) Colm ica slat apo RA romAcele ORL: life. For me, that is philosophy itself.” Eyaae clair} Photo: Giles Deleuze in Big Sur by Jean-Jacques Lebel a) Pret TV aid Pe) eer be ORCAlowander Hickox, ‘Chaosophy (NewYork eon Hume, Kant, and “tia Ferrel, Janet MeteaFe Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974 Gilles Deleuze Edited by David Lapoujade Translated by Michael Taormina ‘SEMIOTEXT(E) FOREIGN AGENTS SERIES"7 Contents Introduction. Desert Islands Bergson, 1859-1941 Bergson’s Conception of Difference Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Precursor of Kafia, Céline, and Ponge ‘The Idea of Genesis in Kant's Esthetics Raymond Roussel, or the Abhorrent Vacuum How Jamny’s Pataphysics Opened the Way for Phenomenology “He Wes my Teacher” The Philosophy of Crime Novels On Gilbert Simondon Humans: A Dubious Existence The Method of Dramatization Conclusions on the Will to Power and the Etemal Retum Nietzsche's Burst of Laughter Mysticism and Masochism ‘On Nietzsche and the Image of Thought Gilles Deleuze Talks Philosophy Gueroult’s General Method for Spinoza The Fissure of Anaxagoras and the Local Fires of Heraclitus 162 170 193, 14 216 930 932 242 244 247 252 262 74 981 984 989 313 34 Hume How Do We Recognize Structuralism? Three Group-Related Problems “What Our Prisoners Want From Us...” Intellectuals and Power Remarks (on Jean-Francois Lyotard) Deleuze and Guattari Fight Back. Helene Cixous, or in Strobe Capitalism and Schizophrenia Your Special “Desiring-Machines”: What Are They? HM’ Letters Hot and Cool Nomadic Thought On Capitalism and Desire Five Propositions on Psychoanalysis Faces and Surfaces Preface to Hocquenghem's L’Aprés-Mai des faunes APlanter’s Art Notes List of Translators IndexIntroduction is first volume gathers together almost all the texts which Gilles Deleuze published in France and abroad between 1953 and 1974, starting with Empiri- his first book, and ending with the debates following Guattari. This collection esse: erviews, and conferences all previously in any one work by Deleuze. jas as co order or emphasis, I have respected the jon (not of composition). A them i h the previous in Negotiations, as well as the bib- Tiographical project undertaken around 1989,' but it might have erroneously suggested that this collection constituted a book “by” Deleuze, or at least one he was planning. no texts prior to Those texts published for the fi Regimes of Madness and other texts (Deux régimes de fous et autres textes). David LapoyDesert Islands Geographers say there are two. imagination because it the only case where science makes mythology more concrete, and mythol- ogy makes science more vivid. Continental islands ate accidental, derived islands. They are separated from a continent, born of disarticulation, erosion, fracture; they survive the absorption of what once contained them. Oceanic lands. Some are formed from coral reefs and tht of day a movement from the lowest depths. Some 1 some disappear and then return, leaving us no eveal a profound opposition asa reminder that the sea lightest sagging in the highest structures; oceanic islands, that the earth is still there, under the sea, gathering its strength to punch through to the surface. We can assume that these ele- ments are in constant strife, for one another. In this we so, that an island is deserted must appear philo- sopbically normal to us. Huma nor assume that the act tained. People and water is over, or at least con- these ewo elements mother and father, assigning according to the whim of their fancy. They must somehow persuade themselves that a struggle of d exist, or that it has 9y on its own and in another way. The élan that nds extends the double movement that produces f joy or in fear, ic far inent, of being lost and alone—or ing, beginning anew. Some islands drifted away from the cont land is also that toward which one drifts; other islands and absolute. ; separating and creating are not mutually exclusive: one has to hold cone’ own when one is separated, and had better be separate to create anews this way, the jon of islands takes up the movement of their pro- have the same objective. Ieis the same movement, but it Tuan who find themsclve separated fiom the work when on Ie is no longer the island that is created from the bowels of the earth the liquid depths, itis humans who create the world anew from the island and ‘on the waters. Humans thus take up for themselves both movements of the island and are able to do so on an island that, precisely, lacks one kind of move- ment: humans can drift toward an island that is nonetheless originary, and they ‘can create on an island that has merely drifted away. On closer inspection, we find here a new reason for every island to be and remain in theory deserted. An island doesn’t stop being deserted simply because itis inhabited. While true that the movement of humans toward and on the island takes up the to humankind, some people can occupy the ovided they are sufficiently, that is, absolutely separate, and provided they are sufficient, absolute creators. Cer- this is never the case in fact, though people who are shipwrecked approach such a condition. But for this to be the case, we need only extrapo- xy bring with them to the island. Only in does such a movement put an end to the island's desertednesss in it takes up and prolongs the é/an that produced the island as deserted. Far from compromising it, humans bring the desertedness to its perfection and In certain conditions which attach them to the very movement give the which 10 For this to be the case, there is again but one condition: humans would have to reduce themselves to the movement that brings them to the island, the movement prolongs and takes up the élan that produced the island. Then geography and the jon would be one. To that question so dear to the old explorers—‘which creatures live on deserted islands?”—one could only answer: human beings live there already, but uncommon humans, the are absolutely separate, absolute creators, in short, an Idea of humanity, a pro- totype, a man a great Amnesi mous hurricane would almost be a god, a woman who would be a goddess, +, pure Artist, a consciousness of Earth and Ocean, an enor- a beautiful witch, a statue from the Easter Islands. There you have a human being who precedes itself. Such a creature on a deserted island would be the deserted island itself, insofar as it imagines and reflects itself in its first movement. A consciousness of the earth and ocean, such ed island, ready to begin the world anew. But since h voluntarily, are not identical to the movement that puts ¢ they are unable to join with the élan that produces the ‘encounter it from the outside, and their presence in fact sp The unity of the deserted island an imaginary, like the the desert- beings, even em on the island, ity; it would require the <. rites and mythology. In the facts themselves we find at least a negative confirmation of all this, if we consider what a deserted island is in reality, that is, geographically. The land, and all the more so the deserted island, is an extremely poor or weak rion from the point of view of geography. This is to its credit. The range of lands has no objective unity, and deserted islands have even less. The desert- collective imagination, what is most profound in cd island may indeed have extremely poor soil. Deserted, the island may be a desert, but not necessarily. The real desert is uninhabited only insofar as it pre- or human, On the contrary, the lack of inhabitants on the deserted 4 pure fact due to circumstance, in other words, the island's sur- ngs. The island is what the sea surrounds and what we travel around. Ie ¢ an egg. An egg of the sea, it is round. It is as though the island had pushed its desert outside, What is deserted is the ocean around it. It is by of circumstance, for other reasons than the principle on which th depends, chat ships pass in the distance and never come ashore. The isa desert. So much so, that in itself the island may con- fauna, the brightest flora, the most nourishment, the hardiest of savages, and the castaway as its most pre- however momentarily, the ship that comes to not any less a deserted island. To change thisDosen ISLANDS AND O1HER TEXTS situation, we would have to overhaul the general distribution of the continents, the state of the seas, and the lines of navigation. sis to state once again that the essence of the deserted island is imag- inary and not actual, mythological and not geographical. At the same time, its destiny is subject to those human conditions that make mythology possible. Mythology is not simply willed into existence, and the peoples of the earth quickly cnsured they would no longer understand their own myths. Ie is at this very moment literature begins. Literature is the attempt to interpret, in jous way, the myths we no longer understand, at the moment we no st understand them, since we no longer know how to dream them or and necessarily produces on themes of the unconscious, 1s. One would have to show exactly and like every competition it has its p hor ced island, Robinson and Suzanne, Suzanne and the Pacific emphasizes the separated aspect of islands, the separation of the young woman who finds her- :! Robinson Crusoe, the creative aspect, the beginning anew. It is true thar the way mythology fails is different in each case. In the case of Giraudous’ raceful death. In Robinson's ragine a more boring novel, today. Robinson's vision of the in property: never have we seen an owner more ready to preach. The mythical recreation of the world from the deserted island way to the reconstitution of everyday bourgeois life from a reserve of capital. Everything is taken from the ship. Nothing is invented. It is all painstakingly applied on the island. Time is nothing but the time necessary for capital to produce a benefit as the outcome of work. And the providential function of God is to guarantee a return, God knows his people, the hardworking honest type, by their beautiful proper ined, shabby property. Robinsor not Eve, buc towards work, happy to be a slave, and too easily disgusted by cannibalism. Any healthy reader would dream of seeing him eat Robinson. Robinson Crusoe n of that thesis which affirms the close ties stantism. The novel develops the failure and the represents the best becween capitalism and Pr death of mythology in Purit ss, though in Suzanne's he island bears immediatel objec: to produ in the windows of the shop: from the since it does not re Destar Istanos human relations, amidst bi 1g and selling, exchanges and presents. is an insipid young woman, Her companions are not Adam, but young cadavers, and when she reenters the world of living men, she will love them in a uniform way, like a priest, as though love were the minimum threshold of her perception, What must be recovered is the m) However ed a reserve And. logical life of the deserted island, its very failure, Robinson gives us some indication: he first need- ‘capital. In Suzanne's case, she was first and foremost separate. ither the one nor the other could be part of a couple. These three indi- ust be restored to their myth We have to get back to the movement of the that makes the deserted island a model, a prowuype ofthe is true that from the deserted island it is not creation but re-creation, not the beginning but a re-beginning that takes place, The deserted island isthe origin, but a second origin, From iteverything begins anew. The island is the necessary minimum for this re-beginning, the shat survives the first origin, the radiating seed or egg that must be 10 re-produce everything, Clearly, this presupposes that the forma- }¢ world happens in two stages, in two periods of rime, birth and and that the second is just as necessary and essential as the first, and thus the first is necessarily compromised, born for renewal and already renounced in a catastrophe. It is noc that there is a second birth because there has been a catastrophe, but the reverse, there is a catastrophe after the origin because there must be, from the beginning, a second birth. Within ourselves we can locate the source of such a theme: it is not the production of life that we look for when we judge it to be life, but its reproduction. The animal whose mode of reproduction remains unknown to us has not yet taken its place iving beings. It is not enough that everything begin, everything must begin again once the cycle of possible combinations has come to compl The second moment does not succeed ‘ reappearance of the ts when the cyl ofthe ahr moment as en completed. The second oi us the law of repetition, creation caugh is concentrated in a hol land in the middle of the ocean, This seco of the world is more isa sacred island. Many myths recount that what 3AND OTHER Texts the flood. Ocean and water embody a princi lands, exclusively female communi eof segregation sch expanse that takes it up to deepen fhe material of this Jean Hyppolite’s Logic and Existence’ ‘was a commentary on Hegel, preserving Hegel behind Hyppolite’s new book is quice di nology, and the Encyclopedia, Hyppolite stats from a precise precise point: Philosophy must be ontology, it cannot be anything eb philosophy is not anthropology. Anthropology aspires to be a discousse on poses the empirical discourse of humai of his speech are separate, Reflec it presup- speaker and the object synthesis the subject:Destar Istanns AND OF so? These two ques the necessity t0 do so. To his cre as given: thought is given because supposed as given because the to which makes understanding poss juestion: the way t0 get outside is also nsight is that thought is presupposed s itself and reflects itself, and itis pre- ‘of objects presupposes thought as that ‘Thus, in Kant, thought and the thing are identical, but the ching identical co thought is only a relative thing, not the thing-as-being, not the thing-in-itself. Hegel, therefore, aspires to the veritable identity of what is given and what is presupposed, in other words, to the Absolute, In his Phenomenology, we are shown that the general difference between being and reflection, of being-in-itself and being-for-itsef, of truth and certainty, develop in the concrete moments of a dialectic whose very movement abolishes this difference, or preserves it only as a necessary appearance. In this sense, the Phenomenology starts from human reflection to show that this human reflection and its consequences lead ro the absolute knowledge which they pre suppose. As Hyppolite remarks, itis a question of “reducing” anthropology, of “removing the obstacle” of a knowledge whose source is foreign. But it is not just at the finish, or at che beginning, that absolute knowledge is. Knowledge is already absolute in every moment: a figure of consciousness is a moment of the concept, only in a differenc guise; the external difference between being and reflection is, ina different guise, the internal difference of Being itself or in other terms, Being which is identical to difference, to mediation. “Since the difference of consciousness has returned into the self, these moments are then presented as determined concepts and as their organic movement which is grounded in itself.” someone will say, 10 act like God and grant yourself absolure knowledge. But we have to understand whar being is with respect to the given. Being, according to Hyppolite, is not essence but sense. Saying that this world is sufficient not only means that it sufficient for us, but that it is suf= ficient unto itself, and that the world refers to being not as the essence beyond appearances, and not as a second world which would be the world of the Intel- ligible, but as the sense of this world. Certainly, we find this substitution of sense for essence already in Plato, when he shows us that the second world is itself the subject of a dialectic that makes it the sense of this world, nor some her world. But the great agent of substitution is again Kant, because his cti- tity of recognition, the a word, the evitique replaces essence world, because le for transforming meta- o beyond’ means there is no ; and that there is in the ig which chinks itself); world beyon e's Loctc ax Buren Jean Hi and fin book is a reflection on the cor that there isin thought no beyond of language. Jean Hyppolite’s ions of an absolute discourse; and in chis respect, those chapters on the ineffable and on poetry are crucial. The same people who chitchat are those who believe in the ineffable, Bue if Being is sense, true knowledge is not the knowledge of an Other, nor of some thing, Absolute knowledge is what is closest, so to speak, what is most simple: it és here. “Behind the curtain there is nothing to see,” or as Hyppolite says “the sectet is that there is no secret.” We see he difficulty which the author emphatically underlines: if ontology is an ontology of sense and not essence, if there is no second world, how can absolute knowledge be distinguished from empirical knowledge? Do we not fall back into the simple anthropology which we just criticized? Absolure knowledge must at one and the same time include empirical knowl- edge and nothing else, since there is nothing else to include, and yer it has to include its own radical difference from empirical knowledge. Hyppolite’ idea m, despite appearances, was not what preserved us from llowed us to go beyond it. From the viewpoint of essence, ique. Empiri cism posited determination as purcly subjective; essentialism, by opposing determinations to one another and to the Absolute, leads only to the bottom empiricism and reflection is no less exterior than itis in empiricism ot pure ci its determinations, which are moments of form. In the empirical and in the absolute, it is the same being and the same thought; but the empiric: nal difference of thought and being has given way to the difference which is identical co Being, to the internal difference of Being that thinks itself. Thus absolute knowledge is in effect distinct from empirical knowledge, but only at the cost of denying the knowledge of non-different essence. In logic, therefore, there is no longer, as there is in the empirical realm, whac I say on the one hand and the sense of what I say on the other—the pursuit of the one by the orher being the dialectic of Phenomenology. On the contrary, my discourse is logi- when I speak the sense of what I say, and when Being thu speak itself Such ciscouse, which i the particular syle of phi ophy, cannot be other than circular. In this connection, we cannot a problem which is not only logical, but pedagogical Hyppoliteehus rises up against any anthropological or humanist interpretation ras ts reflection of humanity, but a reflection of. is not a second worl om empirical knowledge, logy. In this regard, however, iction Hyppolite makes between Logic and decisive the di 7le character of a determined, the same thought; but the difference berween thought and passed in the absolute by the positing of Being which is iden- tical to difference, and which as such shows his Hegelian bias: Being can be identi- ice only in so far as differen finds its being in this very differen IFin the other, since the other isis other. T when he analyzes the three mi of Logic: bei ‘only that the same sense, but also , to contradict onesclf. In However, the same que hat Being expres nnd and thie pa Instincts and Institutions ies and needs; these elements comprise worlds different animals. On the other hand, the subject insti ial world sm from nature though ndencies by introducing them sate you from hunger, provided you have ‘money; and marriage will spare you from searching out a partner, though it sub- jects you to other tasks. In other words, every individ of tendencies to the social. ‘The ins system of means( means of satisfaction). Such a theory will afford us the following political criteria: tyranny is a regime in which there are mai ind few institutions; democracy is a regime in which there are many institutions, and few laws. Oppression becomes apparent when laws bear directly on people, and not on the prior insti Buc if the multiple possible forms of marriage. Neither does the negative positive, nor the general the particular. The “desire to whet your appetite” does not explain drinks before dinner, because there are a thousand other ways, to whet your appetite. Brutality does not explain war in the least; and yet bru- tality discovers in war its best means. This is the paradox of sociery: we are always talking about institutions, but we are in fact confronted by procedures of satisfaction—and the tenden« ied by such procedures neither tri ger nor determine the procedures. Tendencies are satisfied by means that do not depend on them. Therefore, no tendency exists wi the same time constrained or harassed, and thus transformed, sublimated—to such an needs find in the institution jue" satisfaction, itis not enough to useful,” one must still ask the question: useful for Or just for a few (the privileged class)? Or only for those who control the institution (the bureaucracy)? One of the most profound sociological problems thus consists in secking out the nature of this other instance, on which the social forms of the satisfaction of ten- dencies depend. The rituals ? The means of production? Whatever this other is, human utility is always something else than mere advantage. The institution sends us back to a social activity that is con- stitutive of models of which we are nor conscious, and which are not explained either by tendencies or by utility, since human utility presupposes tendencies in the first place. In this sense, the priest, the