Thursday, September 16, 2004

Couples EverYWhere « all yer blue mondays come to back to haunt yer...

Yes, we don``t we ? »saith Hiawatha Jillcynicism :We sometimes behave as though people can't express themselves. In fact... theyr're always expressing themselves: And it gets very tiring. Dont U think? They ought to be shutup! Fanny curls at the idea, the notion of a shut up! ... The sorriest couples are the ones in which the woman can't be preoccupied or tired without the man saying, "What's wrong? Say something," or the man, without ... Or dear what time is the movie coming on... Speak to me My Nerves! are bad tonight!the woman saying... Speak Speak why do you never speak..? ...and so on. Ra.... yes the readio.... DiO DiIOdio and television have spread this spirit everywhere, and we're riddled with pointless talk, insane amounts off words and images. Stupidity is never blind or mute. So the problem is noYes, it is question of gettin`to repress themselves the boding bores, the livers of linger... longer getting people to express themselves, but little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don't stop people from expressing themselves, but rather, force them to express themselves. What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, or even the rarer, the thing that might be worth saying.

But things never changed said Mona, and she hung her shy head along side the board of the subway huddling her sybartic self in the Toronto orange night gathering her heads and mingle forests terminating her chewing, mulling over the mysterious ... she hamadryad and held the pillow to head, no, jammmed it to her head...

Jill makes them, makes them his own and desires them, desires briliancy... Some seek coherence and inunity imagining they`d found themselves, but her logic of sense was a smatter of brilliant. Not brilliantine! silly, not like Belmont Park and the roller coaster! or was it , he said holding her again of longgogago...

trickerd downher treat the sylvan weep.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

sufI ReSoNances End Game? MoNA ReFuteS Some Old SuFi Pie from Son of Genet

Once Mona was reading her halfbrother of the schizoscholleges and found her bothersome genealogy of a brother bleating this horn of tunes:

brevity in this is not the soul of wit. I suggest you will learn when your dissertation advisor completes translating Derrida's work on Deleuze. At which all will be revealed. At last the veil will be lifted from all the Deleuzian silliness. Deleuze has said he was the most innocent and gullible thinker of his generation. So it was. The Guattari split did not exactly ruin Deleuze's own trajectory but diverted it:this is what Derrida will suggest in the book referred to. And Derrida would not be so unkind as to spend much energy on what need not be discussed. If you read the works of Derrida you will not uncover a reference to Deleuze unless in passing.

Mona says to her self while feeling a breast of immanence this is not so, this is not so so Now that Poor DeReader is dead and gone, they pick on Deleuze and Derrrida dissemeniation son of the Muse, the Prince of deconstrucin'g the lovable proteinportable word.

But Mona, being the becoming-good daughter of the Professor reads on and hails!

If something is incorrect it is perhaps the notion you express of correctness and it is precisely this laziness among 'deleuzians' which has left and continues to leave the legacy of Deleuze so poverty ridden. A perfect example of the Giant shadow of Derrida which reveals the smaller and lesser thinkers who have surrounded his work. One would hate to disappoint the 'followers' of a series of terms which have led nowhere (for sure a typical secondary Piercian might reply but this is an example of falleness); Baudrillard has gone the field in the real historical context much further than Deleuze ever did. As for his friend the Lacanian analyst one can see by the nonstop production of jargons that nothing was gained. Oh one might see all of this was born of the times, but it is not it is like those who deny the pervasiveness of deferral and yet never provide 'evidence' there is no evidence to provide. So it is and say it as it is. Be good.

Mona scoffs this off: beautiful but incorrect.

On Mon, 31 Dec of a certain celerity rid plateau, genet son of genet wrote:

There are those who believe and even claim that Gilles Deleuze was indeed
a Sufi. However Sufis do not commit suicide. Stoic perhaps, but Sufi not
so. No dervish deals death to his body no matter the illness. Deleuze's
death is the final failure of the will, the volunteeristic tradition
reaching its headlong flight of danger. The death of Deleuze was a
failure and not the glorified nonsense many have made it out to be.
Nothing Socratic or heroic about it, nothing noble or pertinent to
philosophy, in fact one could say it was a shame, a shame and so close to
the generation of which he was a part that they, Lyotard, Derrida,
Klossowski were saddened and hurt by his death and the terrible way in
which it was conducted. We feel sorry for Deleuze that the other
followers have not seen fit to be critical of this terrible last act and
the devastation and shame it has brought to the philosophical
inheritance. Whatever made him do this terrible act, the terrible act of
leaping from a window and leaving others behind to clean up the mess,
this act of failure and the final failure of voluntarism which he
represented was an end, a finish. A finish to a line of French thinkers,
and it is too bad. Too bad he could not face his end the way others have
and the way in which others have continued to face their deaths. One
thinks of Foucault and then Deleuze and one can only say, what a shameful
and even a cowardly retreat from the philo who claimed to be of this
-- Deleuze a reason to live in this world! ha! -- world; not so, not so, this is the ultimate druggy death. Better to have
retreated to something else. Jumping out of the window on the bad acid
trip of his life and his "little madness" and his "little bit alcoholic"
is not answerable, nor is it a legacy to leave anyone. Because in the end
a philosopher is judged as much by his life as by his ideas. Others have
suffered -- think of Foucault suffering from A.I.D.s he did not
leap. Deleuze leapt and in doing so lost his place, no it is not a
deleuzian century which ended two years ago. It was a Sartrean century,
a Marxian century, a Kojeve century and so much more, but not the
secondardy leavings of this failure, this delire. Deleuze said it himself
he was not important. Not the great producer of ideas, not the great
miner of new ethics and ontics; so be it. It was what it was, and not one
of the secondary attempts to arrange the unarrangeable will change this.
The century was a century of Derrida and Sartre, Hegel and Marx. In the
end will Foucault and Deleuze be recalled? We think so yes, but in the
minor mode that Deleuze claimed so much to espouse. His inability to
understand the others of his own time, the rising stars of Baudrillard
and Derrida, and the misrecognition of Derrida's importance most of all,
the great staying power of Derrida and his writing machines reveals to
us the weak links in the Deleuze machines. B.W.O. finally is not a real
thing, not a literal thing, but a madman's fantasm from poor sad dying Artaud. So Derrida was right in that last interview and so it is.
Be well and be of good cheer. Deleuze was a Christian and did not even
know it himself.
Deleuze was not Jewish and so could not see the horizon of his own
century which was formed by the great Jewish thinkers of Marx and his
commentators. Deleuze was beautiful but sad and no one was fooled by his
terminological detours about minor literatures nor his Spinozalike claims

--- Mona smiled rue as she read this! her tears SplaShed the CyberPage!

to be against sadness and other negative emotions. This was merely
crankiness on Deleuze'S part. The commentaries on his work are so weak
so badly presented one can see the weakness of the original work more
clearly now than before. There was no political reason to ignore Deleuze
as many claimed and many still blather on about. The work of
interpretation surrounding the work of Sartre and Derrida proves this
point: It is both stronger and better work. Deleuze's real commentators
have not been born yet, we are still too close to the event, and his
ideas are questionable, their place in philosophy has not risen yet and
they might never. This could also be the result of the work with
Guattari which only weakened the Deleuzian project for itself, and made
him a star that was not a real star-- I mean one that endures --but just
a satellite a flash in the philosophical pan. His suicide undermines all
of his work, just as Heidegger's later Nazi ideas makes for questions
about the value and ulitmate meaning of even his great early work.... On
the other hand, one can see everywhere the greatness of Derrida by the
results of his work, by the sheer qauntity and weight of the discourse of
it, the presence of it; of course the quality of work born of Derrida'S
work... All of this has been so relieving to realize and to see how wrong
and how much of a failure, esp. the so called co-productions with
Guattari are. Tha t is where Deleuze sadly went off the rails. That was
the Big Error, the schizo analyst is what watered the Deleuzian project
down.And everyone who looks in their heart of hearts and examines all of
this will see this is what happened to Deleuze. Look at the solo work of
Guattari: from a critical and theoretica! l perspective it has produced
nothing but a mass of incomprehensible jargon and the concrete
achievements have left nothing but more jibberish to be unmasked. Poor
sad Deleuze drawn into all of this nonsense because of his what? His
illness, his alcoholism, his whatever, his denial of responsibility for
his weaknesses before his own generation of philosophers.

All of this is part of the essay to be published next year....

Mona laughed her head off called Jill, who tracked down Franny and going for a drink they went to toast the marauder who came to polemic their dear Daddy Deleuze and his PierrePal while my Guattari gently sleeps!

Thursday, September 09, 2004

they and Us Usssszzzzzssssssss

andthat afternoon was too hot in Jamaca and the tornado blew
the trees away...

and there others holding up the factory of doubt

yes but U cant explain lief and reel. or North adn south and the bands of desire can you? or how the truck faces north and not south. all these threads of es^pecially epistolary notions.

Message 8 of 780 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg #

verlaine wrote

Yes yes I recall when Gilles was phoning Felix and saying Whitehead
Whitehead! have you read this and Felix slammed the phone down!
shouting shooting like a bat out of hell! I'm off to get those
books! those books! O WHite O head O white O head O Head O white

is this us in our bettereanselves? was Mister Jeezwhizz here? are webecoming wake?

lets recall

And the nights were war and the Americans can`t pray but the Canadians got dogs
when sometimes the lights go out as when the truck drives down the heel,
its drivers pronounces the wheel defunct heaving a sigh and struck
by the wind passing nearby his wind breaks, and his vehicule is praised
for a fake reason, but none more fake than his analogy of
And the first Ministers made a deal , but a cancer patient still don`t get a bed
and yer school fees are too high someone else is controlling the way things
given and taught, and Mister we know about that but we want our old age pension,
after all, we worked