of capital or of money
and the decoded flows of labourers, for the encounter to be made between the
flow of emergent capital and the flow of deterritorialized manpower,
literally, the flow of decoded money and the flow of deterritorialized
labourers. Indeed, the manner in which money is decoded so as to become
money capital and the manner in which the labourer is ripped from the earth
in order to become the owner of his/her labour power [force de travail]
alone: these are two processes totally independent from each other, there
must be an encounter between the two.
Indeed, for the process of the decoding of money to form capital that is
made all across the embryonic forms of commercial capital and banking
capital, the flow of labour, the free possessor of his/her labour power
alone, is made across a whole other line that is the deterritorialization of
the labourer at the end of feudalism, and this could very well not have been
encountered. A conjunction of decoded and deterritorialized flows, this is
at the basis of capitalism. Capitalism is constituted on the failure of all
the pre-existent codes and social territorialities.
If we admit this, what does this represent: the capitalist machine, it is
literally demented. A social machine that functions on the basis of decoded,
deterritorialized flows, once again, it is not that societies did not have
any idea of this; they had the idea in the form of panic, they acted to
prevent this--it was the overturning of all the social codes known up to
that point--; so, a society that constitutes itself on the negative of all
pre-existing societies, how can it function? A society for which it is
proper to decode and deterritorialize all the flows: flow of production,
flow of consumption, how can it function, under what form: perhaps
capitalism has other processes than coding to make it work, perhaps it is
completely different. What I have been seeking up until now was to reground,
at a certain level, the problem of the relation
CAPITALISM-SCHIZOPHRENIA--and the grounding of a relation is found in
something common between capitalism and the schizo: what they have totally
in common, and it is perhaps a community that is never realized, that does
not assume a concrete figure, it is a community of a principle that remains
abstract, namely, the one like the other does not cease to filter, to emit,
to intercept, to concentrate decoded and deterritorialized flows.
This is their profound identity and it is not at the level of a way of life
that capitalism renders us schizophrenic, it is at the level of the economic
process: all this only works through a system of conjunction, say the word
then, on condition of accepting that this word implies a veritable
difference in nature from codes. It is capitalism that functions like an
axiomatic, an axiomatic of decoded flows. All other social formations
functioned on the basis of a coding and of a territorialization of flows and
between a capitalist machine that makes an axiomatic of decoded flows such
as they are or deterritorialized flows, such as they are, and other social
formations, there is truly a difference in nature that makes capitalism the
negative of other societies. Now, the schizo, in his own way, with his own
tottering walk, he does the same thing. In a sense, he is more capitalist
than the capitalist, more `prole' than the `prole': he decodes, he
deterritorializes the flows and knots together a kind of identity in nature
of capitalism and the schizo.
Schizophrenia is the negative of the capitalist formation. In a sense,
schizophrenia goes further, capitalism functioned on a conjunction of
decoded flows, on one condition, that is, at the same time that it
perpetually decoded flows of money, flows of labour, etc., it incorporated
them, it constructed a new type of machine, at the same time, not
afterwards, that was not a coding machine, but an axiomatic machine.
It is in this way that it succeeds in making a coherent system, on condition
that we say what profoundly distinguishes an axiomatic of decoded flows and
a coding of flows.
Whereas the schizo, he does more, he does not let himself be axiomatized
either, he always goes further with the decoded flows, making do with no
flows at all, rather than letting himself be coded, no earth at all, rather
than letting himself be territorialized.
What is their relation to each other? It is from this point that the problem
arises. One must study more closely the relation capitalism / schizophrenia,
giving the greatest importance to this: is it true and in what sense can we
define capitalism as a machine that functions on the basis of decoded flows,
on the basis of deterritorialized flows? In what sense is it the negative of
all social formations and along the same lines, in what sense is
schizophrenia the negative of capitalism, that it goes even further in
decoding and in deterritorialization, and just where does it go, and where
does that take it? Towards a new earth, towards no earth at all, towards the
deluge?
If I try to link up with the problems of psychoanalysis, in what sense, in
what manner--this is strictly a beginning--, I assume that there is
something in common between capitalism, as a social structure, and
schizophrenia as a process. Something in common that makes it so that the
schizo is produced as the negative of capitalism (itself the negative of all
the rest), and that this relation, we can now comprehend it by considering
its terms: coding of flows, decoded and deterritorialized flows, axiomatic
of decoded flows, etc.
It remains to be seen what in the psychoanalytic and psychiatric problem
continues to preoccupy us. One must reread three texts of Marx: in book I:
the production of surplus value, the chapter on the tendential fall in the
last book, and finally, in the ?Grundrisse,? the chapter on automation.
Richard Zrehen: I did not understand what you said in regard to the analogy
between capitalism and schizophrenia, when you said capitalism is the
negative of other societies and the schizo is the negative of capitalism, I
would have understood that capitalism is to other societies what the schizo
is to capitalism, but, I would have thought, on the contrary, that you were
not going to make this opposition. I would have thought of the opposition:
capitalism / other societies and schizophrenia/ something else, instead of
an analogy in three terms, to make one in four terms.
Cyril: Richard means to say the opposition between: capitalism/ other
societies and schizophrenia and neuroses, for example.
Deleuze: Haaa, yes, yes, yes, yes. We are defining flows in political
economy, its importance with actual economists confirms what I have been
saying. For the moment, a flow is something, in a society, that flows from
one pole to another, and that passes through a person, only to the degree
that persons are interceptors.