man of ritual, always embodies the unconscious of 8, How different is instiner? With instinct, nothing goes beyond uti yy. Whereas tendencies were indirectly satisfied by the insticutio rectly satisfied by instinct. There are no insti nstinctive coercions; only repugnancies are the tendencies themselves except bi ygical factors and th, us, we ask our impl st of 20 reflex, of tropism, of habit and jerstood only within the framework of an ige to the species, a good for the species, an ultimate biological cause? “Useful for whom?” is the question we rediscover here, but its meaning has changed. Instinct, seen from both angles, is given as a tendency launched in an organism at species-specific reactions. The problem common to instinet and to institution is still this: how does synthesis of tendencies and the object that satisfies them come about? semble at all the hydrates my organ- lacks. The more perfect an instinct is in its domain, the more it belongs to the species, and the more it seems to consticute an original, irreducible power of synthesis. But the more perfectible instinct is, and thus imperfect, the more it is subjected to variation, to indecision, and the more it allows itself to be reduced to the mere play of internal individual factors and exteri- or circumstances—the more it gives way to intelligence. However, if we take this line of argument to its limit, how could such a synthesis, offering to the tendency a suitable object, be intelligent when such a synthesis, to be realized, implies a period of time too long for the individual to live, and experiments which ic would not survive? We are forced back on the idea that intelligence is something more social than individual, and that inte finds in the social its intermediate possible. What does the social respect to tendencies? It means integrating circumstances into a ipation, and internal factors into a system that regulates their replacing the species. This is indeed the case with the ins because we sleep: we eat because it is lunchtime, There are but on neans to satisfy tendencies, means which are original because they are social. Every institution imposes a series of models on our bodies, even in its involuntary structures, and offers our ea sort of knowledge, a possibility of foresight as project. We come ncts, they builds institutions. instinet would and the institution the demands of y the demand for bread. stitution will be grasped most ac animal and humans, when the system of | the human, either fleeing or attacking us, or patiently waiting for nourish- snt and protection 2Bergson, 1859-1941" A great philosopher creates new concepts: these concepts simultancously surpass the dualities of ordinary thought and give things a new eruth, a new a new way of dividing up the world. The name ‘Bergson’ remains associated with memory, dan vital, and intuition. His influence and his genius are evaluated according «0 the way in which imposed and used, have entered and remained in the philosophical world. With ime and Free Will the original concept of duration was fo ncept of memory; in Creative Evolution, that of élan vital. The re 2 BERGSON, 1859-1941 simply an a characteris “The first characteris presented, is given in perso and present itself solely in a critical manner, as a reflection on this knowledge of things. On the contrary view, philosophy seeks to establish, or rather restore, a7 ‘ther knowledge, a knowledge and because ing to us the repudiating cri is his second path that Bergson ces by science, in technical activ » practical need and, most everyday language, s0 ‘many forms and rel sad of leaving us outside, is restored rather than established by phi rediscovered rather than invented, We are separated from things; the immediate given is therefore not immediately given. But we cannot be separated by a sim- ple accident, by a . weern only‘tween two worlds, one sensible, the other F even just cwo directions of one and the the ind the move- these terms that the problem . the movement is no more, but precisely wade up of instants, because instants are only its real or virtual product and the shadow of its product. Being is not made up of presents. In another way, then, that already was ing must be set up. At every because cessations, that is and the pas being used to be the foundation for them. In distinguishing the two Bergson replaced them by the distinction of ro movemen snew how to conceive as coexistent the one beneath the other, and tancously unders ifference of time, but also understand the di ing cannot be composed with two con any more 12 movement is composed of points of space or of instants: the stitching would Being is a bad concept to the extent that it serves to oppose every- 1 undifferentiated, n, which is merely false movement. Being is the difference Af ofthe thing, what Bergson often calls the nuance. “An empiricism worthy of ‘would measure out for the object a concept approp. hic to the simple idea of color: the philosopher should concentrate “object of metaphysics is to recapcure in individual existences, and to follow to the ace from which it emanates, the particular ray that, conferring upon each of aches the identity of the thing and its difference as philosophy rediscovers ‘recaptures’ it. Bergson denounces a common danger in science and in meta- while metaphysics conceives being as something unmovable erves as a principle. Both seek to attain being or to recompose is not: we would be led back to a ty and nough to make 25Diseat finding differences in nature, the Being is s one that does not respect these differences, Bergson loves to cite Plato's ext comparing the philosopher to the good cook who cuts things up according co their natural articulations: he constantly reproaches science as well as metaphysics for having retained only differences of degree where there used to be something entirely different, of thus being part of a badly analyzed “composite.” One of Bergson’s most famous passages shows us thae intensity in face covers up differences of nature that intuition can rediscover" But we know that science and even metaphysics do not invent their own errors or thi something founds them in only could be differences of degree, of proportion. What differ in nature is never a thing, bur a tendency. A difference of nature is never between two products or between two things, but in ome and the seme thing between the two tendencies that the same product between two tendencies that encounter Indeed, what is pure is never the thing: the th at must be dissociated: only the tendency is pure, which true thing or the substance isthe tenden« ike a true method of division: it divides the mi fer in nature, Hence we see the mi are never distinguished as cwo things but as two movements, two tendencies, ation and contraction. But we must go further: ifthe theme and the idea of ity have a great importance in the philosophy of Bergson, itis because in every ‘ese the two tendencies are not pu divide difference itself of the thing was one of the two tendencies. An to the duality of m: duration shows us the very nacure of differes whereas mat- is only the undifferes way, the other but it does so because that the matter from which As long as we remain within dualism, the nts meet: duration, which by itself has no degrees, a certain obsta , a certain impu- |, that gives it such and such sin itself so that every id that which has only degrees; but more profoundly there are degrees of dif- the very point where precisely difference is no thing but a difference of degree ference but confirms [recoupe of what persists. Hereichotomy is the law of life, And Bergson criticizes mechanism and finalism in biology, as he does the in philosophy, for always composing movement from points of view, as between actual terms instead of seeing in it the actualization of some- the species it has produced. Berg- son constantly said that duration is a change of nature, of quality. “Between light and darkness, between colors, between nuances, difference is absolue The pas- Beneson, 1859-1941 ice of a good setting up of the problem: (© be no more, if it were not immediately and would never be able to become what p the problem, is to have retained the second present to have sought the past from something current, and final- in, But in fact, “memory does not at ist of a regression from the present to the past.” What Bergson shows us if the past is not past at the same time that it never be able to be Idaappear an durad ism is no doubc in Matter and Memory: Bergson tells us, moreover, that his work. hot everything is given. But what does such icously that the given presupposes a movement that must not be conceived in the invents it or creates image of the given." presents us a simple copy of the prod! rojected onto the is not the same thing of a virtuality that is, iginal attempt to discover the proper dom: If beyond the order of the possible, of causes is not determination but wn thought ated in of nature, coexistent degrees ence mn and perception, and mi have been wrong ery ease coming from a badly He then shows not enough to speak of a difference of nature between matter and nce, and differ ature between the pasta he other toward the future. These thet orrespond, in the whole of the work, to the notions of du vital. The project we find in Bergson's work, that of re pated in English empiricism. Bur the method was profoun hrce essential concepts that gav 31Bergson’s Conception of Difference’ ly echo one another: the lem of the nature of difference. In. Bergs problems in th of nature. The const the theme in Bergson’ works whe found merely differences of degree. And c: 32 BERGSON’s CONCEPTION OF DIFFERENCE ire between things of the same kind. If differences of nature do iduals of the same kind, we must then recognize that not simply spati run the tisk of ending up ina merely exter- tare of reflection, Opting for the first alternative, Bergson puts forward sophy’s ideal: to tailor “for the object a concept appropriate to that object one, a concept that one can hardly still call a concept plies only to that one thing.” This unity of the thing and the concepe is internal difference, ich one reaches through differences of natute. intuition isthe joy of difference. Bu ‘ween things, we are dealing with a genuine distribution, a genuine problem bution. One must carve up reality according co its articulations. and iuelle, Bergson shows us the nat he poine where three factualt. We sudde substituted simple differences of degree in th prefered, more particularly simple differen science: how do we manage to see o1 of grouping for aticula ‘cannot ground what makes ‘wo other poi ns” are usually numbers. One lf has a number, a virtual numbering number. Utility, chen, only frees up and spreads out the degrees already included in difference, un hing more than a However, between things (in the sense of nd cannot ever be, anything but differences of propor- ings, nor the states of things, nor is it characte is tendencies, develop, Beneson’s tendency, product o ‘ever presents, and the sed and the open, geo- mn, perception and ind that a composite is undoubtedly 2 blending of tendencies that differ in nature, but as such is a state of hich itis impossible to make out any differences of nature. A composite is what sees from that point of view where nothing differs in nature ince we have nothing else at our disposal, we have to use provide, differences of degree or proportion, but only a mesure of tendency, to arrive at tendency as the sufficient reason of propor “Wherever this difference of propor sufficient to define ish that such a difference is not accidental and that wate these particular nd its product. has retained hardly anything excepr differences of this view of intensity as it informs Greek meta~ themselves. For the moment, suf- ion depends less on composite ideas than on ingness. But these pscudo-ideas are them-Destrr Istanps aN Orie Texts ception.” In other words le or measure do we us co two ten) This method is something othe of experience, and less (so If of che divided genus resides the Idea being sought after, the middle term is missing? And Plato seems better off than Bergson, Idea of a transcendent Good can effec the choice of the and the lived. What is essent swe know how much Bergso ure between two tendencies is an improv ings, as well asthe difference of ant over the difference of degree sity between beings: and yet this external difference, At this poin es, can be found in Bergson's work. What he rejects ion that locates cause or reason in the genus and the category and 1g him in space. Reason must sxample: Bergson shows that abstract time is a composite of space and dura- and more profoundly, that space itself is a composite of matter and matter and memory. So we sce the composi tendency, since itis defin Bergson always asks of difference: why Ia perception call up one recollection rather specific frequencies? Why these rather than others?” Why does duration exhibit such a son must be what Bergson calls nuance. There are no 2 syche its essence is nuance. As long as the If has not been found, “the unique concept,” we are satisfied wi the object by several concepts, partake.” What escapes the same kind, and th: than some other propor is not between these two tendencies. In ne ofthese tendencies, and opposes the ay about it comes ; on the other hand, In Données immediaes, the object explaining mposice is nota property of set jon differs in navure fro general. These methodological clavificati changes in nature and not in magnitude.” The life of the psyche impasse where the method appears ference of nature itself: in the life of the psyche, there is always ofh- cre being number or several.” Bergson distinguishes three ion. Movement is a word, durat a substance. Bergson's and alteration is 36 a7ture; it gives us difference of nature as o 2s become a substance, so movement ed a subs Duration or ten- dency is the difference of s unmediated way, the unity of substance and subject Now we know both how to divide the composite and how to choose the namely duration, is always on the left side. The division of animal behavior places intelligence on the | ion, the élam rita, is expressed as instincts through such behavior, ht side for the analysis of human behavior, But chout in curn revealing i I And to see a final nuance of duration in matter, one has only to go farther, 0 go all the way. But to understand this ceuci nd what difference has become. Difference is no longer between, lifference is itself one of che tendencies and is always on the right ‘eral difference has become internal difference. Difference of nature has itself become a nature. More than that, i 1 thar the articulations of the real and fa 7 ions ofthe real sketched factual lines which atleast revealed ference as the limit of their i convergence, and convey ft the difference of degree, the difference of intensity, and species-specific differ- ence. However, there are now other distinctions to be made in the state of internal ty. Internal ontradiction, alrerity, and negat 38 from the outside. The real sense of Bergson’s endeavor king internal difference as such, as pure internal difference, and raising dif- ference up to the absolute. Duration is only one of two tendencies, one of two halves. So if we accept it differentiates itself. Ths isthe essence of the simpl cor the movement of difference. So, the composite divides into two tendencies, «tion relaxation; and relaxation is the principle of matter. Organic form is broken into matter and clan vital, bu the elan vital differentiates itself into instinct the principle of the transform is not broken up in the same way that the si f the method of difference takes both these two movemet yn must be examined. It is this have to show in what way that which differs from dura- c. the other half, can still be duration, In Duration and Sis be taken up and developed ot exactly that which does had a false concep- ows thatforms: “they are indetermina son's work, the unforesecabl encounters from matter, but it comes first and foremost from the explosive internal force which life carries within itself “The essence of a vital tendency is to develop itself in the form of a spray, creat= ing by the sole power of its growth, the divergent directions its el pursue.” Virtuality exists in such a way that it actualizes itself as it must dissociate itself to actualize itself. Differe results produced in these series. Bergson explains just how important resemb- lence is as a biological category:” it is the identity of that which differs from BrRcsox’s CONCEPTION OF DuFFERENCE , prevents them tendency, but can in one dit all the more important the place where consciousness is is only because this consciousness identical to jc had fallen asleep, had grown numb in matter—a voided consciousness, not absence of consciousness jousness is not the least bie historical in Bergson’s work: history is simply that poine where consciousness pops up again, has traversed matter. Consequently, there exists by rights an identity beeween difference itselfand the consciousness of difference: hi thing other than a matter of fact. This the consciousness of difference is memory: and itis memory that will give us the nature of the pure con theless, before we get there, we must examine how the priDesert ISLANDS AND Texts no longer any lifference has become the thing itself, here thing receives its difference from an end, unlike Plato, to AF because ce goes as far as contrad However, if Bergson could object chat Platonism goes no farther than a n of as still external, the objection he would address to a {gets no farther than a conception of difference «as only abstract “This combination [of two contradictory con sent either a diversity of degrees or a variety of forms: ‘Whatever entails neither degree nor nuance is an abst a HPTION r the importance of differentiation, itis not what is most profound. it were, there would be no reason to speak of a concept of difference: differ- explains thar there are two ways of determining what colors Either we extract the abstract and general idea of col no longer objects imder a concept, but nuances or degrees of the concept Degrees of difference itself, and not differences of degree. The no longer one of subsumption, but one of participation, White light is still a uni- versal, but concrete universal, which gives us an understanding of the particular because it is the far end of the particular. Because things have become nuances has become a thing, Itis a universal 43Deserr Istanns ano Ori temporal and so a matter of degree—but they are not degree.” Now we see how the virtual becomes thi what such a concept ent: spite ofthis apparent paradox, we label this possible coexistence memory, as Berg son himself docs, we must c ference. These three stages d role of memory cy which makes more profound way, the degrees of difference ferentiation are objects in absolute conformity with the object, at least in their purity, because they are in fact nothing other than the compl mentary pos pt itself Ic is in this sense again that the theory of differ profound than the theory of: nuances or degrees. ‘The virtual now defines an a ive mode of existence. Duration n is real, co the extent that this degree differ- nis not in itself psychological, but the ular degree of duration that is actualized between isthe mode of that IE, by ceasing to be olutely po: psychological represents ap: other degrees as well as among them.