From: Orpheus <cwduff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:26:57 -0400 (EDT)
> It really is a marvelous example of what d&g call Minority
> Literature. A flight, aline of escape the plural voiced self 'My selves
> the grievers grieve."' Right up my alley fits my book like a nook.
> A book
> nook of self and auto-biographies of the multitudinous selfed being that
> seeks to unravel what has made it falsely constructed.
> Sun is everywhere and for walking, sauntering, meandering, promenading...
> Thanks for your kind comments , much appreciated (aren't we--humans--such
> hungry beasts, I gobbled up your compliments right away and kissed your
> words I imagine them as your lips speaking rapidly to me!
> as about your 'self' we work in different genres. I rememmber my
> Foucault (it's in the Dreuf Dreyfus and Rabinow book)
> where he looks back on his life's work and says he now recognizes
> it was always about the subject etc.
> What a dramatic morning, thunder and lightening
> the plants,
> that I am actually writing to you at this moment. I once was so jammed in
> writing an essay that I wrote it as a letter and that seemed to free up my
> epistemological motors sufficiently that I wrote the essay. Oh Episteme!
> The Espistles! O Reader O Writer!! O lexica!
> you seen it yet?
> (overcast and cooler--
> piece and it took my autobiographical breath away.
> For D&g the self is multiple and no longer a mere locus of
> subjectivity that is skewered on and off a substance which claims to be
> identical with itself. The problem of the 'I' has been by passed, or
> depasse with the introduction of their models./ No more I for them means
> and the result of the proliferation of masks and appearance . Appearance
> is no longer something to be probed and looked behind to see what is
> really there. So the problem of an I that says look this is Me is
> eliminated. WHich is not to say there is no subjectivity butthat
> subjectivity is a multiplicity of events, and that the I disappeared into
> its events; Event and self become the parts which work quite legitmately
> as parts which are no longer fragments of a whole. The whole and the part
> problem and their unity is sidestepped. One has then a whole (let us call
> that the I ego) which is just another part among the parts. The parts no
> longer reflect a unity which the whole once claimed sovereignty over. The
> parts and the whole -what literary critics of modernism claim relfects
> malaise and nostalgia for an 'earlier' and imagined unity of self is taken
> as just another possible (and indeed historically limited one)
> construction of self. Thus there can be joy in what some call the
> fragmentation. Fragments become segments. Anyhow this some of the
> thumbnail material
> to be mutually enhancing ('mutually enhancing', by the way,
> ranks VERY HIGH on my scale of things).
> Exciting thoughts first thing in the morning . . .
> Re Plurality and fictionality of Is: sure, it's all in the plural and
> they are all discursive, BUT--: not a nostalgia for a longed-for unity etc. but rather
> something else that complicates the picture: the fact that the
> aforementioned plurality etc. NOTWITHSTANDING , saying I in the
> autobiographical mode is an act heavy with consequence/arising out
> of profound need/attempting desperately, stubbornly to
> touch the world (because we are touched by the world, perhaps, and because
> the multiple organs of the body constitute this ONE, FINITE bos body
> that is mine, and if I hurt, I hurt, and not you or anybody else
> (in that manner). So yes, the autobiog I is, of course, yt yet
> another fiction (after all we are deal with affective./discursive
> constructs), but it is a particular fiction, and I guess it is
> its particularities that you and I are interested in.
> as a first person's autobiog discourse, probing/addressing/
> contexting an array of ideas and practices abou and of subjectivity,
> being surprised by your writing intellectual surprises
> are very high on my list of pleasures right up there with mutuality
> * * * * * * * *
> (hereafter to be referred to perhaps as the
> auto-fictional-reflective machine, or AFRM, which sounds like
> affirm, a word with a much happier resonance.
> > : The BwO is a degree zero of intensity. In isolation, it is
> > absolutely disorganized, anorganized, deterritorialized,
> > and free from all codes. It is the maximum of entropy, a
> > death by chaos rather than stillness. Though by itself it
> > is sterile--ending every motion before it begins,
> > interrupting each flow before it even starts to flow--it is
> > nevertheless brimming with potential, teeming with the
> > virtual which is actualized on its surface. This potential
> > is like the constant appearance and disappearance of
> > subatomic virtual particles, which cease to exist as soon
> > as they come into existence. The BwO sparks with a life
> > energy that remains too diffuse, too free to achieve the
> > level of organization necessary for breathing, eating, even
> > simple stability over time. Nevertheless, the energy is
> > there, and it will rise from the surface of the BwO.
> Then? 'd wrote me a note and said all this was inACCURATE.'
************************ Part 1.