It is in a certain “unheard” sense, then, that speech is in the world, rooted in that passivity which metaphysics calls sensibility in general. Since there is no nonmetaphoric language to oppose to metaphors here, one must, as Bergson wished, multiply antagonistic metaphors.
Derrida Of Grammatology
What is the meaning of this distinction between two regions: one molecular and the other molar; one microphysic or micrological, the other statistical and gregarious? Is this anything more than a metaphor lending the unconscious a distinction grounded in physics…? But in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphors, but matter itself.
Deleuze and Guattari Anti-Oedipus
The present author is no philosopher, he is poetice et eleganter, a freelancer who neither writes the System nor makes any promises about it, who pledges neither anything about the System nor himself to it.
Johannes de silentio
Bergson’s Creative Evolution is a masterpiece of antagonistic metaphors. The play of dualisms throughout the work is astounding. From bodies – organised/ disorganised – to the crowning achievement of evolution, the human mind (- the human being is a conclusion – ) and its two opposing concepts of intuition and intelligence, Bergson’s discourse unfolds and dilates, squeezes and contracts. Yet the subject endures. His path traverses the natural sciences and human philosophy in a courageous synthesis of body and spirit. In his introduction to Creative Evolution, he writes
This amounts to saying that theory of knowledge and theory of life seems to us inseparable…to show how our understanding itself, by submitting to a certain discipline, might prepare a philosophy which transcends it. For that, a glance over the history of systems became necessary, together with an analysis of the two great illusions to which, as soon as it speculates on reality in general, the human understanding is exposed.
I am emale – this is not the System. The System is for the heady heights of the Expert-Functions. If I had three lives, I am emale would read philosophy and literature in one, all the physical sciences have to teach us in another – and the third I would spend writing about the meaning of a sunset sky over the bay at Wilson’s Prom, the southern most tip of mainland Australia. Preferably enjoying the company of a voluptuous woman. That great southern sky… you just don’t get those hues and shades in Queensland.
I am emale is becoming haunted by Spivak. She lives yet – in writing and in the flesh. A form of transference, undoubtedly, a complex oedipal (Derrida or Deleuze? Who’s your Daddy?)/castrated (Mommy?___ too much T.V.) in nature, that marks the site of my “desire”: saving white men from brown women…
I don’t believe in father
The difference between sense and sensibility… not read Jane Austen. But if ‘reality’ is barred to us, thinking creatures as we are – a conclusion in evolutionary processes – the distinction is metaphorical, at least. Or perhaps, psychological.
– Psychology no more! Cried Kafka.
The machines – they’re everywhere, breathing, eating, shitting, fucking. They’re striving. They endure. Deleuze wrote a book about Bergson. He even wrote a couple of books about Spinoza: And here, in order to begin to indicate what error is, I should like you to note that the imaginations of the mind, considered in themselves, contain no error… (Second Part of the Ethics Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind, Proposition 17, Scholium). The “US professors and students” who are ‘influenced’ by French intellectuals, may not have heard of them. For if you are picking up Deleuze at face-value IE from the “essays and interviews” rather than the “long books in translation” (and Bergsonism isn’t even that long – but it is dense), you are merely a spectator.
Being a spectator isn’t even such a bad thing. A battle on the recording surface of a BwO, watching the multiplication of forces and meanings rise and antagonise, exponentially. I am emale is little more than a spectator. By all means, spectate, speculate, disseminate…
But if one assumes the mantle of the eXpert-Functionaries, well, that’s System. The public intellectual (as opposed to the private thinker)…
And here, in a certain, dangerous supplement to Deleuze and Guattari, Spivak’s gadfly, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason (hell, we’re all colonised by Oedipus Schmoedipus) has a point: the subaltern is silenced.
Spivak’s critique of Anti-Oedipus: A poetic reading of Marx, the end of ideology – if by that she means the end of ‘metaphor.’ Since there is no nonmetaphoric language to oppose to metaphors here … Kafka despaired of metaphors too.
Which amounts to saying its all metaphor, its all maya, make-believe, provisional
Another EcKo4Inc. Production. Incorporated. 2007 A D. construction company.
A non-prophet (dis)organisation, privately serving the K. Function.
With a delight in the X.