* Certainly, the vi would be absurd to look for a mark o something actual and already actual tence of the past w According to these just as resemblance is the object enough to dream to gain access to this world where nothing ued life of memory prolonging the the ceaselessly growing In a different way than memory was a function of the future, that memory and that only a being capable of memory could turn away from its pe nd do something new. Thus the word the perception yancous, and in relation to the subi ged. When we unite the two mean ng and being acted on at the same time. n is already the subsequent momer second meaning. We know the importance Bergson is theory of the future and his theory of “5habit. When Bergson of a hammer in the same way as Hume, and resolves it simi » but in the mind: analyzes the example o he poses che prob new produced is not in the obj c gives birth to difference. Afterwards, but only afterwards, mind coneracts and is contracted, is enough for us to have grasped. the mind appropriates it for its own us as we see in Bergson’ theory of freedom. But the notion ions are clearly rgson docs not 46 i almost as if our memories were repeated an indef- imes in the thousands and thousands of possible reductions of to be made between psychic rep superimposed a virtual way, having that existence proper wwe could almost say that for Bergson, matDesear IsLANbs aND xis us a ching only in a monolithic aspect, without mn, on the other hand, gives us “a choice among an. y of durations that we must try 0 the way co the bottom, or all the way to the top.”” Have the ewo eas person: elf? Particularity is given as maximum relaxation, a spreading out, an expan- sior the base that carries memories in their “Memories take a more banal form when memory ci and they take a more personal form when memory expands.” The more the cor relaxes, the more individual are the memories: they are more dis- ‘each other, t00, and more lo located at the the two extreme levels of two extreme levels of relax memory and suai ived in the pure present what generality is to 8 opposed in this way are only two extreme degrees that coexist. Opposition is always nothing but the vircual cocxistence of two extreme degrees: a recollection coexists with that which it recalls, with its corres sponding perception; the present is only the most contracted degree of memory, an immediate past.” Between these extremes, then, we the general idea. Now we see crality presupposes a percept ‘rue gen- of resemblances, a contraction. The general “the essence of the general idea is to ‘mediate degrees between extremes are capal cts ofa diffe 1n. We know that a theory of degrees that are inverse degrees, they are ccond meaning of difference: some: The general increasingly capable of being mn of the general idea is this: new here, the newness, is precisely the particular is in the universal. The new is clearly not the pure pres te of mat voluntary and free action. This new belongs to a being, taneously, comes and goes from the universal to che particular, che particular in the universal. Such a being simultane thinks, desires, recollects, In short, ic is the degrees of generality that unite 1e ewo meanings of diffe jon can leave many readers with a ce pression of vagueness and we learn in the end thae difference is the and incoherence, because he seems to mn purposes the same notions he just finished criticizing, We see tacking degrees, and here they come front and center in duration itself, sm seems a philosophy of degrees: “One moves by le degrees from that outline nascent oF possi and yet relaxation and contraction are principles of explanation; “between brute matter and.ieve in differences of degree, ine them for themselves, forgetting thac the extremities whi ings chac differ in nature. In fact, the extremi self. Therefore, that which differs is relaxation and contraction, matter and as the degrees, the intensities of difference. And in ge ly because they are opposed, are the inverse of each other. Bergson cr ed by inversion and presuppose it. There is no im Being as principles the poine of departure is contract nversion, Bergson's concern with finding a genuine begin- ine point of departure, shows up aga e.g. perception jon: “we will begin wi mn because nothing ‘when Bergson makes inversion iew only to come back such an objection is not emt wwe must begin +. Indetermination, however, always. have been otherwise. “Could the act have been s question, What Bergson demands of himself is ing else. What explains the thing itself is 51 ‘eedom must be sought in a particu-Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Precursor of Kafka, Céline, and Ponge’ ‘There ate rwo ways we risk the profound logic or the systematic charact ing to recognize i genius and power, from which the work gener anti-conformist efficacy (we prefer to speak of his anguish and, th out loud while reading Kafka does admire Kafka. These two rules of thumb are especially invaluable for grater part of the heart nor a manifestation of optimism; itis a logical manifesto ai precise, What Rousseau means is this: humanity, as supposed in a state of nature, cannot be meat its exercise possible do which humanity has a ature is a state in the earth was at peace.”* The state of nature ndependence, but a state of isolation. One of Rousseau’s constant nature engenders only much to say and says a great de: side of a profound theory.) have to wait for Engels to come Ibe called upon and renewed itute a primordial fact, but su determinations. If Robi wishing for their death however sincere a love of virtue we bring to ind we become unjust and seems, how- tuations those elements that allow it nevertheless to keep this continual opposition berween my situation and my ness the birth of enormous unheard of misfor- tute except power, that can be a ere To find we destiny of the beautiful soul. This extraor- Rousseau’s gusto, If Rousscau's ‘ory book, they begin as one of most joyful books in s manage to preserve Rousseau the meanness into which they could have led him; and Rousseau excels at alysis of these ambivalent and salutary mechanisms. nish, and the other a gentle moth- nuseau already pursues this quest for ewo his chido loaffectionate revery in Theresa and Theress’s mi woman rather than a strict mother. Nor: a greedy and disagreeable re behaviors which bear thomas de Quincey developed a iters. In an article on Kant » Quincey deseribes that Kant had invented to serve as a shoe-holder. fit when he used to live in Motiers 1g with the women. —What we see method meant to inspire us wi ("The Last Days of Emmanu in these examples are real ways 0 How do we avoid those si by an act of wi 0 as not to wish the death accepts the commitment ‘not to marry Saint-Preux, even if her husband happens to di is how “she: transforms the secret interest she had in her husband's demise into an interest his preservation.”* Bur Rousseau, by his own admission, is loves virtue more than he is including his bad health, to ct. He himself explains how his bladder troubles ‘great moral reform: fearing that he might not be in the presence of the king, he prefers instead to renounce Rousseau cells of his ear humor isthe flip-side of an a pensioner of the king. essential factor able to contain him: his pension. 1 ions. We always 1eSs proper to: memory: To cure Saint-Preux and lead him back to virtue, M. de Wolmar uses a method by which he wards off the prestige the following: by restoring our natural hip with chings, we will manage to reeducate ourselves as private indi- thus preserving us from those all too human, artificial relationships from eatly childhood inculcate in us a dangerous tendency the state of nature in subordinating human rel birth.”” True pedagogical rectification consi ns to the relation of human beings to things. The taste f from Emile, which demands only muscle: 1¢ child, bring the child to the chings. by virtue of his relation to things, has already cd off the infantile who enters rely one of the great books of Rousseau’s birthday is but an occasion to read or reread it pears in Rousseau, the ical reflection for a 55The Idea of Genesis in Kant’s Esthetics’ The diffi have to do esthetics of the beautiful in ar. form, and sometimes a meta-estheties of m: romanticism. The systematic unity of the Critique of Judgment can be established. only by encompassing these various points of view and understanding the neces- tion and the understanding. ‘The judgment idgment of preference because the judg- Consequently, the contrary, es tanding, properly belongs to the pleasure is far from being prior « lgment: the pleasure is the as this agreement is achieved without concepts and so can It can be said that the judgment of taste begins only with pleasure, ve from it. We have to consider this first point careful nes suprasensible objects which are necess wduces the understanding to a particuae function, scape the principle of an agrecment of the faculties among themselves. this agreement is always proportioned, constrained, and determinate: there is ays a determinative fculty thatpurpose, in so duces it ro look for a middle term c objects governed by the unde standing, On its own, reason would do anything but reason; this is what we see in the Critique of Practical Reason. F practical purpose, reason becomes the le a “type” for a sup ding extracts, from the sensible nacural law, the understanding alone can perform thi a speculative purpos obtains among the fa happens to be the legi determined by the faculty that srmutations, however, should lead: that is fixed or determined by one o} in themselves and spontaneously capal is useless to appeal to the superiority cover the speculative in this instance; the problem would not be be put off and exacerbated. How could any face legislative for a particular purpose, induce the other faculties t0 perform complementary, indispensable tasks, if all the fac fa free spontaneous agreemer Thisis tantamount 10 does not simply exist to complete them with a ground. The Critique of Judgment uncovers the ground presupposed Every determinate inate agreement which makes idgment, the imaginae the domination of understand- ing and reason. Esthetic pleasure is itself disinterested pleasure: it is not only wdependent of any empirical purpose, but also any speculative or practical 38 GENESIS IN KANT’S Est selves: the first are gov- urpose; and the y ewo sorts of objects, phenomena a by the legislation of the understanding aeew contrary 10 the other two, has no or autonomous, but only first ewo Critiques developed this com- to certain types of objects in But there are no objects that are ision of the understan not become a legislator in turn: on a deeper level, the signal it gives the other facultics is that each must become capable of free play on its own. In two respects, ent releases us in a new element, w! a contigent agreement of sensible obj together, instead of a necessary submission to one of the faculties; 2) a free indeterminate harmony of the faculties among themselves, instead of a decerminate harmony presided over by one of the faculties.ical fculty, whereas “Thus th sus communis logic incommuni properly moral common expresses the agreement of the faculties under the legislation of reason, But free harmony should lead Kant to rect a third common sense, mon sense cannot be grounded in experience, since it claims to authorize: judgments that contain an obligat loes not say that everyone will accepe nu that everyone must accept it.” We donit hold it against some= cone for saying: I dont like lemonade, I dont like cheese. But we harshly ture of this esthetic common sense? cannot be affirmed by the categories. Such an affirma determinate concepts of the underst a logical sense, Nor do we fare any better if we postulate ite knowledge that admits of being determined thar a purely esthetic common sense can only be presumed, presupposed.’ Buc we see how unsatisfactory such a so minate agreement of the faculties is the ground, agreement; esthetic common sense is the ground, the con. common sense. How could we be sat merely hypothetical c leed serve as the foundation forall the ions among the faculties? How does one explain that ies are different in nature, they We cannot settle 60. the idea of a faculty we must ‘cannot belong to the exposition taste in its parts can only be the in the Critique of Pure the problem. Instea 5 facul ws one of the fac tion: Kant neglected the demands of a genetic method. This obj 3 subjective and an objective aspect: on the one hand, Kant relies on facts and is shat are already suppos- that Maimon's Gritique of Judgment, Kant s in their original free agreement. question: whence origin 2 What is the genesis of the fuc- ino play only the understanding and the jing the Analytic of the Beaut problem related to the bea longer expresses aDestrr Istanns AND © sion, a contradiction, a is a discordant concord, a harmony imagination agree or harmonize only from painful re formless or the \mensity or power), the imagination can no longer reflect Far from discovering another activity, however, the imag- very Passion. The imagination has two esset with this maximum, forces its boundaries. The imagination dimits of its power." Bu what pushes and constrai reason alone obliges us to unit reason alone forces the imagination thus discovers the disproportion of reason, and that its power is nothing compared to a rational [de ‘own limits in the sensible world; imagination awakens reason as the faculty able to conceive a supersensible sub= for the infinity of this sensible world. As ic undergoes violence, the imagination seems to lose its freedom; but a the same time, the imagination i expands the soul son, thought i was losing its freedom, it frees itself from the constraints of the h reason to discover what the le destination of imagi- understanding and enters into an agreement 1, the agreement of ‘This explains why Kant rary t0 the sense of the bea Is ofthe forces of nature, ind misery.” The Ives some empirical and 1 puts in play point toa covery related t0 the In other words, must agreement between thei , which defines the beautiful, also be the obj is always objective. For example, iue of Pure Reason, once Kant has shown that the categories are a pri- , he asks how and why objects are subject to the categories, that is, subject to the understanding as leg- a speculative purpose. But when we examine the judgment of the of deduction has been posed of the judgment of taste or beauty: our pleast er of the object. There is no legislative faculeys round the necessity of a “deduction” of the judgment of object, there is nonethe- 6Deserr ISLANDS AND OTH to produce bes an agreemet reement is quite special wowever, since thi objects of nacure; bur ic must nor be taken, themselves, and he purpose From that point on, this «a rational purpose when the productions of nature agree with our disinterested plea- the interest of reason that Ideas have an objective reality. obeying their own specific laws. “An agreement that presents elf without a goal itself, accidentally appropriated, as the judgment requires, with respect to nature forms.” ‘doing us any favors; rather, we are organi in such a way that we can favorably receive nature. back up. The sense of the beautiful, as common sense, is defined by the sality of esthetic pleasure, Esthetic pleasure itself results from. ich determinations for different. In the sense of the disinter- 1¢ form. Whatever has trouble reflected—colors, sounds, matter—escapes it. On the other hand, connected with the beautiful has to do with sounds and col fFthe agreement, which must be engendered a priori in such a way that ided. Here begins the real problem of the deduction: we im idgment of tase is acributed to everyone, much i jukdgment of taste, so it seemed, was connected t0 an objective: mn. What we want ro know is whether we cannot discover, om the: dof the determination, a p of the agreement of the facul only as presupposed 3) the Analy ofthe Sule soma fe agreement of thejudgment, the imagination becomes free at the same ing becomes indeterminate. But how does the imagi The theme of a preset theme i ‘The Sublime is the first mode: a direct presentation accomplished by project but it remains negative, having to do with the inacce cond mode is defined by the third mode appears in Genius: @ positive presentation, but accomplished through the creation of an “other” nature. Final does pose an esse from the perspective developed in these pages. a genesis of an a priori agreement of facul ional purpose—but on what cone ular experience of the beat nature and the beau: ‘Nothing in the exposition of the Analytic of Beautfiel authorized such a distinction: che deduction introduces of the purpose connected wi cond every concept because it produces the incu ure given to ust it creates nacure in which the phenomena are events of in an unmediated way, and the events of the spirit are phenomena of the kingdom of the blessed, hell acquire a bodys of an other nature, and the concepts of reason as rational Ideas, are ade- quately unified.” The rational Idea contains something inexpressible; but the idea expresses the inexpressible, through the creation of an other nature. the esthetic Idea f “gives life.” As a meta-esthetic pi genders the esthetic agreement berween wlerstanding. It engenders each faculty in this agreem the understanding as unlimited. The theory of G 1 gap that had opened up berween the beISLANDS AND OTHER Texts ticereator. The imagination is ithe artist, We are faced cserts open up luring which the call of genius goes unanswered. “Genii exemplary originality of as gifs in the free use faculties. Thus the work of about the birth of another can be resolved if we consider the two activities of the genius. On , genius creates, That is to say, genius produces the matter of its art the artist gives te is sufficient co give this fa jimicable in genius isthe frst aspect: c astonishing matter, the difformity of genius. But in the work of genius provides an example for everyone: it inspi ise to spectators, and engenders everywhere the free agreement ng, which agreement constitutes taste. we are not simply in the desert while the call of genius goes unanswered another genius: men and women of taste, students, and aficionados fill up space between two geniuses, and help pass the time. that originates in genius effect to the mass of thoughts and gives Ideas their co them up to. lasting and universal suce selves rare always in process.” sshave three parallel geneses in Kane's esthet esis of the reason-imagination agreement; purpose connected agenesis of the understanding-imagination agreeme and genius, or a genesis | agrees reciprocal agr that of ude face rnecs a soul predestined to morality; and the world of morality to be nction of the two kinds of the bea beautiful in the Critique of Judgment opens up a passage, itis first and foremost unveils a growd that had remained hidden in the other two Critiques. idea of a passage to be taken literal jue of Judgment would more than a compliment, an adjustmes nal ground from which derive the other two Critiques. Certainly, the Critique. Judgment does show how speculative purpose can be subordinated to practical purpose, how Nature can be in agreement sty, and how our destinati because this destiny develops, ies; this destination remains real heart of our being, as a principle more pro- n any formal de indeed the sense of the Critique of i: beneath che determinate and cot ates” each faculty, engend ih the 01 ‘A primeval free imagination that under the constraints of the understand- 6faculties—these are the extreme discoveries of the Critique of Judgment: ex ty rediscovers the pri ; when the sublime has no corresponding dedi hhow does one espa that the deduction of the judgment of beauty is exten seem to address very different p 1 Critique of Judgment in its st par, in generl from the spectators point of i ic show that the under in general view is formal, since che spectator reflects the form of the object. But moment of the Analyt the soul; every determinate propor ity of their free and spontaneous harmon) 2) The Analytic of the Sublime, exposition and deduct less esthetics of the sublime from the spectator’ point of view. Taste did not reason into play. The sublime, however, is explained by the free agreement reason and the imagin: new “spontaneous” agreement occ under very special co \n, constraint, and discord. In as well as the materials which nat is purpose which is neither prac ‘expands the understanding, and liberates the imagination, Reason secures the genesis of a free indeterminate agreement between the imagination and the understanding, The two aspects of the deduction are now joined: che objective reference to a nature capable of producing beautiful things, and the s ple capable of engendering the agreement of facult 4) Follow-up to the deduction in the theory of Genius: this san i of the beautiful in art from the pone of iw ofthe cate 7mRaymon Ro ApHoRENT VACUUM icing it. The pove ex: “Not the lateral repetition that has passed over and poetry co the gap that has been crossed.” vacuum be filled and crossed? in-actors. Things and beings now fo Raymond Roussel, or the Abhorrent Vacuum by ‘The work of Raymond Roussel, which Pauvert has published in new edito Judes two sorts of books: poem-books that describe miniature objects in rate: prisoners save their ow 1 of comtesponding machi erating repetitions are poetic precisely because they do not suppress oon the contrary, they exper ings themselves are opened up thanks to a minia- ;- a mask. And the vacuum is now crossed by lives, or else they are dislocated to make way for other words (“I have some tobacco” = “wave slum jude wacko"). author who had a considerable influence on the Surrealists, and today’How Jarry’s Pataphysics Opened thi Way for Phenomenology Major modern authors often surpri remark and a prophesy: metaphy: us with a thought that seems and must be surpassed. In so far makes room and must make rable text on the death of the prison-guard.* But whatever the case, death of God for philosophy means the abolition of the cosmological dist tion between two work n essence 1¢ Human-God who would replace God-the Huma nothing has changed, the old values remain in place. Nihil in the human being who wants to peti jetasche.) that proportion of black In keep separate, but demanded by the new Vers la pensée pl and Techue inthe Thought of Karl Mars and Hereclite id learned. He reproaches his mentors fo 1 not having sufficiently conceives for having remained pr ce each meaning, pat he old metaphysics, but accord gas such. Axclos opens No other 75ed for the metaphy ich must surpass m4 “He Was my Teacher machines, All the way to of a true “pataphysics The sadness of generations without “teachers.” Our teachers are not just lakes of nothingness, simple folds and pleats.Desexr ISLANDS AND “He Whs sev T “Private thinkers” are in a way opposed to “public professors.” Eve Sartre remains my teacher. S , Critique of Dialetical Reason, Theory of Practical Ensembles ‘books to have come years Ie provides Being and Nothingness ik back on Being and Nothingness, ‘we felt for Sartre’ renewal of philosophy. We know bi ion of Sartre to Heidegge complex, since we were no longer the oppressed, cone another. Ah, youth. All that is let is Cuba and the VeneDrsear Ist they point to the example of those who accepted-whi put the money to good works. We shouldn't get too midable polemicist. There is no genius The Philosophy of Crime Novels' Terence, the difference of genius, the wo choices, is Sartre ys to the friend when he speaks, even if this pure air, the air of abse reathe. 