Intervention of a guy with a strange accent
Deleuze: Let me take an example, you say that in a society one does not stop
decoding, I'm not sure: I believe that there are two things in a society,
one of which pertains to the principle by which a society comes to an end
[se termine], one of which pertains to the death of a society: all death, in
a certain manner, appears--this is the great principle of Thanatos--from
inside [dedans] and all death comes from outside [dehors]; I mean that there
is an internal menace in every society, this menace being represented by the
danger of flows decoding themselves, it makes sense. There is never a flow
first, and then a code that imposes itself upon it. The two are coexistent.
Which is the problem, if I again take up the studies, already quite old, of
Levi-Strauss on marriage: he tells us: the essential in a society is
circulation and exchange.
Marriage, alliance, is exchanging, and what is important is that it
circulates and that it exchanges. There is, then, a flow of women--raising
something to a coefficient flow seems to me to be a social operation, the
social operation of flows; at the level of society, there are no women,
there is a flow of women that refers to a code, a code of age-old things, of
clans, of tribes, but there is always flow of women, and then, in a second
moment, a code: the code and the flow are absolutely formed face to face
with one another. What is it the problem then, at the level of marriage, in
a so-called primitive society: it is that, in relation to flows of women, by
virtue of a code, there is something that must pass through. It involves
forming a sort of system, not at all like Levi-Strauss suggests, not at all
a logical combinatory [combinatoire], but a physical system with
territorialities: something enters, something exits, so here we clearly see
that, brought into relation with a physical system of marriage, women
present themselves in the form of a flow, of this flow, the social code
means this: in relation to such a flow, something of the flow must pass
through, i.e.: flow; something must not go through, and, thirdly--this will
make up the three fundamental terms of every code--something must effect the
passing through or, on the contrary, the blocking: for example, in
matrilineal systems, everyone knows the importance of the maternal [utérine]
uncle, why, in the flow of women, what passes through is the permitted or
even prescribed marriage. A schizo, in a society like that, he is not there,
literally, it belongs to us, over there, it is something else. There, it is
different: there is a very good case studied by P. Clastres; there is a guy
who does not know, he does not know whom he must marry, he attempts a voyage
of deterritorialization to see a faraway sorcerer. There is a great English
ethnologist named Leach whose whole thesis consists in saying: it never
works like Levi-Strauss says it does, he does not believe in Levi-Strauss'
system: no one knows who to marry; Leach makes a fundamental discovery, that
which he calls local groups and distinguishes from groups of filiation.
Local groups, these are the little groups that machine [machinent] marriages
and alliances and they do not deduce them from filiations: the alliance is a
kind of strategy that responds to political givens. A local group is
literally a group (perverse, specialists in coding) that determines, for
each caste, what can pass through, what can not pass through, that which
must be blocked, that which can flow. In a matrilineal system, what is
blocked? That which is blocked in all systems, that which falls under the
rules of the prohibition of incest. Here, something in the flow of women is
blocked; namely, certain persons are eliminated from the flow of
marriageable women, in relation to other persons. That which, on the
contrary, passes through is, we could say, the first permitted incest: the
first legal incests in the form of preferential marriages; but everyone
knows that the first permitted incests are never practiced in fact, it is
still too close to that which is blocked. You see that the flow is
interrupted here, something in the flow is blocked, something passes
through, and here, there are the great perverts who machine marriages, who
block or who effect passages. In the history of the maternal uncle, the aunt
is blocked as an image of forbidden incest, in the form of a jesting
kinship, the nephew has, with his aunt, a very joyous relation, with his
uncle, a relation of theft, but theft, injuries, these are coded, see
Malinkowski.
Question: These local groups have magical powers?
Deleuze: They have an overtly political power [pouvoir], they sometimes call
upon sorcery, but they are not witchcraft groups, they are political groups
who define the strategy of a village in relation to another village, and a
clan in relation to another clan.
Every code in relation to flows implies that we prevent something of this
flow from passing through, we block it, we let something pass: there will be
people having a key position as interceptors, i.e. so as to prevent passage
or, on the contrary, to effect passage, and when we take note that these
characters are such that, according to the code, certain prestations return
to them, we better understand how the whole system works.
In all societies, the problem was always to code flows and to recode those
that tended to escape--when is it that the codes vacillate in so-called
primitive societies: essentially at the moment of colonialization, there
where the code flees under the pressure of capitalism: for that is what it
represents in a society of codes, the introduction of money: it scatters to
the winds their entire circuit of flows, in the sense that they distinguish
essentially three types of flows: the flows of production to be consumed,
the flows of prestige, objects of prestige and flows of women. When money is
introduced therein, it is a catastrophe (see what Jaudin analyses as
ethnocide: money, Oedipus complex)
They try to relate money to their code, as such it can only be a prestige
good, it is not a production or consumption good, it is not a woman, but the
young people of the tribe who understand quicker than the elders take
advantage of money in order to seize hold of the circuit of consumption
goods, the circuit of consumption that was traditionally, in certain tribes,
controlled by women. So the young people, with money, seize hold of the
circuit of consumption. With money which itself can no longer be coded,
within a certain framework, we begin with money and we end with money.
M[oney]-C[ommodity]-M[oney], there is absolutely no means of coding this
thing here because the qualified flows are replaced by a flow of abstract
quantity whose proper essence is the infinite reproduction for which the
formula is M-C-M. No code can support infinite reproduction. What is
formidable in so-called primitive societies is how debt exists, but exists
in the form of a finite block, debt is finite. So, in this sense flows pass
their time by fleeing, it does not prevent the codes from being correlative
and coding the flows: undoubtedly, it escapes from all sides, and the one
who does not let her/himself be coded, and so we say: that's a madman, we
will code him/her: the village madman, we will make a code of the code.
