Thanks ari, this articule you sent "A letter to a
Harsh Critic" it is the same of Deleuze´s note "What
they would think about us?"?
Besides... i would like to know what do you think
about this drugs topics concerned to Foucault or
anyother...what do you think?
adr
--- ari <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
<HR>
<html>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1><i>Letter to a
Harsh Critic</i>
? 11<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>[?]So I?ll
move onto your other more cruel and hurtful criticism,
when you say I'm someone who's always just tagged
along behind, taking it easy, capitalizing upon other
people's experiments, on gays, drug-users, alcoholics,
masochists, lunatics, and so on, vaguely savoring
their transports and poisons without ever taking any
risks. You turn against me a piece I wrote where I ask
how we can avoid becoming professional lecturers on
Artaud or fashionable admirers of Fitzgerald. But what
do you know about me, given that I believe in secrecy,
that is, in the power of falsity, rather than in
representing things in a way that manifests a
lamentable faith in accuracy and truth? If I stick
where I am, if I don't travel around, like anyone else
I make my inner journeys that I can only measure by my
emotions, and express very obliquely and circuitously
in what I write. And what do my relations with gays,
alcoholics, and drug-users matter, if I can obtain
similar effects by different means? What's interesting
isn't whether I'm capitalizing on anything, but
whether there are people doing something or other in
their little corner, and me in mine, and whether there
might be any points of contact, chance encounters and
coincidences rather than alignments and
rallying-points (all that crap where everyone's
supposed to be everyone else's guilty conscience and
judge). I owe you lot nothing, nothing more than you
owe me. I don't need to join you in your ghettos,
because I've got my own. The question's nothing to do
with the character of this or that exclusive group,
it's to do with the transversal relations that ensure
that any effects produced in some particular way
(through homosexuality, drugs, and so on) <i>can
always beproduced by other means.</i> We have to
counter people who think "I'm this, I'm
that," and who do so, moreover, in
<i>psychoanalytic terms</i> (relating everything to
their childhood or fate), by thinking in strange,
fluid, unusual terms: I don't know what I am I'd have
to investigate and experiment with so many things in a
non-narcissistic, non-oedipal way no gay can ever
definitively say "I'm gay." It's not a
question of being this or that sort of human, but of
becoming inhuman, of a universal animal
becoming</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"
size=1><sup>8</sup></font><font face="Arial,
Helvetica" size=2>not seeing yourself as some dumb
animal, but unraveling your body's human organization,
exploring this or that zone of bodily intensity, with
everyone discovering their own particular zones, and
the groups, populations, species that inhabit them.
Who's to say I can't talk about medicine unless I'm a
doctor, if I talk about it like a dog? What's to stop
me talking about drugs without being an addict, if I
talk about them like a little bird? And why shouldn't
I invent some way, however fantastic and contrived, of
talking about something, without someone having to ask
whether I'm qualified to talk like that? Drugs can
produce <i>delire,</i> so why can't I get into a
<i>delire</i> about drugs? Why does your particular
version of "reality" have to come into it?
You're a pretty unimaginative realist. And why do you
bother reading me, if that's how you feel? Arguments
from one's own privileged experience are bad and
reactionary arguments. My favorite sentence in
<i>Anti-Oedipus</i> is: "No, we've never seen a
schizophrenic."<br>
[...]<br>
Printed in Michel Cressole's <i>Deleuze</i>
(1973)<br><br>
</font></div>
</html>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
Harsh Critic" it is the same of Deleuze´s note "What
they would think about us?"?
Besides... i would like to know what do you think
about this drugs topics concerned to Foucault or
anyother...what do you think?
adr
--- ari <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
<HR>
<html>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1><i>Letter to a
Harsh Critic</i>
? 11<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>[?]So I?ll
move onto your other more cruel and hurtful criticism,
when you say I'm someone who's always just tagged
along behind, taking it easy, capitalizing upon other
people's experiments, on gays, drug-users, alcoholics,
masochists, lunatics, and so on, vaguely savoring
their transports and poisons without ever taking any
risks. You turn against me a piece I wrote where I ask
how we can avoid becoming professional lecturers on
Artaud or fashionable admirers of Fitzgerald. But what
do you know about me, given that I believe in secrecy,
that is, in the power of falsity, rather than in
representing things in a way that manifests a
lamentable faith in accuracy and truth? If I stick
where I am, if I don't travel around, like anyone else
I make my inner journeys that I can only measure by my
emotions, and express very obliquely and circuitously
in what I write. And what do my relations with gays,
alcoholics, and drug-users matter, if I can obtain
similar effects by different means? What's interesting
isn't whether I'm capitalizing on anything, but
whether there are people doing something or other in
their little corner, and me in mine, and whether there
might be any points of contact, chance encounters and
coincidences rather than alignments and
rallying-points (all that crap where everyone's
supposed to be everyone else's guilty conscience and
judge). I owe you lot nothing, nothing more than you
owe me. I don't need to join you in your ghettos,
because I've got my own. The question's nothing to do
with the character of this or that exclusive group,
it's to do with the transversal relations that ensure
that any effects produced in some particular way
(through homosexuality, drugs, and so on) <i>can
always beproduced by other means.</i> We have to
counter people who think "I'm this, I'm
that," and who do so, moreover, in
<i>psychoanalytic terms</i> (relating everything to
their childhood or fate), by thinking in strange,
fluid, unusual terms: I don't know what I am I'd have
to investigate and experiment with so many things in a
non-narcissistic, non-oedipal way no gay can ever
definitively say "I'm gay." It's not a
question of being this or that sort of human, but of
becoming inhuman, of a universal animal
becoming</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"
size=1><sup>8</sup></font><font face="Arial,
Helvetica" size=2>not seeing yourself as some dumb
animal, but unraveling your body's human organization,
exploring this or that zone of bodily intensity, with
everyone discovering their own particular zones, and
the groups, populations, species that inhabit them.
Who's to say I can't talk about medicine unless I'm a
doctor, if I talk about it like a dog? What's to stop
me talking about drugs without being an addict, if I
talk about them like a little bird? And why shouldn't
I invent some way, however fantastic and contrived, of
talking about something, without someone having to ask
whether I'm qualified to talk like that? Drugs can
produce <i>delire,</i> so why can't I get into a
<i>delire</i> about drugs? Why does your particular
version of "reality" have to come into it?
You're a pretty unimaginative realist. And why do you
bother reading me, if that's how you feel? Arguments
from one's own privileged experience are bad and
reactionary arguments. My favorite sentence in
<i>Anti-Oedipus</i> is: "No, we've never seen a
schizophrenic."<br>
[...]<br>
Printed in Michel Cressole's <i>Deleuze</i>
(1973)<br><br>
</font></div>
</html>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com