1g @ momentous occasion—its release of #1000. The jon owes everything to it something about cops, rom reading the papers, ot always lags behind. These things had not yet y expression, or they hadn't attained the st this gap ata p Malraux had fom informants and that its not Moustachu or Tapinoi ers of the Quai des Orfevres, who bring about the apprehen- 8Desi ANDS AND OTHER TEXTS s produced famous examples of ea Sherlock Holmes, the masterfu h school: Conan Doyle ga cxpreter of signs, the inductive g The French school: Gaboriau gave us Tabaret and Lecog; and Gaston Leto who with “a circle between the two lobes of his forchead,” invoking “the right track of reason’ and explicitly opposing his theory. certainty to the inductive method, the Anglo-Saxon theory of signs. The criminal side of the affair can also be quite interesting. By a metapl cal law of reffection, the cop is no more extraordinary than the t00, professes allegiance 10 induction. And so you have the possibility of two series of novels: the hero of firs is the detective, and the hero of the second is the criminal. With Rouletabi shall meet: they are the motors for two different series (they could never thout one of them looking ridiculous; ef. Leblanc’s attempt to put Lupin cogether with Sherlock Holmes).’ Rouletabi double of the other, they have the same dest for the tends a performance of Oedipus and shouts: “ met”), Afier philosophy, Greck tragedy. ‘we mustnit be too surprised that the cr duces Greek tragedy, since Oedipus is always called on to indicate any coincidence. While it is the only Greek tragedy that already has this det structure, we should marvel chat Sophocles’ Oedipus isa detective, and not due: to Leroux, a phenomenal no literature, who had a for striking phrases: “not the hands, not the hands,” “the ugliest of mer itas,” “men who open doors and men who shut traps,” “a circle between lobes, Bur properly re, the gre been content to change the detectiv love, he's restless) but keep the same structure: the surprise ending that bri all the characters together for the final explanation that fingers one of them the guilty party. Nothing new ther What th rary use and expl police activity has nothing to jes. As a general rule, professional murder, where che police know le; and 2) che sexual murde ease the pri lem is not framed Tie Ph ‘oe Cruse Novis ng compensation of error. The suspect, known to the cops but never is either nabbed in some other domain than his usual sphere of crim- (whence the American schema of the untouchable gangster, who ; arrested and deported for tax fraud); or he is provoked, forced to show him- in wait for him. La Série Noire, we've become accustomed ne what may, regardless of the errors the sore of cop who dives ous preparation ofa sting operation, and the de that loom ever larger as the moment of reckoning a \« La Série Noire influenced cinema). The totally innocent reader is iven when the clement of the investiga of errors aims ism, to hide what it wants to hide, reveal what it wants to reveal widence, and champion the improbable. The killer still at large may be and the police may have to sacrifice one of their own no other object hat represents a society in its entirety ar the eq eights of its power of falsehood. This same process of restitution, equilibrium or compensation also appears reek tragedy (Aeschylus, for example). The greatest novel of this kind, and le’s Les Gommes, which develops an incredible compensation of errors se keynotes are an Aesch} n and an Oedipal quest. power of falsehood nsequence: clearly id the other. We are always led back to the great trinity of corruption-torture. But it goes without saying thar the ‘ot of their own accord initiate this disquieting compl ‘criminals deep com- 83en TEXTS We know that a kidnapping than We know very well tha s-crime combo that, des the evidence of History past and present, had not been given a contempor literary express The Kefauver repo pour assassinats, were the ‘Noire. Many them into popular or Franco—what will be next when everyone is talking about Ben Barka- begets a hybrid that is properly Série Noire; whether it’s Asturias writing a of genius: M. le Président: or whether it’s people sitting around trying to ycled it all. Have we really made any progress in underst ing this hybrid of the grotesque and terrifying which, under the circumstances, could determine che fate of us all? that La Série Noire has transformed our imaginings, our evalu 85 always nd real and imagi- the Male.Ow Gunenr Sint hy arrived at the two previous aporias. Bue whar esse system is the existence of a nt dimensions, two disparate levels of reractive communication. A mecasta difference, like a state of dissymmetry. mits. Simondon’s cone ed 10 a theory of ference. An inte On Gilbert Simondon' rs that enter into communication stable system, an intensive quan much later, when extended. is the structure (not yet the ‘The principle of ind is by all accounts a respectable, even vei notion. Until quite recently, however, it seems modern philosophy has wary of adopting the problem as its own. The accepted 1d psychology has led thinkers to attenuate the pi Bi mondon makes no small display of intell theory of individuation implying a nondon begins from two critical remarks: 1) Tra he rigorously d Indeed the metastable, defined as pre-individual being, is per- ies that correspond to the existence and the s, where the existence and the distribution of re than the “indi ingularities” are of forms of the integral curves in their fhout being individual: that isthe state of pre-indi- : on.” And the finest pages in ww disparity, as in the first fact presupposed by all other states, 1m, opposition, resolution of opposi- those where Simondon sh being, a singular moment is Aleady formed The question being asked is merely what ity of chs being, tha is to being. And because we put the what characterizes an idual after the individuation, in the tion before the process of becom tion itself. 2) From that point on, indivi wverywhere. We make ita characteristic coextensive ast with concrete being (even if it were divine). We remake all aration” is more profound than the idea of opposition, and the energy more profound than the idea ofa field of forces: “Prior ical space, there is an overlappi ¢ determined object, bec que whole could be ordered: dividual is not just a result, but an envirom oon this view, individuai it must represent a moment, which is neither all of being nor We must be able to localize individuation, to determine it wit respect to being, in a movement that will cause a passage from the pre“ vidualperception of depth that emerges from retinal images). This category of Jem acquires in Simondon’s thought tremendous importance insofar as category is endowed with an objective sense: it no longer desi sional state of our knowledge, an undetermined subjective concept, but ‘moment of being, the first pre-individual moment. And in Simondon’ di tic, the problematic replaces the negative. Individuation is thus ‘organization of a solution, che organization of a “resolution” for a system. is objectively problematic. This resolution must be conceived in two com mentary ways: on the one hand, as internal resonance, which is “the primitive mode of communication between realities of different orders” ( in my opinion, Simondon has succeeded in making ‘internal resonance’ extremely productive concept, open t0 all sorts of applica psychology, in the area of affectivity); on the other hand, as information, ‘establishes communication between two disparate levels, one them defined by a form already contained in the receiver, and the other by signal brought in from the outside (here we encounter Simondon’s preos tions with cybernetics, and a whole theory of signification in the relations the individual). In any event, individuation appears as the advent of a ‘moment of Being, the moment of phase-locked being, coupled to itself: “I ition creates the phase-locking, because the phases are but development of being, on the one side and the other, of itself... Pre-indi ss, whercas being after individuation is phase-locked. Suc or at least connects the individuation and the beco ‘conception ident of being” (p. 27 To this point I have ndicated only the very general principles of the In its detail, the analysis is organized around two centers. First, a study of different domains of in particular, the differences bet physical and vital individuation receive a profound exposition. The econé of inter: looks different in each case; the physical individual content to receive information only once, and reiterate an initial singular ing being receives several contributions of information i singularities; and most importantly, the physi itself to the limie of the body- 1g grows from the interior and the ext contact “topologically” with the crystal—whereas the living be ntent of its interior space (on this point “topology and ontogenesis"). It may be surprising that self of the research conducted by the Child school in the domain of bial: dealing with the gradients and resolution systems in egg, developments ‘e their work suggests the idea of indi by intensity, an intensive ield of individuat which would confirm Simondon's theses in. several respects. But ce 88 ON Giuaeer SiMONDON logical determination of the indi but to specify increasingly alot levels, We therefore find a properly psychic individuation emerging wwhen the vital functions no longer suffice to resolve the problems ‘eed by the living being, and when a new dose of pre-individual real- nrobilized in a new problematic, in a new process of problem solving (cf. ny interesting theory of affectiviy). In turm, the psyche opens up to 2 dual collective.” ‘Now we sce the second center of Simondon’s analyses: his moral vision of «enorld. The fundamental idea is thatthe pre-individual, a “source of future fe states,” must remain associated with the individual. Esteticism is condemned as th individual cuts him or herself off dual reality from which he or she emerged. AS a result, the dosed in on a singularity, refusing to communicate, and provok- ing los of information, “Ess exists othe exent hat hee information, jn other words, signification overcoming a disparation of the elements of Ming such that what i interior i ls exterior” (. 297). Ethics cus follows id of movement running from the pre-individual to the trans-individual via individuation. (The reader may indeed ask whether, in his ethi {ion has not reintroduced the Form of the Self which he had averted with his heory of disparity, ue. his theory of the individual conceived as dephased anc phased being.) Tn any event, few books can impress a reader as much as this one can: it demonstrates the extent to which a philosopher can both find his inspiration in contemporary science and at the same time connect with che major prob~ lems of classical philosophy—even as he transforms and renews those problems. The new concepts established by Simondon seem to me extremely tants their wealth and originality are striking, when they're nor outright ig, What Simondon elaborates here is a whole ontology, according dividual, being is more than one rleaneous with itself, As individuated, it is st iphased,” “a phase of becoming that will lead to superposed. ., because it is new processes.” 89Humans: A Dubious Existence’ he is paincing, but only from the: ng on a point justin front of the painted surfaces the king, reflected only in a mirror in the background, is hose contemplating him, thereby forming the great absence ic center of the work. As we read these fine pages by Mi the moments of what is called a space all its own, down whom the representation exists, who is himself represent: and who yet is not present in person—this is “the king's place.” Foucault defines the Classical Age, which falls berween the Renaissance acknowledge the bai Order, this form Howans: A Dy ‘The preceding cannot exist in this classical space ‘as an opaque le knowledge. biology must fist be bor 's conditions of por {exchange and profit are sought in the depths of labor (Ricardo) sought in the historical depth of as an object of new y or political economy ces itself as founding thi revolution that explodes must be subordinated to the same, the Nietzchean revolution,Howtans: A ExisteNce us gift. Let’ try to sum up Foucaule’s thes come about when humanity took itself to be the ‘even when humanity even psychological causes to «work already unfold in spaces tha productions) received their own history th its representation. Then the human sciences that make knowledge pos- at any one moment. a state where it has already di c emptiness which the Human ‘ide to the unthinkable or the unthought, an the space of knowledge that makes them possible; and d odge the unthinkable, the unthought within lace in 2 mote visible history are not necessati archeology. Foucault says: “... saw ic more clearly in Cuvier, in Bopp, in Ricar- do than in Kant or Hegel,” and nowhere does Foucault more resemble a great ipher than when he rejects the major lineages for a more secret, subter- f choughe: the Human does nor humanity isthe end of the Hum: self underneath i back togeth of thought. A Cogito fo fon madness the transformation of the concept of madness from the Classical Age to Mo is crystal clear that Foucaule’s three major works—Madness History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, The birth of the Clinic: Amt Archaclogy of Medical Peep of new spaces: for cheThe Method of Dramatization' Gilles Deleuze, university professor of Letters and Human Sci ‘poses to develep before the members of the French Society of following arguments: much? how? where? when? are better—as much for discovering the essence for determi ing more important about the Idea. they provide a rule of sp out these dynamisms would remain unable to their logical ar they determine the d tion, qual THE ME yRANSCRIPT OF THE SESSION phitheatre, with began at 4:30 pm at the Sorbonne, in the Michelet Ar of the Society Mr. Jean Wabl presiding questions. Platonism has determined the Idea’ form of qt ‘1 1 is supposed to concern the essence an iyad. Not how much, but what. 4 major question, which is always taken up and repeated by Socrates as that of the essence or the Idea, to the minor questions of opinion which express only sloppy thinking, whether by old men and not so clever children, or by clever sophists and rhetoricians And yet the pr in which questions acquire their ideal import and sen the history of philosophy as a whole, we will have a t losopher whose research was guided by the question What is Maybe Hegel, maybe there is only Hegeln to the abstract essence, and can be determined only wi tions who? how? how much? where and when? in which case?—forms that sk the genuine spatio-temporal coordinates of the Ide. ¢ | want to ask: what is the characteristic or di general? Such a trait is twofold: the quality or qu: ich it occupies. Even when we cannot single our remarkable regions or points; an a synthesis of qualification or specification, and of pa organization. There is no quality without an exten: which the is diffused, no species without organic parts or points. are the two correlative aspects of differentiation: species and parts, specificat and organization. These constitute the conditions of the representation of thi in general ‘But if differentiation thus has two complimentary forms, what b-tepresentational dynamisms; we see this in the which works only in two only the power of differentiation of the unequ already difference, of the type E - E’, wher not enough to discover a dif- on the one hand, and specification of ion is the prior condition under which path as in negative relic, because this path is first the agent of commu ion between series of differences. If i individuation constructed on a hen when the series come into communication thanks to the action induces certain phenomena: cow id inevitablesleep. And thoughe philosophical system, is that are irreconcilable wi long as we fil to see in it the activation of a larval subject, the only patient to endure the demands of a systematic dynamism, “These determinations as a whole: field of individuation, series of intensive ferences, obscure precursor, coupling, resonance and inevitable movement, subject, sp: which correspond to the questions how much? who? how? where? and when’, which gives such questions their transcendent consequences, beyond empi ns as a whole indeed are not connected with: al or biological system, but arti sms of inqui ly at work, in such a way as to determine the am calling a drama particularly resembles the Kantian schema. The according to Kant, is indeed an a priori determination of space ai the drama (dream oF ri jon to the concept, In a certain way, jidden art, according to which poral determinations genuinely have the power to dramatize a con- ough they have a nature totally different from the concept. lies in a direction that certain post-Kantians have domain, are then taken up in an et spa geographical dynamism of the is and island as an eruption from the deep) is up in the mythical dynamism of mankind on the deserted island (a derived cure and an original rebeginning). Ferenczi has shown how, in sexual life n of cellular elements is taken up in the biological dyn: of people. ancously with them, are at work the organization of ganization of an extensi from which 1—the Idea in tum should present two aspects, smehow derive. So, we have to ask ourselves difference of nature from the concept. is theatre was “cruelty.” ponds to this or that concept, and which ic knowledge, the dream, as any concept, we can always dis es deur, nds once wml never be dived or pete a the wok ol ect to one another. So you see I am invoking tion, as the first aspect of sufficient reason. On of remarkable and remarkableasa whole exhibies a certain h le and the obscure conception of have nod ted in the vicinity of a larity. The incompossil oment when the generated possible worlds therefore encompasses 2 maxim ics, under the condition of continuity, in other wo outside the monads that express it, and that God created the world rather ‘he monads (God did not create Adam the sinner, but the world in which, ‘The singularities of the world serve as principles for the constieu envelops a certain number of respect to his ows and extensions filling up the i between individuals. This approach toward a “depth” populated by relat formation of individual essences, and the co (£) expresses not only a ion of any cosmology, a8 respond to the two aspects of the differe which determines the Tae Me Daawanizarion eontiated aspects of the object. Though a subject is given in represen- know nothing, We lean only insofar as we discover the Idea he system envelop the Idea, the dynamisms that is only in such conditions that we c the drama of the ye dynamism that, distinct-obscure depth, a drama beneath every logos. DISCUSSION Jean Wahl:* Let me thank you on everyone's behalf for your talk. Rarely have we not going to say jon, understood as ewofold, giving us a world cood pethaps as fourfold. But let me stop here, since my role as President ‘open up the floor to questions. Pierre-Maxime Schull: I would not because the artificial entails its own dynamisms which hhave no equivalent in nature? You have indeed shown the importance of the cat- Pierre: Maxime Schuhl: 103Tue Me ontological depths the problem goes beyond my. most interesting in Mr, Deleuze's talk is it does happen that they must be smashed from. But I've already spoken too long. of the Idea. His way of of thought, What ree with you, I think our differences amount most- not yet organized, or a through his non-localizable liason,” goes beyond the field of represen tion of concepts in this field. They are “ideal” liasons. ion and the localiza- there you have a good part of the dyn: ke to ask a few ‘Noél Mouloud: I dont really want to have to defend the notion of concept, which jons: for example, But I would define the scientific mathematical thought. Mathematical lessly smashes the preestablished orders of our intuition, And I could be made of the term idea, if carly chemistry began with a mechanics that continuities or the composition of elements xe question What is this?and Tacknowledge ask. B the geometer. Ina sttion of the word being?” Kant also asked: “what is an object?” analysis. This seems perfectly true to me, and in that respect, I cant prais enough. However, what struck me was that all the examples he uses are no sophical problems, namely problems having to d pret does he not get defi whole casuisry ‘was (00 hasty. ed in uniquely scien actualization. Even would make sense, Maurice de Gandillac:* Behind your suggestive and poetic vocabulary profound and solid thinking, as always, but I confess I would like additional being so dramatic!) |, presented before a pul the embryos, schemas, because the reas you refuse the qu tis as the subject of a defined as le commentary. Usually when a theatrical production rymologically, a drama is anMalebranche that would be completely le, his vision in God: whereas for yourse Mephistopheles.” But we ca sion: when you refer to ng of ideas, and the become space, it real mporal det a “drama, Lucy Prenant:* My question is along the same call obscure and distinct, wouldnt Leibniz call falling asleep. And ‘Wartzbourg school. Take the case of keeps shrinking: handkerchiefs and towels are perpecuall at metal workers have of gold is converted is is not available for the senses, and it ike the form of an image, and consequently, | think Leibniz. would translate it as obscure, as opposed to clear. And this can even apply to what Leibniz called blind thought—not under just any cot lead co