The originality of capitalism is that it no longer counts on any code, there
are code residues, but no one believes in them: we no longer believe in
anything: the last code that capitalism knew how to produce was fascism: an
effort to recode and reterritorialize even at the economic level, at the
level of the functioning of the market in the fascist economy, here we
clearly see an extreme effort to resuscitate a kind of code that would
function like the code of capitalism, literally, it could have lasted in the
form in which it has lasted, as for capitalism, it is incapable of
furnishing a code that covers the ensemble of the social field like a grid
[quadrille], because its problems no longer pose themselves in terms of
code, its problem is to make a mechanism of decoded flows as such, so it is
uniquely in this sense that I oppose capitalism as a social formation to all
the other known social formations. Can we say that between a coding of flows
corresponding to pre-capitalist formations and a decoded axiomatic, there is
a difference in nature or is there simply a variation: there is a radical
difference in nature! Capitalism cannot furnish any code.
We cannot say that the struggle against a system is totally independent of
the manner in which this system was characterized: it is difficult to
consider that the struggle of socialism against capitalism in the 19th
century was independent of the theory of surplus value, in so far as this
theory specified the characteristic of capitalism. Suppose that capitalism
can be defined as an economic machine excluding the codes and making decoded
flows function by taking them into an axiomatic, this already permits us to
bring together the capitalist situation and the schizophrenic situation.
Even at the level of analysis that has a practical influence, the analysis
of monetary mechanisms (the neocapitalist economists, this is schizophrenic)
when we see how the monetary practice of capitalism works, at the concrete
level, and not just in theory, its schizoid character, can we say that it is
totally indifferent to revolutionary practice. All that we are doing in
relation to psychoanalysis and psychiatry comes down to what? Desire, or, it
matters little, the unconscious: it is not imaginary or symbolic, it is
uniquely machinic, and as long as you have not reached the region of the
machine of desire, as long as you remain in the imaginary, the structural or
the symbolic, you do not have a genuine hold on the unconscious. They are
machines that, like all machines, are confirmed as such by their functioning
(confirmations==the painter Lindner obsessed by ?children with machine
[enfants avec machine]?: huge little boys in the foreground holding a
strange little machine, a kind of little kite and behind him, a big social
technical machine and his little machine is plugged into the big one, in the
background==that is what I attempted last year to call the orphan
unconscious, the true unconscious, the one that does not pass through
daddy-mommy, the one that passes through delirious machines, these being in
a given relation with the large social machines: second confirmation: an
Englishman, Niderland, was aware of Schreber's father. This is what I object
to in the text of Freud, it is as if psychoanalysis was a veritable
millstone which crushed the deepest character of the guy, namely, his social
character... When we read Schreber, the Great Mongol, the Aryans, the Jews,
etc. and when we read Freud, not a word about all this, it is as if it was
just some manifest content and that one had to discover the latent
content=the eternal daddy-mommy of Oedipus. All the political,
politico-sexual, politico-libidinal content, because in the end, when
Schreber père imagined himself to be a little Alsatian girl defending Alsace
against a French officer, there is political libido here. It is sexual and
political at the same time, the one in the other; we learn that Schreber was
well-known because he had invented a system of education == Schreber
Gardens. He had produced a system of universal pedagogy. Schizoanalysis
procedes in a direction that is the opposite of psychoanalysis, indeed, each
time that the subject narrates something that brings her/him in the vicinity
of Oedipus or castration, the schizo being analyzed says `Enough.' What he
sees as important, is that: Schreber père invents a pedagogic system of
universal value, that is not brought to bear on his own child, but globally:
PAN gymnasticon. If we suppress from the delirium [delire] of the son the
politico-global dimension of the paternal pedagogic system, we can longer
understand anything. The father does not supply a structural function, but a
political system: I am saying that the libido passes through here, not
through daddy and mommy, through the political system. In the PAN
gymnasticon, there are machines: no system without machines, a system,
rigourously speaking, is a structural unity of machines, so much so that one
must burst the system to reach the machines. And what are Schreber's
machines: they are SADO-PARANOIAC machines, a type of delirious machine.
They are sado-paranoiac in the sense that they are applied to children,
preferably to little girls.
With these machines, the children stay calm, in this delirium, the universal
pedagogic dimension clearly appears: it is not a delirium about his son, it
is a delirium that he constructs about the formation of a higher race.
Schreber père acts against his son, not as a father, but as a libidinal
promoter of a delirious investment of the social field. It is no longer the
paternal function, but rather that the father is there to make something
delirious pass through, this is certain, but the father acts here as an
agent of transmission in relation to a field that is not the familial field,
but that is a political and historical field, once again, the names of
history and not the name of the father.
