From: peter.johnson@xxxxxxxxxx (Peter Johnson)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 14:11:15 -0800
Paul, you wrote,
>why use this term? D/g write about diagrammatic thought, rhizomes, abstract
>machines, desiring production, absolute surfaces, schizoanalysis..... Where
>is the 'materialist/ism' in this - perhaps i need an example of what you
>think a materialist analysis might be...If you've ever got the time.
>The term 'materialist' is so overloaded/overcoded that it hardly seems worth
>using it - which is perhaps why d/g rarely, if ever(?), use the term.
"A truly materialist psychiatry can be defined, on the contrary, by the
twofold task it sets itself: introducing desire into the mechanism, and
introducing production into desire." (AO, eng. trans, p22)
I had a vague feeling that DAG attempted something of this sort in this
very book. Perhaps this book then, is an exemplary 'material analysis'.
The political stakes or commitment seem to involve a dissatisfaction with
ready made solutions, pre-given regimes, confining institutions, ideas, or
practices and to appeal to the potential for creative communities.
What prejudices you, Paul, against the term(s) 'materialist/ism'? Why not
use it along with other terminology stripped from dag. Aren't the notions
of the 'sign', 'philosophy', 'concept', similarly overcoded?
'Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept
ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of
fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into
account, an explanation formulated in terms of desires: no, the masses were
not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of [material?]
conditions, they 'wanted' fascism, and it is this perversion of desire of
the masses that needs to be accounted for.'