verbalism and error, as he p proof. Bur this can correspond to certain forms of blind thought; to characteristies—to forms that are constructed. however, must not these “distinct and blind” ideas of Leibniz be cibniz sees that a straight line can be extended to rude of the segments, Thus we fF them- does not ness as wel as grotesque... You said yourself thac the ‘themes, all told more Dionysian than Apollonian, Deleuze could have answered you wi termi conscious perception ements that it actual 109Deseitr IstaNos AND OTHER TEXTS made tremendous progres. Georges Bouligand:” I w ‘Tair Metnop oF Draarvzarion. Jpeques Merleau-Ponty: Several times you spoke about spa which cl point, because this is what certain echo of BergsonTHe Merion oF DRaMarizaTion ly, the signification of Haleyon remains areal problem in seem 0 have an indi inquiry which only the c regulative function. It opens up a regio uestions who? hou are able hermore, these other questions appear founded fea thar is already a response, in a global way, to the q rhey presuppose a “larval” subject that unfolds in an interval of actual- the spatio-temporal dynamisms make concrete. ns that, by vie of what has been called the conversion of substance Gilles Deleuze: Yes, I believe so. Jean Beaufret: Then I would ask you d ‘when? By whom ean by whom? how far? how? ion be overcome? I feel Gilles Deleuze: By whom could it be overcome? Certainly not by Dion has no reason to do so. Dionysus wants what ct to remain ol sees no reason and no advantage in it. The idea of a reconciliation is u to Dionysus. The clear and distinct is just as unbearable. He has taken on! inct and want who want ‘eperari (rather than operari sequitur ese. thus be only an approximation of an onto-genius, whose center is the causa sui or the authupostaton that Proclus discusses. to overcome this opposition. He lear and distinct, and he inspires the artisan with d artist. Let me come back to the theme M. de Gandillac touched (Or can they be applied to the “t moments ago. The tragic is the effort at reconciliation, which necessarily 2 Spatio-temporal dynamisms are o deed sharply drawn is a third character that contradictory, etc. This is just abstract reconnect with real movement, that yy as such, In my view, the cwo kinds of q myself what this haleyon smile co is more reticent than youDreier ISLANDS aND Orit Gilles Deleuze: Yes, maybe. Conclusions on the Will to Power and the Eternal Return’ everything I've said has something Platonic about Plato who favors a simplicity of the essence or Jean Wal shank If no one else wants to ask a question, then I will co Mr. Deleuze and all those who participated in the discussion, ake away only one les in Nietzsche are hidden, masl ions taken from the the most famous example. We say that none of the ext and critical demands. This is why the project by ari is in my opinion so important: the complete posthumous be edited, observing the most rigorous chr periods corresponding to the books Nietzsche thinking for 1872 and another for were gracious enough to update nt completion; and I am happy French. xr reasons—of a patholog- shed, interrupted by madness. We must not 10 Power, the two most fu rary hidden mnt: A Book for All and None. Whaten up a new philosophy, even a new ontology? This loquium is the problem thar Mr. Beaufret tackled thing isa mask, if everything see the least madness in Eoce Homo, unless 0 Iso great mastery in it. [feel that the mad letters of 1888 ar to the work, even while they leter to Burkhard: Mr. Klossowski guarantee of i If dissolves or evapor all the other selves, roles, and characters which must be run through in. like so many fortuitous events. “I am Chambige, | am Badinguet Tam essentially every name in ” Mr. Wabl had already given us fulness prior to Nietzsche's sickness—this approach: he argued the critique ofall curce jon and transvaluation, d would amount to nothing but simple propos ‘ousness, should we fail to refer these two aspects to ontological depth—"a cave behind every cave,” “an abyss under every depth, must be named ult figured out how we must understand ing to live, because how could whatever life not a desire for domination either, because how could whi Zarathoustra says: “The desite to The will to power, then, is not a psychology, not only his personal psychology but also the one he is im a psychology of the mask, a typology of masks; and behind every another mask. Bur the most general reason why there are so many hidden things and his work is methodologic sense. Each wean wanting power, it would clearly depend on long established val- as honor, mi influence, since these values determine the Power which the wil ugele or fighe. buted, by discovering a new “ is no longer anything red could be obtained only by throwing More to the point, we ask: who +t which the imporent in fighting, a means of se 1g (0 the advantage of slaves and herds. This same value layered . such that interp: 1, and renour t gives.* And the mask is the most ic Force, as the highest power which wants that isDesert Istanos ann Orner Texts ‘Ow THe Win. to Power Erresat RETURN ‘This is why, as Mr. Biraule remarked, Nietesche’s perspectivism ch; everything, depending whether you look at things from above or from From above, the will .o power is affirmation, an affirmation of difference, pleasure and gift, the creation of But from below, everythis reversed. Affirmation is reflected into negation, and difference into opposi and Mr. Foucault agree on this poin xd movements, in Nietzsche, originate from above, be movement of interpret when they are excava ‘other words, traversed, turned upsi repossessed by a movement which comes from above. ‘This leads us to the third theme of the colloquium, which often concerning the relation of affirmation and negat pointed eats: Zarathoustra’s Yes is indeed the affirmation of the dancer, where- s Yes is the affirmation of the beast of burden; Zarathoustra’s No is movement 1g from above, thus brings us back to the legitimacy of a Nietzchean typology, and even topology. The Mule’s movement reverses the depth, inverting the Yes and the No. showed how going beyond nihilism leads Nietzsche o a real recupe the world, a new alliance, an affirmation of the earth and body. This i ation of asche, He relied in particular on a text from The Gay Science: “Suppress venerations, or else suppress yourselves!"? And I think we were all impr when he evoked the same text to clarify his own. to Niewsche, at les of Niet respective r0 affirmation and negatie Nietzsche's work raises many problems. In Mr. Wahl’s opinion, and demonstrated, there are so many significations of Yes and No, they coexi at the cost of tensions, lived contradictions, contradictions in thought. which are unthinkable. And Mr. Wahl multiplied question on questions tifully wielding the method of perspectives which he takes from Nietzsc to make new. Bur only che fourth theme of our colloquium could address the funda- ‘mental sense which the Dionysian Yes discovers in the eternal return. Once again, there were many questions put forward. In the first place: How does one cxplain that the eternal return is an ancient idea, dating from the pre-Socrat ietasche's great innovation, or what he presents as his own discovery? And how does one explain that there is something new in the idea that nothing is new? The eternal return is most certainly not the negation or suppression of time, an atemporal eternity. But how does one explain that itis both cycle and moment: on the one hand continuation; and on the othe ? On the one hand, a continuation of the process of becoming which is lds and on the other, repetition, lightning flash, a mystical view on this Processor this becoming? On the one hand, the continual rebeginning of what ‘ss beens and on the other, the instantaneous recurn to a kind of intense focal ‘And in the second place: How does one he eternal return is the most devastating thought, eliciting the ” and yer is the greatest consolation, the great thought of which provokes the super-human? All th to mention the Mule’s No, which is not like Zarathoustra’s because when the Mule says Yes, when he affirms or believes h does nothing bur shoulder a burden; he measures the value of | im, the Mule (or the Camel) bears first the values of Christianity: od is dead, he bears the burden of humanist values—human, all 7 the eternal return, as the ancients understood it, 1 was never pure, but always sd by other themes such as the transmigration of souls. Nor was it 121Dieser Istanps aND Oriter Texts conceived in a uniform way, but depending on the civilization and the ‘Als, the return was pethap ly speaking, we cannot even categorically affirm that the eternal ret an ancient doctrine; and the theme of the Great Year is sufficiently comp! us to be cautious in our interpretat to acknowledge any precursors her Zoroaster, Even if we do suppose that an eternal return was ex by the Ancients, we mu ther words, either itis the of qualitative elements, cach in the other, that determines the return of including celestial bodies. Or on the other hand, movement ies and things in the sublunar wor between a physical and an astronomical interpretation, Bur neither the one nor the other corresponds ro Nietzsche's thought if Nietsche thought so absolutely new it is certainly not any lack of fa nnal return is tal into a dimension as yet unexplored: neither ext quantity nor local movement, nor physical quality, but a domain of purei sities, Mr. de Schloczer made a rather important observation: there is i an assignable difference between one time and a hundred or a thousand. bur not between one time and an infinite number of times. This implies infinity is in this case like the “nth” power of 1, or like that developed i ty which corresponds to 1. Mr. Beauftet, moreover, asked a fun ‘question: is Being a predicate? Is it not something more and somethi and is it not itself above all a more and a les? This more and this less, must be understood as a difference of intensity in being, and of being, as ference of levels, is one of the fundamental problems Nietasche is worki Nictasche’s taste for the physical sciences and energetics has occasioned surprise. In fact, Nictasche was interested in physics as a science of int quantities, and ultimately he was aiming at the will to power as an “inte principle, as a principle of pure intensity—because the will to power does ‘mean wanting power; on the contrary, whatever one desires, it means Fa this to its ultimate power, o the 7h power. In a word, it means extracting superior form of everything that is (the form of intensity). Ie is in this sense that Mr. Klossowski wanted to show intense fluctuations in the each one cannot want itself wi our becoming innumerabl fo whose ve a world, ies. In Mr. Klosso signs are established 122 OW THE Wit. To PoweR AND THE ErtRNAL RETURN: at other differences included in the first difference, coming back at It is Mr. Klossowski’s particular strength to s in Nietzsche between the death of God and solution of the self, the loss of personal identity. God is the only guar- he self: the first cannot perish without the second evaporating. And power follows from this, as the principle of these fluctuations or ppenetrace and flow into one another. And the eternal n this, asthe principle of these fluctuations or intensi- ties me back and flow back through all their modifications. In shor the world of the eternal return is a world of differences, a ‘shich presupposes neither the One nor the Same, but whose edi h on the tomb of the one God and on the ruins of the idem y of this world, which has none at a mes back; itis the only identity of a world which has no “same” ough repetition. In the texts which Niewsche published, the eternal return does not figure cof any formal or “definitive” essay. It is only announced, intimat- ities tha cd, in horror or ecstasy. And if we examine the owo principal texts from Thus Spoke Zarathustra that deal Convales “On the Vision and the Riddle” and “The ”” we see how the announcement, the intimation is always per- jons, but expresses nothing of the profound is “supreme thought.” In one case in particular, Zarathoustra chal- 1¢ Clown—his proper caricature, But what Zarathouscra ing ise to the unbearable vision of an uncoiled serpent slithering from the mouth of a shepherd, as though the eternal return undid itself to the extent Zarathoustra among animals the eagle and the serpent. Zarathoustra says nothing ‘his time, and their conversation is enough to put the convalescent Zarathous- {5 t0 sleep. But he had just enough time to tell them: “You've already turned same old song!” You've turned the eternal return into “the same old tural repetition, when in fact itis some- tst text, responding ro the Dwarf who me itself is a circle,” Zarathoustra said: “You ings so much.”) ietzache in his published works had return, but that he did not reveal it, verything suggests that his projected Bur already the texts from Thus Spoke Zarathustra on the one hand, notes from 1881-1882 on the other, at least tell us what the eternal is not according to Nietasche. It is not a eyele. It does not presup} 23Desexr IStaNbs aN Orne Texts Erenvat RETURN, the One, the Same, the Equal or equilibrium. It is not the return of All not the return of the Same. Ic thus has nothing.in common with whae is sumed to be ancient doctrine, the idea of a cycle that causes everything to co back, passing through pin of bru bringing the All back tothe O jpatis annihilated as a result ‘once, only once. ng: “tomorrow | ie provided that ic led its eternal return and to work’—or cowardice, or abjection that arselves faced with forms as ‘own and unexplored. These would no longer be what we usually call 1s or cowardice. And the fact chat we have no idea of what they would be that extreme forms do not preexist the ordeal of the eternal return. return is indeed the category of the ordeal, and we must under- such, of events, of everything that happens. Misfortune, sickness, s, even the approach of death have two aspects: in one sense, they sep~ grate me from my powers in another sense, they endow me with a strange though I possessed a dangerous means of exploration, which is also ng realm to explore. The function of the eternal return, in every case, is to separate the superior from the moderate means, the torrid or glacial zones rate ones, the extreme powers from the middle states. The ‘or “extract” are not even adequate, since the eternal return creates the superior forms. Ic isin chi sense thac the eternal return is the insteu- ment and the expression of the will to power: it raises each ching co its superior ication”: eens 3 tainty (such as the ngs to bear on more to the point, the riot come back, because the eternal return is essentially selective, indeed. tive par excellence. Furthermore, what happened in Zara moments, between the time when he was sick and when he was Why did the eternal return first inspire him with unbearable disgust and which then disappear when he feels beter? Are we to believe that Zar tra takes ic on himself to shoulder what he could not bear a moment Obviously not: the change is not simply psychological. Ie a “dramatie” gression in the very comprehension of the eternal return. What si Zarathoustra was the idea that the eternal return was in the end, in spit everyt ked to a cycle; thar it would cause everything to come backs everything would come back, even hum: le humanity”... “The disgust for the Human is what suffocated me and got stuck in my throat, also what the seer predicted: Alls equal... And the eternal recur, of even litelese thing, was the cause of my lassicude with all of existence.” IF Zarat tra feels better, is because he understands thar the eternal return is not all. He finally understands the unequal and the selection in the eternal Essentially, the unequal, the different is the true rationale for the et return: It is because nothing is equal, or che same, that “it” comes backs other words, the eternal recutn is predicated only of becoming and the mi ple. [cis the law of a worl being, witho without identity. is creative selection does not happen only in the thought of the eternal I happens in being: being is selective, being is selection. There is no believe that che eternal return causes everything to come back, and it eliminates everything that cannot withstand the alf-desires” in thought, but the half-powers in being. the eternal return on thinking of the exernal return as the of a wheel, we must nevertheless endow it with a centrifugal move~ ment, by means of which it expulses everything which is too weak, too ‘moderate, to withstand the ordeal. What the eternal return produces, and sauses to come back in correspondence with the will to power, is the Super- perior form of everything that is." The superman very mbaud defines it: one who is “loaded with ind who in every case has retained only the ind the extreme power, Everywhere, the eternal return under as Being is never to identify, bur to authenticate. This explains why, ‘own way, Mr. Lowith, Wahl and Klossowski alluded co the tion of the eternal return. This si because it eliminates “half-desires 1¢ eternal return gives us a parody of in such a way that you also forms and powers. Ic was therefore right to remind us that according to Nietasche, ference of nature between extreme and middle forms. The same ctzschean distinction between the creation of values and the make no sense if we This distinction wor 126 125Deseer Istanps anb C nnced an aspect of Niet .e-as-musician, In different ways, Mr. Goldbeck, Schloezer explained to us what seemed mor value new values.” This difference between them is the. turn, that which constitutes the essence of the: 7 values are precisely those superior forms of ever Dionysos), he also brought theatre into philosophy And with it, he ~w means of expression to transform philosophy. How many apho- vorable historical conditior must be understood as the principles and evaluations of a director? nized. On the other hand, some values are eternally new, .e conceives Zara iy, but also com- rays contemporary with their creation, and these, even they seem established, apparent ed by a soci fact address selves co other forces, soliciting from within that society anarchic fo another nature. Such values alone are trans-historic: bear witness to a congenial chaos, a creative order whatsoever. It losophical theatre, which is already co power and the eternal recurn. at the extreme limit of what is livabl is why Me. Beaufret questioned the notion of value, asking hi e. Bu sand thinkers come together in this dimension. Hence the fifth the is respect, when have been influenced by some of them. But chere ing else at stake. So, when Mr. Foucault confronted Ni by the three authors: on the contrary, he considered that the discovery unconscious depends on something more profound, on a fundamental dl in interpretive demands, a change that itself implies a particular evaluation the “madness” of the world and men, Mr. de Schloezer spoke of Nietasche Dostoievsky; Mr. Gaede, of French literature; Mr ture and Hermann Hes Gi case, regardless of another, meet up with another i onology or nker could encoun no longer that thanks to Mr. Goldbed Manfred score, and to ORTF forNietzsche’s Burst of Laughter’ [How was the new edition of Nietzsche's Complete Philosophical Works Deleuze: The problem was to reclassify the posthumous notes—the them after the works with which they were contemporaneous. Some of been used in an abusive way after Nietzsche's death 10 compose The Power. So it was essential to reestablish the exact chronology. This expla volume, The Gay Science, is more than half composed of ig from 1881-1882. Our conception of Ni his ereative process may be profoundly altered as a ‘owe the texts to the work of two Italians, Colli and Montinati Guy Dumur: How do you explain that Italians rather than Germans did Gilles Deleuze: Maybe the Germans were not in a good position to ‘They already had numerous editions, which they were fond of, despit arbitrary organization of the notes. Also, Nietzsche's manuscripts Weimar, East Germany—where the West German could have hoped edly embarrassed at having accepted the edi snough that there are other ways to distort an aut is merely an ar lection from among his P 128 's BURST OF Lat TER Guy Dumur: Wil Guy Dumur: Do you think a “return to Nietesche” is taking place in France today? And if so, why 's difficult to say. Maybe there has been a change, or maybe the 1g place now, with respect to the modes of thought which have «0 us since the Liberation. We were used to thinking dialectical- ‘Today it seems the tide has turned from dialectical thinking toward structuralism, for example, as well as other systems of thought that things and actions are already interpret cerpret interpretations, and thus to change chings, “to change -ment of upheaval Guy Dumur: Could we then say chs is a retur 129untimely, which we element. But it happens from time to time that, at certain great moments, coincide. When people die of hunge torical. But when the people struggle coincidence of poetie acts and thing that reminds us of one over on Marx—an gle. There are creators in a moment in history. Hi Nietaschean element. Hi sented what Nietzsche if one wants to be “a mast than not it is the “slaves” who come to power, and who keep it, an remain slaves while they keep it. “The masters according to Mysticism and Masochism' Madeleine Chapsal: How did you come to be interested in Sacher-Masoch? : | always felt Masoch was a great novelist. I was struck by the ;eading so much Sade, but never Masoch: people