Comtess: We do not catch flies with vinegar, even with a machine = the
system of Schreber père had a global development (belt-whipping for good
conduct). It was a big social machine and it was, at the same time, sown in
the social machine, full of little delirious sado-paranoiac machines. So
too, in the delirium of the son, certainly it is papa, but as a
representative of what authority does he intervene. He intervenes as an
agent of transmission in a libidinal investment of a certain type of social
formation. On the contrary, the drama of psychoanalysis is the eternal
familialism that consists in referring the libido, and with it all
sexuality, to the familial machine, and we can go on to structuralize it, it
changes nothing, we remain within the closed circle of: symbolic castration,
structuring function of the family, parental characters, and we continue to
crush all the outside [dehors]. Blanchot: ?a new type of relation with the
outside,? yet, and this is the critical point, psychoanalysis tends to
suppress any relation of itself and of the subject who has just been
analyzed with the outside. On itself alone it pretends to reterritorialize
us, onto the territoriality or onto the most mediocre earth, the most
shabby, the oedipal territoriality, or worse, onto the couch. Here, we
clearly see the relation of psychoanalysis and capitalism: if it is true
that in capitalism, flows are decoded, are deterritorialized constantly,
i.e. that capitalism produces the schizo like it produces money, the whole
capitalist project [tentative] consists in reinventing artificial
territorialities in order to reinscribe people, to vaguely recode them: they
invent anything: HLM [Habitation a Loyer Moyen, i.e.: government-controlled
housing], home, and there is familial reterritorialization, the family, it
is after all the social cell, so they will reterritorialize the guy in a
family (community psychiatry): they reterritorialize people there where all
the territorialities are floating ones, they proceed through an artificial,
imaginary, residual reterritorialization. And psychoanalysis--classical
psychoanalysis--fabricates familial reterritorialization, most of all by
skipping over all that is effective in delirium, all that is aggressive in
delirium, namely, that delirium is a system of politico-social investments,
not just of any type: it is the libido that hooks itself onto political
social determinations: Schreber is not dreaming at all when he makes love to
his mother, he dreams when he is being raped like a little Alsacian girl by
a French officer: this depends on something much deeper than Oedipus,
namely, the manner in which the libido invests social formations, to the
point that one must distinguish 2 types of social investments by the (?)
desire: social investments of interests that are of the preconscious type,
that, if necessary, pass through classes, and below these, not exactly in
harmony with them, unconscious investments, the libidinal investments of
desire. Traditional psychoanalysis enclosed the libidinal investments of
desire in the familial triangle and structuralism is the last attempt
[tentative] to save Oedipus at the moment when Oedipus is coming apart at
the seams.
The task of schizoanalysis is to see that parents play a role in the
unconscious only as agents of interception, agents of transmission in a
system of the flows of desire, of desiring machines, and what counts is my
unconscious relation with my desiring machines. What are my own desiring
machines, and, through them, the unconscious relation of these desiring
machines with the large social machines with which they carry out...and that
hence, there is no reason to support psychoanalysis in its attempt to
reterritorialize us. I take an example from Leclaire' last book: there is
something that no longer works: ?the most fundamental act in the history of
psychoanalysis was a decentering that consisted in passing from the parents'
room as referent to the analytical office,? there was a time when we
believed in Oedipus, and in the reality of seduction, it was not going
strong even then, because the whole unconscious had been familiarized, a
crushing of the libido onto daddy-mommy-me: the whole development of
psychoanalysis was made in this direction [sens]: substitution of the
phantasm for real seduction and substitution of castration for Oedipus.
Leclaire: ?to tell the truth the displacement of the living kernel of the
oedipal conjuncture, of the familial scene to the psychoanalytic scene is
strictly correlative to a sociological mutation in which we can
psychoanalytically demarcate a recourse to the level of the familial
institution? page 30 = the family is shabby = the unconscious protests and
no longer works to triangulate itself, happily there is the analyst to serve
as a relay.
It no longer supports the family, custody and the concealment [dérobement]
of an all-powerful real. We say, ouf!, we will finally have a relation with
the extra familial real, ha! no! says Leclaire, for that which serves as a
relay for the family, and that which becomes the guardian, the unveiling
veiling of the all-powerful real is the office of the analyst.
You can no longer triangulate, oedipalize in the family, it no longer works,
you will come onto the couch to triangulate and oedipalize yourself and
indeed, adds Leclaire: ?if the psychoanalytic couch has become the place
where the confrontation with the real is unfolded.? The confrontation with
the real does not take place on the earth, in the movement of
territorialization, reterritorialization, of deterritorialization, it takes
place on this rotten earth that is the couch of the analyst. ?It is of no
importance that the oedipal scene has no referent exterior to the office,
that castration has no referent outside the office of the analyst,? which
signifies that psychoanalysis, like capitalism, finds itself faced with the
decoded flows of desire, finds itself before the schizophrenic phenomena of
decoding and deterritorialization, has chosen to make for itself a little
axiomatic. The couch, the ultimate earth of European man today, his very own
little earth. This situation of psychoanalysis tends to introduce an
axiomatic excluding all reference, excluding all relation with the outside
whatever it may be, appears as a catastrophic movement of interiority when
it comes to understanding the true investments of desire. From the moment we
seized upon the family as referent, it was all screwed up. (last earth, the
couch that valorizes and justifies itself on its own terms). It was
compromised from the beginning, from the moment when we cut desire off from
the double dimension--what I call the double dimension of desire: and its
relation, on the one hand, with desiring machines irreducible to any
symbolic or structural dimension, to functional desiring machines, and the
problem of schizoanalysis is to know how these desiring machines work, and
to reach the level where they work in someone's unconscious, which assumes
that we will skip over Oedipus, castration, etc. On the other hand, with
social-political-cosmic investments, and here one must not say, that there
would be any desexualization of the findings of psychoanalysis, for I am
saying that desire, in its fundamental sexual form, can only be understood
in its sexual investments, in so far as they do not bear on daddy-mommy,
this is secondary, but in so far as they bear--on the one hand, on desiring
machines, and on the other hand, in so far they traverse our sexual,
homosexual, heterosexual loves. That which is invested is always what cuts
up [des coupures] of the dimensions of a historical social field, and
certainly, the father and the mother play a role within it, they are agents
of communication of desiring machines, on one hand, of the machines with
each other, and on the other hand, of the desiring machines with the large
desiring machines. Schizoanalysis is made up of three operations: A
destructive task: skipping over the oedipal and castrating structures in
order to reach a region of the unconscious where there is no castration etc.
because desiring machines ignore this.
