What is a World?

Yes, what in the world was I thinking when I stuck Beckett (sp?) in that 
list of anglo writers?  Especially when almost all of my reading of B. 
was in French for a course on the nouveau roman?  and when most of my 
Beckett reading is found in one novel, L'Innomable...  But then what 
really matters, as Jill and MOna point out is that Deleuze could write 
French (and as for Beckett it is true that D&G refer to him as a French 
writer, or they say half of Beckett... and Artaud... when they talk about 
what good contemporary schizo writers there are in French).  

But as for the detteritorialization/outlandish question, I'm sure that it 
is posed in A is for animal, although it may be posed again and again in 
the Abecedaire (maybe i will order the video, though it's not available 
in Quebec yet), although I don't recall it recurring twice between A and 
N.  You're right about D. referring to both as barbarisms... and he does 
make the comment in WIP? and perhaps elsewhere that sometimes to create a 
concept you need a barbarism but that an already existing word might do 
just as well, the word is not really the thing, but what happens and what 
it makes happen.  But deterritorialization is one of the most important 
D/G ian concepts... and it is linked to the question that comes up re: 
becoming-animal, namely, that that impulse has to do with worlding or 
making a world.  An animal, says Deleuze, has a world.  Whereas most 
people, accuses Deleuze, don't have a world. (Now, you mentioned, 
Stanley, that deterritorialization struck you as a Heideggerian concept. 
Why?)  Again, Deleuze takes up the question of the 'agencement mondial', 
or making an assemblage with the world in the difference he imputes to a 
leftist and rightist subjectivvity...where the rightist would begin 
his politics with himself and move out layer by layer from his/her self 
as the centre, segment by segment, as it were; whereas, the 'gauchiste' 
would reach first for the world-horizon and then perhaps zigzag back home 
again.

But, in any case, I like the idea of what is a world less than the idea 
of the territory.  Hm. I can no longer see my keyboard. perhaps it is the 
animal-becoming that gets us into territorial and deterritorializing 
mode... and, but, then, what about animals?? and their becomings... 
Deleuze imputes to the animal a world!! Wouldn't this be a sort of 
human-becoming of the animal.  I have always balked at the fact that 
becomings in  D/G are uni-directional, or somehow interesting in that 
they involve a sort of disempowerment.  I guess I have never seen 
puissance as being entirely different from empowerment.  Puissance means 
the joy in action.  And Deleuze in fact gives in J for joie the example 
of a typhoon and its joy in arriving....   I have never really truly been 
convinced by the minoritarian argument.  

Sorry, this is all very confused.  Immonde?  Deleuze is very delicious in 
his insults.  Effarant and immonde are two.  But, Deleuze is not confused 
in what it takes for an animal to make a world, I think.  Only I cannot 
remember the three points.  to be continued,

Karen