make him out to , reverse Sade. Madeleine Chapsal: His work is hardly translated Gilles Deleuze: No, no, it was very much translated toward the end of the ninc- nes. His work is connected to the political and national movements vism. Masoch is as inseparable from the revolutions as Sade from the French Revolution. The types of a rather complex way to the fant to dissociate their pseudo-identity! if these were only on any reversal or turning by sadism. Bu ic unity goes without saying, whereas in my view they have entire-MAND MASOCHISM, De AND Texts, My these writers will Madeleine Chapsal: How do you explain th Sade and Masoch, who are the expert ike Sade and Mas not psychi the domain of perversion? ts but suze: I suppose so. bit of their esth« Gilles Deleuze: Perhaps there are three different medical acts: symptor egral parts of medicine, symptomology appeals to a kind that is premedic belonging as much to ar I about drawing a “portrait.” The work of at ex body or beic in a very different way. can be a great sympromologi a few accomplished through the masochism of the sa ger attempt ¢o see what i there, but seek as in the case of fon the of symptoms: ies ing an illness, but about the world as symptom, and the: symptomologist. because the writer is less concerned with causes. Madeleine Chapsal: Freud nonetheless respected the clinical genius of writers, Madeleine Chapsal: Now that you mention it, we might say the same rary works to confirm his psychoanalytic theories. about Kafke’s work or the work of Marguerite Duras. Gilles Deleuze: Very much so, but he didn't do it for Sade or Masoch. All t00 I considered as one more case add ical psycho! himself, as a creator, brings Gilles Deleuze: Absolutely. ogy, when the important Madeleine Chapsal: Not to mention that Jacques Lacan expressed his tion of The Ravishing of Lol Stein and told Marguerite Duras that he saw i fference betwee iness not the same thing the same: it's the phan- of the artist and the work of pathology. Ve ician and even the pat a few others (for example, Robbe- say and to show that the essence of masochism is itself the objectphilosophy has been and is clearly Nie issing sense and value. OF course, other very d influences must be added here: the Marxist co principle or an origin, not even an end, ; ‘ed, whose laws of production must be uncovered. Look at the pref- for the book by Feuerbach he translated:' Osier n these two conceptions of sense and has a real cophy, pass between them. fying authors as different as scr: the idea of sense as an effect produced (And this is nor appearance.) Well, an aphorism by Nietasche is a sense~ producing machine, in that order specific to thought. Of course, there are +r machineries—for example, those which Freud discovered, JEan-Nodl Vaarnet: How would you define the problems of contemporary philosophy? Gilles Deleuze: Pechaps the notions of sense and val None of that ri plig God Foucault said, the other. Nor can we iversal and particularities + ourselves be satisfied |, or completed by one is a world packed follow you, you'r saying that the notions of sensé ym Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, though they are alway ked by serving the rebirth of a spi(ON Nier2sci AND THE INAGE occupies the place of God. Nictasche was tryin ¢ reasons. Kant, for example, ique: that’s why he fascinates me. But when you're fork of genius, there's no point saying you co admire; you have to rediscover the prob is through admiration that you will come to genuine 1¢ mania of people today is not knowing how co admire £ or they situate everything at their own level w You have to work yo assignable Self, when there is no longer any person on whom God can power or by whom He can be replaced, the police lose it. Th m, though you also turn it against him. You have co be inspired, es you denounce. a revolutionary must first know how to admire and ark, practi Jules Vales says is an extraordinary rem: must adopt as its own those revo . or those that are being prepared. with the time, but also something ther isthe task of those who know sof our day. Good destruct ing the one from the re real destroyers and ct ind Proust interest me so much because in ents for a new image of thought. The ing else chan what fore we Jean-Noil Vaarnet: Youve wi Proust, Masoch. Can you explain these successive: ‘And don't you have a particular inte 138Desert ISLANDS 4 Ito encounters and find a lan s, a language in the individuati your thinking here: “There ts no logos, chere are only hieroglyphs’? Elsewhere, f Masoch, you said the artist was “i symptomologi the scientific or experimental part of medi wered extraordi- impudent c). Iris only in the and then you have other things to t om cinema: Godard transforms cinema by dnt have thoughts om cinema, he doesnit put more of less vali And sometimes a violent reaction is a sign of a ro jetzsche thought of the philosopher as the physician of ci was an extraordinary diagnostician. The artist in gen jodard would be capable of fil and it wouldn't be abstract cinema or a cinematogra physician is an interpreter, one who considers phenomena as symptoms and. ‘aphorioms. The artist evaluates, both considering and ere jothing spectacular. Philosop! ns or experiments as those produced iDeserr Istanps aND Orne Texts sme of a coherence which is ut a coherence always 0 Whar ph their own, nor that of Gi he way, always in disequilibrium, cophy lacks is empiricism Jean-Noél Vuarnet: They say you're now working on a book cent Gilles Deleuze Talks Philosophy’ Gilles Deleuze: Yes, [finished the book—on repetition the same thing) as the actual categories of our thought. titions and constants, but also the problem of masks, disguises, di and variations n. These themes must mean sor Jeanette Colombel: You just published two books, Difference an Re ‘Spinoza and the Problem of Expression. And a still more recent work, The Logic of ‘Se, will come out very soon. Who speaks in these books? cepts of difference others and repetition. So why nor k the question: What are we doing Even psychoanalysis needs to address acer which the patient has lost, but which the analyst has k is not far off, nor is political vitality. Many things, many sand many changes are not far of ‘we speak as someone else. And In the classical world, for example, what ly founded on the form of Gilles Deleuze: Whenever we w dela form that speaks through ed sea of anonymity. Today, however, we are uncovering 1 reducible to indi ing a nomad space. There is a big cd space among sedentary individuals accor open space without enclo- talks abour the fourth person 142ANDS AND OriteR Texts Ghutes Detevze Tat Difference and Repetition, however, the comparison has been you're no longer an interpreter, you're a creator. Is this comparison sti of phi age” that renews the landscape, or is ie Jombel: Your hatred of negativity leads you to show c. Certainly the symmetrical opposi ic confirms your ich is sf & sea cts sasm/masochism, death ie eee sme going co the ordinary sens to substitute for the history of philosophy have sought another tech loser to collage ception of difference. The kind of collage technique or even the which you see in Pop also thought I wasn't entirely successful. I believe I go farther in In any «as inions, under the false oppositions, yo fauch more explosive systems, unsymmetrical wholes in disequi example, both economic and psychoanalytic). Jeanette Colombel: One last question in connection with the k between your philosophy and play, and ion. But can it have a political dimension and wary practice? rikes me especially is the friendship the authors you write about. Sometimes your reception seems even: for example, when you silence the conservative aspects thought. On the other hand, you are merciless with Hegel. Why is hhar's a tough question, I don't know. ship or love that do not wait for the revolution, that do. jonaty on their own account: they Deleuze: If you no reason to write a word abo whose critical and springs from affirma the exigency we. They have more to do there ae effective, explosive things in Zen, As for soc that the task of philosophy Spinoza or Nietasche are ive powers are without equal n, from joy, from a cule of affirmation and are produced in whole those singul: ‘would be the transformation of those rel for Bergsonism and spiritualism, tech 4srs SHNOZA. . And this procedure no longer has a simply didactic appl Lewis Robinson's commentary.” the emergence of the struct that itis less a question of another wher state of the same structure. Thus the study of the npletes the study of the method proper as well as the These last ewo aspects, conce: of the system, derive negligible, nor 1 bea commentary on the Ethics as “masterpiece.” Rath ion—unless it is purely imaginary, arbitrarily fixed by che hi kkind, self-caused, and infinit 1g had adopted a hypothesis that in the Treatise on the Reform of the Spinoza's point of departure is any true idea, ideas of geometrical be impregnated with fiction, in order to reach as quickly fiction ceases. Secon ion ofthe role of the fi I compechension of the na ‘only insofar as the first eight propos ical sense that we get two misteadings of the that makes attributes forms or concepts of the understandit of the revisions from the perspective of the generative clements and general, a system evolves inasmuch as certain pieces chan in such a way that they cover a larger space than before, even wh s space. However, 1s produce a new effect. Fichte, Gueroult already discusses “internal surges of the system’ wl al surges in Spinozism on several occ : concerning the essence of God, the proGueRoUtr’s Sisco whereas the second is a “deseriptio thetical sense on the first cigh innot be numerical dis cemerges from this is the method sophy. inseparable the nature of mode. co saying that ‘opposition to another, and that they are all che impregnated with fiction and not en to ascend as quickly as possible to the idea of God, where al ceases, and where things as well as ideas are engendered starting from Gos be sure, we do not ascend from attribute-substances to the absolute- ibute-substances as teal consticutive subscance; but we cements through a regressive : ts of a gen ther, they are objects of a demonstration from absurdity (es the modes of substance are “opples y wwe an incommensurable far as he is noc composed of p ed by “prima elementa”re mode. We must take a mome! nding. Because when und ‘our own by analogy, a to God cannot have the same form as creatures. On the contrary, when we say that divine is no less a mode than finite or human understanding is, we n of the human under lependence from God) understanding as whi is twofold: from the standpoint the forms which it includes, since modes envelope the perfections on in the is which constitute the esence of ‘essence and, «represent merely one application among ot 1. as it does at the end of a series of studies on Descartes, the most adequate, the most saturated, and the most a method. Gueroule’s book establishes the genuinely fect common: understanding which God possesses ance and its creatures, since attributed to God by raising metric, synthetic, and genetic ‘on the nature of the Spinozi the opposition between jon Spinozismis most radical of our understands ty for humankind of - Absolute! “There would be no genetic and synthetic method ‘were not ina way equal ro whac engenders 155fragment lodged in another. Axelos 1 of Plato, tending roard the pre-Socratcs and he goes beyond The Fissure of Anaxagoras and rad eco svok oe a turing of aphorisms Local Fires of Heraclitus refrains, tracts, and pl ion to broadcast short his work, Heideggerian converted from i, defines it in these ten globe, and its elation mn. of this great... Planetary means whatever is iinenant and errant, wal jectory in space-time and performing a rotational moveme tary certal other rather about grasping an absence of origin as the “planetary becoming” that appeared in Greece, and that now appeats to us, as we deviate with respect t0 is also more errant than aberrant. As a over, and according to di » the planetary designates a technological mechanism, or gears and wheel Therefore, the play of thi the planetary is global erat caught up in gears and wheel.” figures of errancy: Odysseus, Don Quixote, ¥échuet, Bloom, Malone—who in the wo types hoping and praying for “the most what Maurice Blanchot has taught us about the “language of fragment’: speaking and thinking d supposing any anterior totality from which it would derive, nor any post whole which would derive from the fragment, but quite the oppos the fragment evolve for itself and for other fragments. This is accompli tance, the divergence, and the decentering which separate the but which also mix them up, into an affirmation such as “a new reduced to unity. Each apho- ulsive mechanism; and and sublimations, ary is not the same t is dislocated, “the worldDesert Fissure AND LOCAL FIRES. icular strangeness (strangeness, rather than ali as the determination of errancy). To this pathos there corresponds a logic, a logos. The aphorisms “sm, ‘must not be reminiscence or archaicism, a collection of pieces s whole, but a means adapted to exploring the contemporary worl ions. The logic here is one of probal classes but to cases. Whence hog sctaphysis, psychology and sociology are no more in pla ing lef buca generalized srategy difference from Clausewitz, but also Hegel, Mars, Heidegger and Heraclits... Because we think without origin, and without des- nce becomes the highest thought, but we cannot thin re chings between ure anda poin of at feng [ee] and being (ant. Diference cannot be affirm: evuring the ovo ters that cease © through assignable terms. does away with ie poi and re-enters a fissure Js difference go? asks Axelos, ei eye. “What line separates the horizon Where does the rhythm alternate? “Inthe great encompassing space specifi place?” Axcis traccs a commentary by Anaxagoras, which he fissure? Whee does ic “Is there on one ‘other a chaos of preexisting beings, a cosmos bythe Nos! Where does eeween the chaos andthe cosmos? In the cosmos? referring not to ey are not so much facile dialectial transfor of opposites, as sequences of random cases in idgment of existence and ng (is, is not). “What if the there isand the is no longer tyrannized ts the chere is not and the #s nor did not ‘Hegelian, as well as Marx evolves in the categories of xcept toralize ith differences; we grow mix everything ime, yet how can Axclos occupies 48 total universal conflagration of izes and disperses its own movement fires of these fragments in which self-foreseen—which causes Axelos to remai the final and fatal explosion, which will cot the losHowe {The Nature of Relation «one aspect of his originality, derives from the force with yr 0 their terms. Such a thesis can be relations are exte Hume' how do jon internal co Peter or Paul? Or to their con- cept? Or to the whole they compose? Or to the Idea in which they le exteriority of their rela- cd for the exteriority of position on thi was occluded by sdge or ideas: everything had to have its 01 ions of the mind on these sense-data. The Significance of Empiricism a certain way, problem of the origin of know! gin in sense-data, and in the oper Hume effects an i nothing else, and nothing mor ly because the relations are heterogeneous and exte- pressions, or ideas. The difference, therefore, is not between ideas and impressions, but between two kinds of impressions or ideas the impression o ides of tems andthe impressions o ides of rela- ly unfold in all its ‘The history of philosophy has pretty much absorbed an« which has been tradi there within ideas something not in the senses or sense-data? The history losophy has made empiricism a critique of the « priori and innate is these which Hume fictional, strange, foreign, experie iyoher seston but we gee the tha this world sour own, and we ae the erature. Atte same dec theory undergoes @ conversion: theory becomes nates with Bacon; recalling, ‘when he conceives of theory as aworld where terms ¢ cernal bridges—a world where the conjunction of the verb “is,” a Harlequin world of colored ble fragments, where one communicates via external thought is founded on a dual register: aromism, which impressions refer to discrete minima that produce jonism, which explains how relations are established them and depend ‘On the onc hand, a physics of the mind; on the other, @ it for breaking the bonds imposed bution, for making possible an discovering a conjunctive world of atoms und modern 1d on its head. Hume asks some bizarre qu iar to us: to take possession of an abandoned row one’s spear against the gate, or do you have to touchHuMe etion Peter who is absent. I male of the passage. R es of human nature impose on accordance with eding from one particula this sense, Hume will engage in the concerted destruction of th ciples to pass off its fc a surety they would not otherwise have. In ng the relations themselves, inducing fictive relations, and lar cases that have been act: imple verbal rep. the effect. The liar comes is way to believe his lies by repeating them. And education, superstition, elo- same way. It is no longer on the path of ‘experience, confirmed by Nature itself and a cor g0 beyond it always and everywhere in our delirium, ature and ensures the fusion of anything whatsoey- f jon to redirect these principles Hume is here effecting a sec- of error he only allows the passage from a given of something that is not presently given; but causality also allows the p something given ro what has never been given, even something unable to in experience. For example, given signs in a book, 1 believe that Cae ms such as “always,” “tomorrow,” or “necessarily” express ab to be given in experience: tomorrow is not given without becor without ceasing to be tomorrow, and every experience is of a cont Jar. In other words, causality isa tel vi vanspiring ic with beliefs o of the passions, however, is ts, In fact, the hich be human nature. Hume, in the posthumous Dialogues concerning Natural, |. And this is much worse tha jety possible, egoism would only have to be limited. sof the contract, from the sixteenth- to the eighteenth-centu- ifs are from the point of view of the pr ciation of them, whence nature, the more completely they belong to our ‘aR RmaaRCae fot ati see this as a simple nuance of wording. ofthe socal problem. The problem is no longs: how do we limi ww: how do we go Hume practices it. Concrary to rearances and the errors of the sens 8 of relations and their exteriosity. ioral, juridical, and political feelings ( ice you have the opposition chat Hume establishes between the the convention or artifice. Hume is certainly the first ro break with the ancient dogmatic virtue of Socrates and Plato, ‘The Imagination icism as its prineip ble mixcure of fiction and huma he inquiry, not even its princi deed make sense only in relation to The Passions Jes of human nature themselves established the imagination used 10 cach stroke the vibrations ly decays.” In short, whatBy reflecting the p ion liberates them, stretches them very thin, and. pro natural In one respect, however, the percussic ‘must be revised: as they resonate in the im: to become gradually less present and less intense; they completely cha color and their tone, much the same way the sadness of a represented p tragedy changes into the pleasure of an infinite play of the imag ended by a new kind of bel id casts a shadow or image ;¢ ownership of an abandoned city, or do you hav sh a sufficient relation? Why in ci seit a Pa {Philosophy both Popular and Scientific 1 precocious philosopher: he was about twenty-five years old re is precisely this is what make e sof worlds. But there are two d con the one hand, extended pi thisreflecdon ofthe passions in the imagin: ‘once the most frivolous and most ion independently of ing bodies of social power, The ist defect finds its solution i the apparatuses of permission, peration + books, even though it means giving up some of the co ngwhat was though fo difficule in his Treatise: Essays, Moral and Polit- Human Understanding (174 so involves the way in which Hume's Phy forms a general system. Because if the passions are reflected in some bare ‘once tie iples of Morals will wy his hand at The History of Great Britain (1754-1762). The adi ime’s death in 1779, the dominant currents of thejs a structure of the unconscious only to the extent that the language. xr transformed—it is better to ask: What do wi ina visible manner, except by the it own way. How do language not recognize pe’ ible things they themselves recognize go about recognizing a language in somethin, aring on work actual cannot invoke the unfinished charact that character alone which gives the qu. Whar is sorucruralism? rouse undergo cer who is a steuctut the current ary to name names [ like Roman Jakobson; a sociologis progress. This is 1967." such work to avoid a play between these two notions. Even when classical philosophy speaks of pure ineligence or understanding, iti still 2 matcer of a faculty defined by its apt tude to grasp the depths of the real (le rel em son fond), the real “in truth,” the like Jacques Lacan; a philosopher renewing ism. {895 4 Marxist philosopher like Louis Althusser, once again taki Point where che real and the imaginary interpene and their problem of the interpretation itic like Rok sharp border, like the eutting edge of their difference. case, we get no ‘writers like those from Te Que use “structure, These are all very che pleasure princi we more reason, methods the real and the le with its power to disappoir satisfaction. With Jung and