A positive task: That is to see and to analyze functionally, there is
nothing to interpret = we do not interpret a machine, we grasp its
functioning and its failures, the why of its failures: it is the oedipal
collar, the psychoanalytic collar of the couch that introduces failures into
desiring machines: The desiring machines only work as long as they invest
the social machines. And what are the types of libidinal investments,
distinct from the preconscious investments of interests, these sexual
investments--across all the beings that we love, all our loves, it is a
complex of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, that which we
love, it is always a certain mulatto, a movement of deterritorialization and
reterritorialization, it is not the scrawny and hysteric territoriality of
the couch, and across each being that we love, what we invest is a social
field, these are the dimensions of this social field, and the parents are
agents of transmission in the social field.
--see Jackson's letter = the classic black mother who says to her son, don't
fool around and marry well, make money. This classic mother here, is she
acting like a mother and like an oedipal object of desire, or is she acting
in such a way that she transmits a certain type of libidinal investment of
the social field, namely the type that marries well, he makes love, and this
in the strictest sense of the term, with something through his wife,
unconsciously, with a certain number of economic, political, social
processes, and that love has always been a means through which the libido
attains something other than the beloved person, namely a whole cutting up
[découpage] of the historical social field, ultimately we always make love
with the names of history. The other mother (of Jackson)--the one who says
?grab your gun,? it follows that the two act as agents of transmission in a
certain type of social-historical investment, that from one to the other the
pole of these investments has singularly changed, that in one case, we can
say that they are reactionary investments, at the limit fascist, in the
other case, it is a revolutionary libidinal investment. Our loves are like
the conduits and the pathways of these investments that are not, once again,
of a familial nature, but of a historico-political nature, and the final
problem of schizoanalysis is not only the positive study of desiring
machines, but the positive study of the manner in which desiring machines
carry out the investment of social machines, whether it be in forming
investments of the libido of a revolutionary type, whether it be in forming
libidinal investments of the revolutionary type. The domain of
schizoanalysis distinguishes itself at this moment from the domain of
politics, in the sense that the preconscious political investments are
investments of class interests that are determinable by certain types of
studies, but these still do not tell us anything about the other type of
investments, namely specifically libidinal investments--Desire. To the point
that it can happen that a preconscious revolutionary investment can be
doubled by a libidinal investment of the fascist type = which explains how
displacements are made from one pole of delirium to another pole of
delirium, how a delirium has fundamentally two poles--which Artaud said so
well: ?the mystery of all is `Heliogabalus the Anarchist,' because these are
the two poles--it is not only a contradiction, it is a fundamental human
contradiction, namely a pole of unconscious investment of the fascist type,
and an unconscious investment of the revolutionary type. What fascinates me
in a delirium is the radical absence of daddy-mommy, except as agents of
transmission, except as agents of interception for there they have a role,
but on the other hand the task of schizoanalysis is to release in delirium
the unconscious dimensions of a fascist investment and a revolutionary
investment, and at a certain point, it slips, at a certain point it
oscillates, this is the deep domain of the libido. In the most reactionary,
most folkloric territoriality, a revolutionary ferment can surge forth (we
never know), something schizo, something mad, a deterritorialization: the
Basque problem: They did much for fascism, in other conditions, these same
minorities could have determined, I am not saying this happens by chance,
they could have secured a revolutionary role. It is extremely ambiguous: it
is not at the level of political analysis, it is at the level of analysis of
the unconscious: the way it whirls about [comment ca tourne]. (Mannoni:
antipsychiatry in the question of the court judgement on Schreber = a
completely fascist delirium). If antipsychiatry has a sense, if
schizoanalysis has a sense, it is at the level of an analysis of the
unconscious, to tip delirium from the pole that is always present, the
reactionary fascist pole that implies a certain type of libidinal
investment, towards the other pole, no matter if it is hard and slow, the
revolutionary pole.
Richard: Why only two poles?
Deleuze: We can make many, but fundamentally, there are clearly two great
types of investment, two poles. The reference of libidinal investments is
daddy-mommy, these are the territorialities and the deterritorializations,
this must be found in the unconscious, especially at the level of its loves.
