Comments on: How Do You Make Yourself a Body-Without-Organs?

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:21:43 +0000

as one of the 2 students who dug (dug-guh?) the mille plateaux, i had to laugh when i turned out to be none other than the dynamic duo themselves.

By: Francois Lachance

Francois Lachance — Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:09:28 +0000

Hug spelt backwards is “guh” and with which theorist thinker would one associated such a vocable? “guh” a la Foucault. “guh” a la Lacan.
Kristevean guh. Deleuzian guh. I wonder if Chun gets it…

If Roscharch is to projecting and getting it is to extraction, where is the productive double bind of the classic schiz-analytic stance? Either/or or and/and/and !!

By: George

George — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:14:14 +0000

As one pro to another, you don’t really believe this bullshit, do you?

I think someone needs a hug.

By: mariah

mariah — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:08:33 +0000

Yeah, well, at least none of you ended up Louis Althusser. I don’t mind the structuralism/marxism/psychoanalytic theory thing, but killing my wife and dying in an institution is a real drag.

By: KF

KF — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:49:41 +0000

Actually, I’ve decided that there’s either a random theorist generator working behind the quiz-scenes, or one is assigned, in the best tradition of graduate school, precisely the theorist one attempts to avoid. I most intentionally did not choose either “deterritorialization” or “schizophrenia,” and still ended up D&G. It’s like our very own return of the repressed.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:14:28 +0000

Well I don’t know what it says about this allegedly phallocentric quiz, but I ended up a woman, Julia Kristeva. I have no real idea who she is, and I think I got assigned to her because the only word I picked was “intertextual.” But I suppose I could do worse than be a student of Barthes. Plus, I’m not dead.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:58:22 +0000

Make that thrice.

My turn to wear the Lacan hat. And, like George, I find the idea odd, b/c I really dislike psychoanalytic theory…

Tell me about your mother.

By: Rory

Rory — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:19:53 +0000

George, you can’t be Lacan, because I am. No fair: KF gets to be two people at once, and we have to be one person at twice.

By: KF

KF — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:47:49 +0000

Ah, it’s only one of me who wants to make that argument. Fortunately, I am multiple enough to embrace both positions. Which is to say, yes. And yes.

By: chun the unavoidable

chun the unavoidable — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:20:48 +0000

And understanding—one of me wants to argue that understanding is all wrong as a mode of engagement with the plateaus. Too linear. Too (phal)logocentric. I think one can only “understand” D&G as one “understands” a poem

As one pro to another, you don’t really believe this bullshit, do you? Of course you don’t. It’s all very ludic.

There are two broad intepretations of Deleuze as far as I can see: 1) it’s a kind of Rorschach test and 2) you can get it if you’ve read enough of his sources. I suppose most lit folks subscribe to #1. I’m more of a #2 person, myself.