Phantasm of naturality: of a pure race, movement of the pendulum =
revolutionary phantasm of deterritorialization. If you're saying that, on
the analyst's couch, what flows still flows, alright then, but the problem
that I would pose here is: there are types of flow that pass beneath the
door, what psychoanalysts call the viscosity of the libido, an overly
viscous libido that does not let itself be grasped by the code of
psychoanalysis, alright here yes, there is deterritorialization, but
psychoanalysis says: negative reaction [contre-indication]. What annoys me
in psychoanalysis of the Lacanian camp is the cult of castration. The family
is a system of transmission, the social investments of one generation passed
on to another, but I absolutely do not think that the family is a necessary
element in the making of social investments because, in any case, there are
desiring machines that, on their own, constitute social libidinal
investments of the large social machines. If you say: the madman is someone
who remains with his desiring machines and who does not carry out social
investments, I do not follow you: in all madness, I see an intense
investment of a particular type of historical, political, social field, even
in catatonic persons. This goes for adults as well as children, it is from
earliest childhood that the desiring machines are plugged into the social
field. In themselves, all territorialities are equal to each other in
relation to the movement of deterritorialization, but there is something
like a schizoanalysis of territorialities, of their types of functioning,
and by functioning, I understand the following: if the desiring machines are
on the side of a great deterritorialization, i.e. on the path of desire
beyond territorialities, if to desire is to be deterritorialized, one must
say that each type of territoriality is able to support such or such a genre
of machinic index: the machinic index is that which, in a territoriality,
will be able to make it flee in the direction [sens] of a
deterritorialization. So, I take the example of the dream, from the point of
view that I am attempting to explicate the role of machines, it is very
important, different from that of psychoanalysis: when a plane flies or a
sewing machine-the dream is a kind of little imaginary territoriality, sleep
or a nightmare is a deterritorialization--we can say that
deterritorialization and the reterritorialities only exist as a function of
each other, but you can evaluate the force of a possible
deterritorialization from the indexes on such or such a territoriality, i.e.
how much it supports of a flow that flees--Flee and in fleeing, makes flee,
not the others, but something from the system, a fragment.
A machinic index in a territoriality is what measures the power [puissance]
of flight in this territoriality by making flows flee, in this regard all
territorialities are not equal to each other. There are artificial
territorialities, the more it flees and the more we can flee while fleeing,
the more it is deterritorialized. Our loves are always situated on a
territoriality that, in relation to us, deterritorializes us or else
reterritorializes us. In this regard, there are misunderstandings + a whole
game of investments that are the problem of schizoanalysis: instead of
having the family as a referent, it has as a referent the movements of
deterritoralization and reterritorialization.
Zrehen: I want to say that you employed the term ?code? for so-called
primitive societies, while I think it is not possible to think of them in
terms of code, because of the well-known mark, because there is a mark,
which requires exchange, it is because there is a debt that we have an
obligation to exchange. What happens from their society to ours, is the loss
of the debt, so when you say that the schizo is the negative of the
capitalist and that capitalism is the negative of primitive societies, it is
evident exactly what is lost, it is castration.
With this mark of principle, you are anticipating what makes up capitalism
while crossing out castration. What is foreclosed in capitalism is this
initial mark and what Marx tried to do was to reintroduce the notion of
debt. When you propose to me a reactionary pole of investments and a
revolutionary pole, I say that you are already taking the concepts of
`revolutionary' and of `reactionary as already instituted in a field that
does not permit an appreciation of what you are trying to say. You are using
breaks [coupure], I will certainly admit that Oedipus and castration are
dépassé, but capitalism...
BObHein5INEMM4684610OOO\\///^^\\\//
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote in message
news:3e628383$0$253$626a...@news.free.fr...
TOO LONG. BORING.
the monastery
arent'' they a scream,...
.......its a killer bob......
so funny.......
.......start your career tomorow bob........
you'll be a happy guy,......
that funny bob.......
i didn't laugh so much since......eh.....
anyway,....
funny bob,...
good one that one....
--
a mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open
FZ
feel free to visit the monastery
www.theoalers.nl
Fotografie Theo Alers/ the pixture monastery
Clarastraat 130
5211 LB 's-Hertogenbosch
tel: 073 6901161
fax: 073 6901161
email: info@(remove)theoalers.nl
"BObHein5INEMM4684610OOO\\///^^\\\//"
<BMuffinZ...@aol.com.commie.comANTID> schreef in bericht
news:6dO8a.184$G_.3...@news.uswest.net...
BObHein5INEMM4684610OOO\\///^^\\\//
"the monastery" <talers@(remove)home.nl> wrote in message
news:b40o8u$j7$1...@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T TOP POST THEO. SOME FOLKS HERE DONT LIKE IT AND ID HATE
TO READ YOU GETTING YELLED AT.
Bil Hansen
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote ...
snip
> But, now, more than marking persons--marking persons is the apparent means
> of operation--coding has a deeper function, that is to say, a society is
> only afraid of one thing: the deluge; it is not afraid of the void, it is
> not afraid of dearth or scarcity. Over a society, over its social body,
snip
Interesting stuff. Thanks, Ms Gatti.
Reminds me of Frank Z's retort to the audience, to the effect that we are all
wearing uniforms.
In the hope that it may be useful to you, I'll mention a USAn (which I guess
means a less intellectual, less mystified, and non-Marxist) approach to the
topic of analysing classifications and codings:
Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting things out:
Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: MIT Press.
Bowker and Star have, together and separately, done a few other related works.
Cheers
Bil
--
Penang, Malaysia
nat.gatti
not responsible for what American scholars make out of his concepts, as you
don't know. The same goes with Foucault. Both are so subversive. That's why
they go so well with Zappa. As far as marxism is concerned, well, Deleuze's
main reference being Nietzsche, he serioulsy transgresses the mode of
thinking expected from a marxist : dialectics is shit for Deleuze. I would
not treat Zappa's art with marxism : this type of aproach turn him into a
reactive sod, a cynical prick, a mean nihilist : an impotent, in one word.
That's not what Zappa means for me. Zappa should not be confused with his
fans.
The world situation being what it is, I thought the transcription of
deleuze's seminar on capitalism was a good response to the heaps of
stupidity spread on affz about war. It reminds me of the crazy twist this
group had taken with Greg Henry's psychotic wrath against palestinians.
Again, the only agent of good sense on the group is Ed Mann.I still don't
understand why on earth he wastes his creative energy posting on this group,
where few people seem to understand that the one and only poster who is
deeply in the spirit of zappa in his approach to the war, is Ed Mann.
Thanks for the US academic references. I prefer Deleuze.
regards
nath
Bil Hansen <bi...@pd.jaring.my> a écrit dans le message :
b43rcb$24r$1...@news5.jaring.my...
Pacome
I absolutly love Deleuze & Foucault & Guattari and I agree with you on many
points regarding philosophy to match up with Zappa Universe but don't snob
this newsgroup just because of Bobheinwathever ! Looks like there is a lot
of good minds round there...
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
3e67388c$0$2693$626a...@news.free.fr...
Hanzo
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote:
> Well, there is not an hint of intellectualism in Deleuze's philosophy. Hes
> not responsible for what American scholars make out of his concepts, as you
> don't know. The same goes with Foucault. Both are so subversive. That's why
> they go so well with Zappa. As far as marxism is concerned, well, Deleuze's
> main reference being Nietzsche, he serioulsy transgresses the mode of
> thinking expected from a marxist : dialectics is shit for Deleuze. I would
> not treat Zappa's art with marxism : this type of aproach turn him into a
> reactive sod, a cynical prick, a mean nihilist : an impotent, in one word.
> That's not what Zappa means for me. Zappa should not be confused with his
> fans.
> The world situation being what it is, I thought the transcription of
> deleuze's seminar on capitalism was a good response to the heaps of
> stupidity spread on affz about war. It reminds me of the crazy twist this
> group had taken with Greg Henry's psychotic wrath against palestinians.
> Again, the only agent of good sense on the group is Ed Mann.I still don't
> understand why on earth he wastes his creative energy posting on this group,
> where few people seem to understand that the one and only poster who is
> deeply in the spirit of zappa in his approach to the war, is Ed Mann.
> Thanks for the US academic references. I prefer Deleuze.
> regards
> nath
>
Few people in affz?
You're the only one to fully appreciate Ed Mann's thoughts?
He's the only one who truly understands Zappa's thoughts?
You must be deep.
hanzo
nat.gatti
Hanzo <h...@xs4all.nl> a écrit dans le message :
hhf-FED78E.0...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...
Sam Rouse
altitude.
In article <3e68ff12$0$26340$626a...@news.free.fr>,
nat.gatti
Sam Rouse <sama...@newsguy.com> a écrit dans le message :
samandor-BA99DB...@news.newsguy.com...
Debrakadabra
Especially when the wind blows up her ass. Or maybe I have that backwards?
DebK
Hoodude
wrote:
>what a moron !
Keep it on topic with: "What a maroon!"
--
If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.
- Juan Ramón Jiménez
nat.gatti
about. so why not make an anti-gatti campaign, parralelly to the
anti-anti-war campaign, anti French campaign, pro war campaign. I'm too busy
for that. Find yourself another fool, another scapegoat, suck Sam Rouse's
and others' dick, and fuck off, you moron, you w.........
Debrakadabra <dkbon...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message :
a54f7d2b.03030...@posting.google.com...
Sam Rouse
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote:
> Ok, the fgroup is boring, posters seem not to have much to say, or argue
> about. so why not make an anti-gatti campaign, parralelly to the
> anti-anti-war campaign, anti French campaign, pro war campaign. I'm too busy
> for that. Find yourself another fool, another scapegoat, suck Sam Rouse's
> and others' dick, and fuck off, you moron, you w.........
I only have your words in this newsgroup to go by, but you really remind me of
one of my college-freshman calculus professors. He was a young guy who wore the
perfect mod clothes for the day, including polished cowboy boots, printed
bell-bottom trousers, and sported immaculately-coiffed semi-curly hair nearly to
his ass. He delighted in his brilliance compared to that of his students, and
wrote absurdly difficult problems for this freshman class - an incredibly smug
bastard. There was a 60% dropout rate by the third and final midterm, and for
that, after berating the remainder of his class for their stupidity, said that
this exam would be posted in a library at 8AM, and you could go in whenever it
was convenient and have until 4:30 PM to turn it in. He made a big deal about
the fact that he could write solutions to the problems in twenty minutes, so we
should be able to do it in a whole day. (Well, _of course_ he could solve them
in that amount of time - he presumably had some idea of what he was after, and
new how to solve them while he was writing them.) As it happened, I had a full
classload that day, so couldn't go to the library for my midterm until 3PM.
After looking at the three problems on the paper, and discovering that there
were still folks in there who had arrived at 8AM, I threw my test paper in the
trash and walked out. I stuck it out for the final, though - that proved to be
by far the easiest exam of the term, because the rest of the math department was
involved in writing it - and pulled a C out of the class.
Are you making any undergrads similarly miserable for your own ego gratification?
BTW, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that I'm staunchly anti-war, and
that there aren't many outspoken pro-war folks in here (only one of whom is
responsible for the vast majority of the pro-war posts).
Debrakadabra
DebK
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote in message news:<3e6c820f$0$247$626a...@news.free.fr>...
nat.gatti
victimize yourself into obvious fools. As for myself : being stigmatised by
you and the cocks you follows, doesn't make of me your target, you stupid.
Your "self" expression against what you make my post of, makes of you a
pathetic target of the laughter of people who know more about zappa than you
do.
blissful DBK, receive the best wishes of a gattinat who is not blessed, as
you, by stupidity, and ignorance.
Debrakadabra <dkbon...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message :
a54f7d2b.03031...@posting.google.com...
Hanzo
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote:
> bogus pomp....which is not your case, neither is Sam's. That's why you self
> victimize yourself into obvious fools. As for myself : being stigmatised by
> you and the cocks you follows, doesn't make of me your target, you stupid.
> Your "self" expression against what you make my post of, makes of you a
> pathetic target of the laughter of people who know more about zappa than you
> do.
> blissful DBK, receive the best wishes of a gattinat who is not blessed, as
> you, by stupidity, and ignorance.
>
Yeah, just keep on proving the point.
hanzo
Debrakadabra
admiting that. I am a relative newcomer and I am here to learn. But
I ain't gonna learn much about Zappa from you. The only thing I could
learn from you is how to show scorn and contempt for other people.
Better a fool with a sense of humor, than a pompous ass.
DebK
"nat.gatti" <nat....@free.fr> wrote in message news:<3e6e0eba$0$26850$626a...@news.free.fr>...
nat.gatti
you'd better leave this group where you've been read from the beginning as a
fool by those you try so hard to please : you're a woman, they are men, what
do you expect from them ? I have a huge advantage, as a woman : I know
Zappa-fans communities, as I've lead the French one. I know how newsgroups
operate, I'm experienced on the subject, and the look I have on newsgroup is
a researcher's one : Affz was a study case for me, as for me thesis, I
needed a snapshot of the way Zappa was perceived by the fans of his own
country. Besides, I have a solid background in linguistics -
sociolinguistics and ethnology of communication, and I've been working with
a friend whose projet deals with the internet media of communication, like
newsgroups and chatrooms. I'm far from being as much personnaly involved as
you think I am. The last thing you never seem to be catch, is that being
French, posting on affz has always been the most entertaining way for me to
pratice my writing in English at a time when I needed to be get back my
fluency very quickly for somewhere else, with English-speaking people I had
started communicating with, in private.
You wrote a couple of lines that were interesting about Zappa, you're an
interestng poster when you you're not the poodle of woul-be affz leadres :
hence you'd better follow the piece of advice I gave to you once : teach
yourself Zappa, lead you own research, and write about it. That's Zappa's
message : autonomy, integrity, radical refusal of any kind of alienation,
especially when thinking is concerned. Zappa's message is : don't let
anybody pretend that they can teach you how and what to think. anyway, men
always say or write the same thing about Zappa, affz is a sterile desert of
ideas, a strongly -biased /pseudo-facts forging factory, a chaos of
ready-made opinions and prejudices . This is a severe blow to the memory of
zappa, the most twisted and perverse way to "celebrate" his memory, the most
secure way to kill him for good.
The only one you should let yourself be taught by, is Zappa.
Zappa is best understood by women than it is by men, Zappa modes of
creating, and thinking, are very feminine. so you should trust yourself,
follow your intuition, and work on your own book about Zappa, if Zappa's art
is really what you care about. and stop wasting your time and energy, and
most of all, your feminity, on this ng. I had reasons to post there, I
learned what I had planned to learn there. You have no reason to expose
yourself to the denial of wankers.
Now : think what you will, I don't really care, make of what I wrote what
you will, and let the resenting wankers write what they will feel the urge
to write, to revenge against my freedom of speech, and thoughts . I'm
working on my thesis full-time, and I meditate on war, studying philosophy,
listening to great music, practicing thai boxing to "keep my feet on the
ground" as Fernch say : a much better way to cope with the global mess we're
in, than emulating moronic opinions on this stupid ng, where posters seem
to forget that they're shamelessely debating about the life of real people,
be they the Iraki people, or the American soldiers.
My regards to Ed and the couple of freinds I have around there. My best
wishes to you, silly girl, who has a lot to learn from Zappa,nothing to
learn from affzers, and nothing to teach to me.
Captain Biffheart
>the denial of wankers.
Now there's a great title if'n ever I saw one.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
http://www.mp3.com/michaelpdawson
Blech to Lawrence Welk!
*/'' NINJA '\
wrote:
do all french people think zappa was a faggot
not that i give a fuck what the french think
John Hopkins
Well, they--
> not that i give a fuck what the french think
answer unclear. try again.
You ever get your damned albums remastered or am I going to have to
bug you about 'em for another three years??
John Hopkins
> the hairstyle
> of a young girl is not the same as that of a married woman,
Unless the married woman is in her late 40s, realizes her body still
looks pretty good and wants to turn some heads *just* a little bit
longer...
(Source: blindingly blonde checkout person at local supermarket)
> Over a society, over its social body,
> something flows [coule] and we do not know what it is, something flows that
> is not coded, and something which, in relation to this society, even appears
> as the uncodable. Something which would flow and which would carry away this
> society to a kind of deterritorialization which would make the earth upon
> which it has set itself up dissolve:
Is this the real Earth or a Sears earth that dissolves on impact from
a usenet bolide? If the former, *that* Earth can shrug us out of
existence whenever it likes, and it will go right on being itself.
I would've like to keep going thru your post but like a fool I started
this while at work in my capitalist cubicle flow and I'm now in the
process of getting stuck on a problem that isn't following the codes.
Literally.
Great fun trying to parse it out, though. Please keep trying.
/John
Jean
it sure seems to me like you're full of shit...or maybe just a
prisoner of this " capitalist cubicle flow "...