Bachelard are whol - same of their complex relations, transcendent unity and wn and cutting edge. ism, however, is the discovery and recogni- regime: that of the symbolic. ‘The refusal ro aginary, as much as with the real ism, In this case again, everything began wi ts resonant parts, beyond images discovers an ele-How Do We Recoanizt see why later; but already the first criterion co -sas well asthe associated istory of ideas, Michel F defined by an autonomy of the whole, by a preeminence [pregnance] We already had many fathers in psychoanalys of over its parts, by a Gestalt which would operate in the real and in but also father-images. And all our dramas occurred in the the contrary, by the nacure of certain of the real and the imaginary. Jacques Lacan discovers a thi both for the formation of wholes and of the imagi- is which must account for both the literal and the figur: ing to do with an esience itis more a combinatory formula [une sporting formal elements which by themselves have neither the strata of the real and for the heigh astrophes that are proper to the symbol the apparent disturbances of c The Wolf Man as Lacan interpre F s ruccuralism is aggresive, as when ie denounces the general mis- 3 ce symbolic category, beyond thei this category, and claims to discover an laborate themselves, and where ideas and jon: the real tends towards in “one,” as soon as we make ¥¢ according to hi se ble in itself, cleaved according to a law of the dual ing the role of eh father, the father-buffoon, and the other, the role of the working and father: like ‘of Wales in Shakespeare, who image to the other, from Fi © Crown, The imaginary is defi . We sense the need games of ° Distinct from theDisex How Do We Rrcocstzi STRUCTURALISN?, YF mirrors, but the distine- thought. position of scructuralism is thus quite clear: time is always a time of ace her oe according to which the elements of virtual coexistence are carried out ag rhythms. Time goes fom the virtua to the actual, that i, fom st actualizations, and not from one actual form co another. Or at least t jon of succession of two actual forms makes do with imaginat nees; when one approaches jal function inereases, one tends vards distinctive values by ther products o es ferent depths in these two forms, and the differenti covered over by the times. And precisely because the structure is not and ideological relat incarnated. One ca ieve the structures through these effects. The terms and rela- the species and parts th them, are as much ice [brouillage| as forms of expression. This develops the concept of a -ept of a properly structural ca presence of a structure in its effects, and for che way in the same time as these latter assimilate and , We must say in this sense thae structure p species and these parts themselves, It produces them as differentiated sp i sense inseparable from the play of structu oon this differenciating role. Structure i clements and of differential relations, but it also differ r parts, the beings and functions in which the structure is actualized. if, and differentiating in its effect. Commenting on c is a whole problem of the is juage,” which goes beyond the level o or oP the differential unconscious is not co! ion. Rather, the unconsc solved only to the extent that the correspoi ‘ffectue] and always according to the way that a that it deserves based on the to pos as the field of problems that toward the methods of the imaginary if ints of "New C 180the places of which ‘not see the le designate a perfectly object 4)" which are the stru led at having so cleverly hidden the who sees everything and takes back ly serial. V. Fifth Criterion: Serial All of the precedi only been able to define half of the structure. A structure only starts to m become animated. if we restore its other nt we have previously defined, taken series of a Aa case, requires precise eval- ‘we touch here on the rue creation, and. y isks. The deter- of a structure occurs not only through a choice of basic symbolic ions into which they enter, nor merely through 4 distribution of the singular points which correspond to them, The deter don abo occurs through the constitution of a second series, at least, that complex relations with the first. And if the structure defines a prob- of the problem ‘explained by recalling that singularities derive from the terms tions of the fi ed simply to reproducing or refletin ‘They thus organize themselves in another series capable of an autonomo ‘or at least they necessarily relate the first to t for the economic and ries forms a basis and in which sense, ied, is a complex ques yrthme| by the expressions “Missing” (Mangué|, in the i which centative series are elaborated (“a chain of maritime memories the lefe leg, on the other contra "Or Jean-Pierre Faye’s attempt in Analogues, 1a serial co-existence of narrative modes." fhe two series from simply reflecting one another, and hence-1m below, necessarily coming to occupy the place g ” not of the birds from on high." This not at does not come to an imaginary dis sement is properly structural or symb the space of the structure, and thus regulates a i disguises of beings and objects that come secondarily to occupy these pla is why seructuralism brings so much attention to bear were always a matter of finding who is H,’ in the work. Such is the case with songs: the refrain We also spoke of ffoon, Henry IV or the object = x that ulates in Oshella, eaversing all the series 0 series of the Prince of Wales, Falstaff or the faths father, the two images of the father. The crown different terms and under moment when the prince tries on the crown, his father gassige from one series to the other, the change in symbolic terms and the vari ferential relations. The old dying king is angered, and believes that his ‘with him prematurely. Yet responding quite capal he prince shows that the crown is not the object of a ation, but on the contrary, is the eminently symbolic verm that alstaf and the geeat royal se the passage from one to the other atthe heart of they express the two degrees of freedom of displacement, from one another i fi i wd within the same ser hey pr , wg thei terms ia i But whae are these relative displacements then, if they belong ab to places in the structure? VI. Sixth Criterion: The Empty Square [La Case Vide] Ic appears that che structure envelops a wholly paradoxical objector ele er, in Edgar Allen Poe’ story, as reflecting role, doubling and du ing line appears more clearly here: against the dual character of the the Third which essentially intervenes in the symbolic syst , displaces them relatively, makes them co with each other, all che while preventing the one from imaginarily filling back on the other. the handkerchief or the crown, the nature of this object is, is always displaced in relation to i snd conversely, also to be found where it fil mangue a sa place] ed Aifferenciation), but is, is not an image); and that ic does not coincide series as such, (and, in this, is not a concept). “What is hidden is never the (wo series at Islip puts ie when speaking of a volume in the next element? We can nevertheless re only something general method, val every structure, as ifa structure were not defined without assigning an obje x that ceaseless if the literary work, for example, oF work 0 present relative displacements in re his is so because the relative places of their terms in the strlifferences through the vary with its displacements, the of difference ee the empty square, words are only one device among othe techniques of Raymond Roussel, as Foucault has analyzed them, are of use of an entite topography, ‘our goal is only to indicate consist of, this object = 2 Is ic and must it remain the pee the perpetuum mobile? This would be a way of recalling the the problematic takes on at the heart in the long ran, itis good that the question How do we recog ruralion? leads to positing something that is not recognizable or Lacan's psychoanalytic response:” the object = x is ther the real organ, nor the series of ‘equivalents the existen value circulating in the struct Jakobson's zero phoneme which does not ic value, but in relation co which al any differential phonemes are 1g else here, contrary to the pious itis true that structural pts in psychoanalysis to renounce oF sexual ref- tualities” in language which pi appears not as a sexual given or as he sexes. It appears rather as the symbol entirety as system Plices occupied variously by men and women are distributed, as also the series to itself, fom and the debt, the mother, ete., are«they show how the real a beings who come to occupy places and the ideolo- ich expres that they make of it—are narrowly dete f these structural adventures and the contradictions resulting from Nevertheless, i accompanied by an eminently symbolic instance which follows all of jx lacements, accompanied without being occupied or filed. And the instance and the place, do not cease to lack each other, and to accom other in this manner. The subject is precisely the agen the empty place: as Lacan says, i te. the real, the imaginary and their relacio ily by the functioning of the sructure, which starts with having its primary ingent or terior tothe structure in so fr as che strut made of individuations, but impersonal ones, or of singularit ple essence. individual ones. the sense in which Foucaule speaks Saad a 2 set of complex problems are posed for structuralism, conce [éi-Scmsscan only define subjective agency at depending on chal “mutations” (Foucault) or “forms of transition” from on; divions under which che systems of truth become convertible always asa function of the empty square that wultancously receivable to several different subjects.” Wns are open to new values of variations, and the singularities Henceforth, cwo great accidents of the structure may be defined. Bit capable of new distributions, constitutive of another structure. The contr ‘empty and mobile square is no longer accompanied by a nomad subj tions must yer be “resolved,” that is, che empty place must be rid of the symbolic and be given ove tothe sbjet which must acom- ‘Thus, there is a tural ccupied by what accompanies it, and its of a sedentary or fixed plenitude. One could terms, either that the “sig traverses it: the two pathological aspects of psychosis. One theo-anthropological terms, that cither God makes the desert occupies the plac -guarding the displacements, js, always cast ly defines a praxis, or rather the very site where praxis jot only inseparable from the works 1 the reason why man and God are the two sicknesses of the earth, that is € of the structure, tant is knowing according to what factors and at structures of one order orconly co juxtapose a system of echoes between authors who are very is from each other, exploring very diverse domains, and as diverse asthe they themselves propose regarding these echoes. At the different the real and the imaginary, real beings and ideologies, sense ust be understood at the conclusion of a " without importance; they cannot ‘ural fom exerting a productivity which is tha of our era, No anything ever has any importance; ll that counts are books fo so thar know how to produce ie = 192 Three Group-Related Problems’ [Armilicane political activist and a psychoanalyst just so happen to meet in the same person,” and instead of each minding his own business, they ceaselessly ‘communicate, interfere with one another, and get mixed up—each mistaking the othet. An uncommon occurrence at least since Reich. Pietre- ‘of the Self preoccupy him. The der the combined assaule indeed heralds the search for a new subj not allow itself to be enclosed in a whole bent on reconstituting a self (or even which spreads itself out over several groups at once. ‘manifold, permeable, and always optional. A good unlike a its opening up to other the most natural way imag- ‘wo aspects of an anti-Self: on the one hand, he is like , a blind and hard body invaded by death as soon as he takes nthe other hand, he lights up and seethes with multiple lives he looks, acts, laughs, chinks or attacks. Thus he is named Pierre the psychoanalyst, there are in what form does one introduce pol ‘understood that, in any case, poli- 2) Is there a reason to introduce ary groups, and ifso, how: 3) How does onceive and form specific therapeutic groups whose influence would impact 193Deserr [stanos ano OTHER Texts ‘Trree Grour-RELATED PROBLEMS sments throughout the uni- afier the Liberation, and theeween the double age ion between private I." (Compare this with Freud, who derives from war . and a non-qualified shock or excess of exci a big boom). Restoring to the unconscious it , a backdrop of disquiet and the unknown, implies a reversal of psycho~ ind certainly a rediscovery of psych che cheap trappings rosis. Psychoanalysis has indeed joined forces with the most traditional yo stifle the voices of the insane constantly talking polit ,, Marcel Jaeger shows how ‘the discourse produced che depth of their indi- hic disorders: the discourse of madness also connects with the |, social, and religious history that speaks in each of us. [ ical concepts provokes a state of ci preparing for May. ‘As for the fi rid tr of libido as such, as the essence of desire id disinvests flows of every kind as they ta effects cuts in these A an sexuality: but now it invests through the social field, and ep 1m the historical inscription of the workcts’ movement formulations express the same orientation that Guattati’s work displays in his the same effore to reevaluate psychosis. Reich: there is no a kind of absolute narcissism (Das Ding) and aims at an ideal social ad alls a cure; this procedure, however, always obscures a singular So ea coon te as libido is everywhere already present, sexuali field and embraces it, coinciding with the flows that the objec ymbols of a group, and c same objects, persons and symbols depend for their the | th the bols are consciously individual person in an potentialities (why are these p Far more important than moi and those people rev daddy, and grandma are all the uch as the class cont ne day, Oedipus “co Spaleung (division, ‘one overlook the role the the end, the economic 1g of the notion of institu ies of the objective desig tarsh ange say tote repression and regulation? In a beyond or something added. Barbarie, both assimilated inSERN TS. The second problem—is there a reason to introduce poche al groups, and if so ities incapable of effecting che deseuction of capitalism. In this re proper character of capi development of productive forces andthe relations of production, is the reproduction process of capital. This process, however, on which develop a socialist econ- ies of the global marker and according to jonal capital. The new State all the more ns of rational forces of product nocrats when they say that two kinds of regimes and cd, nor with Tsk when he supposes thar bureaucracy the bourgeoisie maintains its stranglehold on th proletarian State, with che cure consisting in a simple apparatus through its increasing efforts to institutionalize and ‘outcome was alteady decided or betrayed in the wa working clas, in such a way that clas conflict ty responded to the city-States of capitalism, even in their relat rel places and deciding factors that go beyond States and point to thei and annoyance. The clearest evidence of this is that tional capitalist economy. It is by virtue of the same principle chat “a sphere of production is alone inserted in the worldwide reproduction pro in third-world States, the rest remains subjected to preca archaisms of a second kind). ion of the prolet h of revolutionary struggle i rd world is affirmed, these str serve as chips in a nego ting the same renunciation international strategy and the development of class conflict in capitalist tries, It comes down to this imperative: the working class must defend nat productive farce, steuggle against monopolis, and appropriate a State ap utterances cut off both imaginary phenomena such as jon take place). Group-sub- fF eransverality that ward off wn, environments of desire, from subjectivity |, supercgofication, and group-cast ‘other hand, are defined by coetfic sand hierarchies. They are agents of en 197ANDS AND Orie Texts RELATED PROBLEMS foblem is not at all about asa subject. Conversely, “a pa less jonary machine cannot remain sat che same time super-central- discourse when the evolution of the relations of force causes a return to n cy: the group nonetheless preserves, almost li subjective rupture which a transformation of ‘extreme example: re only phantom masses already possess a structure of subjugation, th leadership, a mechanism of transmission, and a core membership, ly reproducing the errors and perversions they are trying to oppose. ‘own experience begins with Trotskyism and proceeds through Entry Leftist Opposition (La Voie communiste), and the March 22nd ‘Throughout this trajectory, the problem remains one of desite or subjectivity: how does a group ca other groups and ro the desires o Suareapparatus), and what exacdy an analysis or an analyzer of to pseudo-rational and scientific synthesis), are the wo majo 's book pursues, signaling in his view the theoretical task psychoanalysis to group it about a therapeutic group that would somehow “treat” 's about constituting in the group the conditions of an analysis of self and for others; i's about pursuing the flows that con: id bringing about ruprure impos- and. historical never takes—in a word, which there is was insufficient asan analytic and-RELATED PROBLEMS: Désenr ISLANDS AND OTHER TEXTS desiring group which not only held a discourse o mn, but which was able also “to c iderable mass of students and worke mode of truly fig ‘which will be made i ed to che order ofthe g field which must laws of a simple “application” of psychoanalysis in a closed environmen family as a continuation of the State by other means). The p nomic content o idinal and sexual content politico-economic field— tory—become manifest an open environment and in group-subjects, o Because “truth is not theory, and not o theory and organi to perform self of the points G who says that madness a kind of “mor even less group dynamics, and which is everywhere applicable, in the ho: i to produce and give voice to desire. This is why ional analysis for his work rather than be replaced by something we h Because the real problems have to do wit is always a pleasure metaphysical or ness of mental day when we itions of God with the same s Malebranche? For how long wi he old asylum was sane were judged “incapable” and as that unite so-called reason- and he contractual rela oke of genius was to show that bourgeois fami red a large group of people ("neuro order to lead them, using wwe perpetuate the split becween the jue and che concrete analytical activity 0 tus than che unhealthy-rational defi which subjugated groups relate to God in the form of reason.) More preci tris institutional sychiatry nor only for ref to acknowledge any pharm: mn, nos only for denying the in tution any revolut n sis was an important step in this development has yet analyzed the role and effects of madness. “Wi ref would chen be! way of suppressing de th that some general theé denial of the singular faeDesert ISLANDS AND OER Texts the model of thei in several directions at once, groups, cheir subjugation and This critique was meant to be « nasmuch as the pyramidal organis ism in society rotten behavior. The view from th insane on a day-to-day basis, provided a certain “contract” wi bas been voided. So, in a sense, we and few laws (few contractual chotherapy threads a difficult passage betwe old days, the good ‘What comes into play here are Guattar’s problems concerning th of cured-curing groups capable of forming group-subjects, that is to support of the e empty words, is movement.” A particular dream of nonse ced as such, againse laws or the contract of 54 ion, their possible fu be taken in bits and pices, like a montage or inst wheels of a machine. Sometimes the cogs are small 202 cry principle of a detached from acle of the signifier. 203 “Turee Grour-RELATED PROBLEMS"Whar OUR PRISONERS WANT...” must be led by former inmates and the help, which fir more and more workers and democ- chen must recr going on. In Toul, king place, which (0 do with the “publ i which is not the classical former prisoners, who have settled in the cities where they be to society, are coming forward to say what was done to them, 2%, physical abuse, reprisals, lack of medial care, etc. This isa person- the example of which was given by Dr. Rose, whose report took “What Our Prisoners Want From U: place in Nancy, in an extraordinary gathering of more than , which the press passed over in silence. ‘where the prison guards, from the last row, smates; only the former inmates were able ro shu them up, prison and singled out the phrase the inmates co-opted to silenced the prisor ‘The day is coming when not one prison guard will be able to being publicly denounced a day or month later by his victim or a the very city where it has taken place. Former prisoners, and current c, have ceased to be afraid and no longer feel ashamed. such a movement, the government has responded only with ression (the CRS is ever ready to intervene in the prisons) and ‘Nancy).’ But in this great variety there appears to be a series of precise “which are no longer addressed to the penitentiary administration, but ly addressed to the powers that be and call dis ‘common essentially deal wi ” as brutal repression their nakedness re demands of the prisoners expresses in mnships of class, violence, and power. all the more harsh, especially on the young, to — ap a threat and their labor superfluous on becoming more and more clear in the prisons. The ess ed by the inmates at Melun is foners from che exterior. Ni M. Schmel 205INTELLECTUALS AND Power he conditions in which the pr misguided to say, as jove toward praxis by appl yn, nor a reform pi nets themselves could speak.’ Ie seemed to be saying, that you system of relays in an assemblage, id practical. For us, the consciousness, that repre- Je have ceased t0 claim for itself Intellectuals and Power' the ideology which that system produces or poverty, being rejected or “cursed,” being be its because for us the relationships berween in a new way. On the one hand, praxis used to be asa n of theory, as a consequence; on the other hand, and. praxis was supposed theory, it was supposed to create a theory. In any case, their relationship took the form of a process of to another. Maybe we'e asking the question in a new ‘ween theory and praxis are much more Fragme » a theory is always local, related to in be applied in another domain from one domain to another). Praxis is a network of relays from one point to another, and theory relays one praxis to another. A theory developed without encountering a wall, and a praxis is needed ro break threester Istanps aN Orie Texts INTELLECTUALS AND PowER ious. Not a strugele for some “insight” or “realization” (for a long kim marginal problem shakes peopl 1 was surprised to see how 10 see so many people scourse, and surprised gen ‘man who had been in prison, and she sai: “To think thar one day in_prison Jhed me, a forty year old woman, by forcing me to eat stale bread.” What F power, bur the is exercised as power, in a form th reduced to bread and water when we're kids only place where pow Sine dimensions, and because you know very cinating about prisons: for once power does to the mos you have to do is look at Renault's en make pee-pee during the day. You uncovered a cighteenth-century, a proposal for prison reform: form that Bentham establishes a circular system, wh 1¢ renovated prison serves as a model, and where the school to the fae it was over, but we didnt follow this conversion through—namely, theory demanded that those i ave their say from a practical standpoint. Michel Foucault: And when the prisoners began to speak, they had theirAND POWER revolutionary movement len,” “repressed,” “unspoken,” enables a cheap “psychoa ita deficiency, since a par what should be the object of political struggle. ‘The secret is perhaps mon cult co bring to light chan the unconscious. The wo themes which only 1g isthe repressed” and that “writ rights subversive,” in my opinion betray several operations which must b ly criticized. lable local response. But how do 1s berween discontinuous active country (0 another or ned perhaps means Gilles Deleuze: About the problem you just jemselves determine the methods), these people enter the revolutionary process—as all proletariat, of course, since power is exercised in the way 8 capitalist exploitation. These truly serve the cause of the where they suffer oppres- ‘one’s interest. We must be willing to hear Reichs ery: No, the masses fooled, they wanted fascism at a particular moment! There are certain inves of desire chat shape power, and diffuse the level of a cop as that of a prime precisely the nature of the investments of desire that fone why pi uld or should have revolutionary investments in the na ofien have investments which are reformist or total tionary atthe level of desire Michel Foucault: As you poine 01 interest are more complex than we o 212 23REMARKS Remarks (on Jean-Francois Lyotar Lyotard’s book is at once dispersed, fying contained as an egg. The text is both 215the revolution was possible, the soci ‘not some myth that has Deleuze and Guattari Fight Back... cunately, the attempt to recuperate and brainwash the masses has spared ‘sof thousands—maybe more—who are now immune to the il effects of kinds, and who intend co retaliate againse the repressive dirty bosses, against their maneuvers of dialogue, participation, rely on the complicity of traditional wor i the current attempts to renew fo in briefly the thesis of their book, and then tell us how they. the feathers of the serious ly not going co suggest that the spirit of seri- not the product ofa simple ms 1m a variety of circumstances, there was a whole: ally, it was less a question of pooling our ies; we were confused beginning with the domain of theoreti it history should be presented as something not too serious. And from this perhaps Anti-Oedipusis still to serious a book, too intimidating. heory should no longer be the business of specialists. The desire propositions should stick as closely as possibl swe must knit a new breed of blending the dif- ing them together. the idea that desire must not be conceived as a subj about the future being prepared for ing the hymns of a newly made-over fascism chat would im wish for the Nazis ‘Our starting poine was to consider how dur along the order of whole, and ts darkest periods. The German masses had come to desire Nazism. After n Reich, we cannot avoid coming to grips with this fact. Under certain e masses can turn against their own interests. What an answer, we realized that we coulda 1 up to the Marxist-Leninist y between an opaque economic inf I-ideological ictures conceived in such a way that they confine the questions of sex and. history of the workers movement. Whose fault Krusch Marx w 217Deneuze ant RI FIGHT BACK... a madman’ book, but we did who is speaking: there is no basis for 1 present, past, or furute madman recisely why we used so many writers and poets: your would have to as mental patients or do here had to be two of us if we were to lucible to the psychiatrist and his mental flow is an everyday, unquali- f words, a low of ideas, a flow of ‘ora schizophrenic machine: ook asa flow-book. the ideologues of the fai then one cannot overes ce Nadeau: Indeed, in your fist chapter, there is this notion ofa“ layman and needs to be defined. Especially it answers everything, suffices for everything. To make progress i approach to the unconscious of machine its maximum extension: 1¢ as any system that interrupts flows. 1s wee referring to technological machines, ry sense of and. sometimes to social machines, and desiring the machine is not opposed to humanity or nature (you twxally differen yond both the mect ng, whether in nature, society, oF the primacy of history over st ed from symbol the means to freeDe a TENTS Raphaél Pividal: Ifyou'te going to define your book in terms of desire, L know how this book reponds to desire. Which desire? Whose desire? Deleuze: If is truc, excellent. That would be perfect. In any ease, there is logical problem in our book. Nor any problem of interpretation, the unconscious doesnit mean anything, Machines don't mean anything, ‘work, produce, break down. What we're after is only how something Deleuze: Its not as a book that it could respond co desi co what surrounds it. A book is question of flow: there are many people there are the youn; were not worried about a return 10 “Ooh well, 1 discussion has taken place at a “molar” use a dichotomy funda (0 your interpretation—that is, the level conceptual schema, We have yet to break through to the “molecular” 1¢ micro-analyses that would allow us to grasp how you “machined” het. This would be particularly useful forthe analysis—a schizo precise functions in this society. Félix thinks our book is addressed to people who are now somewhere b the ages of seven and fifteen. Ideally so, because the fact is the book is sti ficult, too cultivated, and makes too many compromises. We weren't able: it clearer and more direct. However, I'll just point out thatthe first chapre many favorable readers have said is too difficult, does not require any prio edge. In any case, a book responds to a desire only because there are mar people fed up with a current type of discourse. So, itis only because the b Sicipates in a larger reshufling, a resonance between research and al can respond to a desire only i nF tw know how fascism and May 68, the dominant jis make-up—not in a “molat” way, thats too banal, but in a “molecular” way, in the very construction of the text. 1 book is machined ill be digested by the Serge Leclair: Since you bring it up, I ge the Feel in such a way that any intervention “on a molecular | T would gladly ask fc ro0 seems, from to put the reade peaking and asking a quest ant right now, if you don't mind, ler’ see ntial pieces of the desiring-machine, if [ have understood omeone who has not yet managed to concept simply recalls a psychoana- cn if, as you claim with a touch of ut of me. The whole enterprise of research of methodology.than psychoanalysis can, I repeat, In my opinion, you yourselves have disarmed your desiring-mac by breaking down, through its fa thanks to this “positive” obj as a complete body such as the body) the fragmented body. When Jacques Lacan opens up the series off he voice and the gaze, beyond the breast and the buttocks, off and reduce them to the body. The voice and. for example, as they and audiovisual machines become i contiguous. Fl leave aside for now the question of how Lacan's phallic Function, in “object, docs not give them back a particular id cach, does not call on another form of totalizat let, Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that I 10s topics closed in on themsch the destruct [Deteuze AND GUAFTARI FIGHT BACK... sc agreement here, since Leclaire says we have portant to define or the different, way to weld desire to a fun- s this pious conception of is what we oppose. And i that produces, not acr IStaNDS AND OTHER Texts the object “a” in Lacan belongs in a scructure that includes the signifier, which is dual (S1 and $2), and the ‘True difference, if we are going to use this term, must be bberween the signifier on the one hand, and the object “a” on the other. ducing a lack somewhere and everything that it entails. Félix Guattari im not at all sure thatthe object “a” in Lacan is anything o a vanishing point, a leak, an escape from the despotic character of signify Serge Leclaite: What interests me most and what I am trying to nus different from yours, is how desire unfolds in the social ng” clements, properly speaking (or if you prefer, and imaginary elements). These relations are no ing” elements also have an effect avoid going through the narrow pass which the obj resents at present ‘enough to say everything is desire, you have t0: how it happens. One last question: what's the use of your contraption? ‘What relation can there be between the fascination of a flawless and the ge 1 of a revolutionary project? This is the quest asking, on the level of action. Roger Dadoun: In any case, your machine or “contraption” works. It works ly well in lierature: for example, it helps capeue the flow oF “schizo” cit of Artaud’s Heliggabialus, and it delves deeper into the bipolar schizoid / pi movement of an ‘works for a psychoanalysis i2e AND GUATTARI FIGHT BACK... efensive reaction. : 4 snploying an analytic psychology in a psychi rach peison” be able to question the insticut al conflict emerges somewhere, when some- ly an indication that something at the level of. iFand challenge the social fcld and i set in, and resistance is organized. to synthesize develop- sum things in a much more subtle interpretation has its usual effect—ru desire, a8 you say. Ruphaél Pividal: Td like to say something to Serge Leclaite: you've spoken at length but you filed vo address wher Gastar is aying Because the book fun ly examines your profession, the practice of analysis, you understand im in a partial way. You acknowledge the problem only by drowning it rgon of your theories, in which you accord greater importance 0 the partial object. You hide behind this jargon to quibble over 1 in Anti-Ocdipus that concerns the birth ofthe State, the role of schizophrenia, etc. you pass over in silence. Your day-to-day practice— nce. And the real problem of psychoanalysis—the con trial here. However, history, and to schizophrenia. ‘Setge Leclaire: I agree with the aim you propose. I only insisted on this one pre- “Object, to emphasize by a concrete example how their atvempe that we're dis- 225Desert IstaNbs AND Orne Txt system of terror among the Barbarians. 1 Let me remind you of wh: Oedipus. That doesn't problem passes through a and the function of the dri preference for a the he accepted. stu Mepange. We might also ask wl idea of Earth doesn't overwhelm the ory. In any case, Deleuze and Gu eye asking us real questions, questions ro make us think. some return to an evolutionist interpretation of histor beyond Morgan? Nor at all. Marxism could get its bearings among the ins (the Asiatic mode of production), but it never quite knew what to if the Marxist perspective indced explains the 1 despotism or feudalism) to civilization the movement from savagery to bar- ities) that just a question of exa lyzed the “sits,” espe Pierre Clastres: A philosopher and a psychoanalyst, Deleuze anc lave togeber prodaced arf on eapiodian, To el aul it they go through schizophrenia, in which they sce the effect and the limi society. And to think about schizophrenia, they go through Oedipal ana jt ike Aria he Hun here snot much eft in thee wake these two, that is, between the description of familialism (the Oedipal ti and the schizo-analysis project, you find the largest chapter nda " which is essentially about iknow what to do with Savages. And their answer, in my view, is the strongest and most rigorous discovery in Anti-Oedipus the “Urstaat,” the cold monster, the nightmare, the State, which is the same everywhere and which “has always caxisted,” Yes, the State exists in the most re societies, even in the small- cst band of nomadic hunters. It exists, but it is ceaselessly warded off. Ie is ceaselessly prevented from becoming a reality. A primitive society directs allies efforts toward preventing its chief from becoming a chief (and thar can go as far as murder). If s the history of class struggle i encode the flows “how the unconscio machine, here theory of: Anti-Oedipus is also a ther words, Deleuze and Guattari have: about Savages and Barbarians what ethnologists up to now have not int write it, but we knew it) thar the world of * come from? How does it emerge ful ive societies, and if something like a runaway train occurs—it the outside, and we can hope that the follow-up to Ansi-Ocdi- pense rocks always find a way o opi. It is ao say about it. formations impos'an over-cncding onthe stage ceme over-coding, decoding, flows: these categories establish the the- pire, though whereas the idea of the “Urstaat,” warded off or triumphant, sty. What we have here is a radically new thought, 227Héléne Cixous, or Writing in Strob For several years now Héléne Ci hhas pursued a subterrancan bod) which remains i ui ively unknown despite the Medici prize awarded ie wrote a beautiful book on The Exile of James ion, theory and criticism are tightly knit. On first impressi work indeed stems from a Joycean tradition: a narrative in process, includes itself or takes irself as an obj ch a plural “author” anda exceedingly difficule author or chat her work f nown trends of contempo! ature. The real originality of an is revealed only once we manage to position ourselves within the point: herself has invented and from which the work becomes easy to ready ing the reader by the hand. This is the mystery: every truly new work isi femands to be read slowly: in this case, hi ” and we are bound to read it again, faster a slow reader would exp teases. In my view, Cixous h: 1 Which gives her a pat shere the story comes res according to the precipitous speeds of reading Hetene Cixous, oR WRITING IN STROBE mporary. Neutre never tires of say- wugh movement they produce per tenth of a second: “The her by exchanging the active aay speeds, in relation to the c mix colors away that shades and hues. We terms that function in pairs. 1m the exterior, to sce which of the three ope there is a transfer from one tree to the other via body oF name. 1s the specters of gen- the statement ‘None is fictive clements made of desires; phonolog! iguistic elements made of figures: elements of crit- . These elements er, and then splice into this or that group, which has determi thus making up of a story. And at higher and higher speeds, che elements reach a perpetual slippage, an extreme rotation ‘which prevents them from splicing into any group whatsoever, driving them 1 through cach and every story. In a word, the reading functions to the readers speeds of association, For example, the extraordinary son's death, which varies according to three degrees at least. Or else leer F contaminate all neighboring is pleasure which comes from a book- asdrug, a disquieting strangeness, in accordance with a Freudian notion that Cixous loves: in every sense, a reading of Neuere must be fast and taut, as in a ‘modern mechanism of decisive precision. 231CCARETALISM AND SCHIZOPHIRENTA Desire does not depend on lack, any Law. Desire produces. S establishing connections among ps, is that desire is revolutionary. This even better. Desire is revolutionary by wilds desiing-machines which, when they are inserted into ig something, displacing the social fabric. Capitalism and Schizophrenia‘ 4 the unconscious as produe- ring-machines. Vittorio Marchetti: Your book Ant-Ocdipus is subtitled Capitaliom a phrenia, Why is that? What were the fundamental ideas you started Gilles Deleuze: Perhaps the most fundamental idea is that the unconsci duces.” What this means is thar we must stop treating the unct everyone has done up to now, like some kind of theatre where a p is represented, the drama of Oedipus. We believe the unconscious is are, but a factory. Artaud said something really beau tophrenia. In our view, it was these two pol seemed to have a relation. And not just a contingent relation mak- ossible to say that modern society drives people crazy. Much more than we wane to explain alienation, or the repression which the individual suf ist system, if we want to understand the real mi ‘one turns to analyze ‘goes without saying chac ing the chains that become attached to the flows. Thi scious, or desire that flows, interrupts, begins flowing a and contrary to what traditional psychoanalysis tells us, less. Without any sense, there is nothing to interpret. meaningless here. ‘The probler knowing how “desiring-machines” work, and knowing how to use thFreud developed his concepts, to begin with at lea ofa particular kind of access he had to neuroses, and hyst cu himself complained coward the end of about not having had another field, about not y other way to approach psycho able to approach ps should be added, ro you dont have access to schizophrenia, You have access to mental patie ina system that prevents them from expr ‘They express only a reaction to the repress are forced to endure. As a result, psychoan: ite the fundamental reference of mental derangement ns of the mommy-daddy type. And even if these deter- lic way—the father symbolic function, the 1% I suppose everyone is familiar with the amazing text by that lunatic, as m, President Schreber, a paranoid or a schizophrenic, it does! In other words, we in the light of the indi direction of history, that does not invest cultures, that does not talk about con- tinents, kingdoms, etc. We say that the problem of delirium is not related to the Gilles Deleuze: We began with the feeling, and I do mean a feeling i concerns mommy and daddy only secondari inary pole: like Rimbaud, when he says: “I am an inferior and forev the same: the patient listens in terms of mommy and daddy. There are pi toward the end of his life: something is not right is stuck. Freud thought that it was becoming endl minable, it was going nowhere. And Lacan was the fist had to be revamped. He believed the problem could be resol ther hand began with the Feeling that familial P yme situation hasroughly speaking, of owo things: there light, a wall chat is punched through, and d dimension which could be called collapse. 0 have to undermine the wall,” he says. Except knocking down the wall difficult, and if you do it in a way that is too brutal, you knock yourself smething wonderful, so wonderful in fac chat is so repressed in our society—and here you have the second el that it runs the risk of coinciding with collapse. Here you see the schizophrenic, who no longer moves, and who can remain motionless In the case of Niewsche, Van Gogh, Artaud, Roussel, Campana, ete, ments certainly coexist. A fantastic breach, a Nerval—and so many others—have knocked down the wall of the wall of mommy-daddly, they went beyond it and speak co us in a voice ‘our future. But the second element is nonetheless present in this proc is the danger of collapse. No one has the xprets the sense of the alienation which n pr is such a big deal simply to play cards in the presence of patients find themselves in, Vittorio Marchetti: Yes, bur the patient is still present to himself when he cries, cut, even if he hasnt seen che director... Félix Guattari: Present co himself I'm not at all sure about that. He could have derful breakthrough,” he knocked down the wall, but at what price? The p a collapse that must be qualified as renic. The breakthrough and breakdown are two different moments. It would be irresponsible to turn eye to the danger se in such endeavors. But they're worth it. Vittorio Marchetti: heard about these interns in a psychiatric hospital against the wishes of the director of the clinic, ha the room ofa patient who had been in a profound eatatonie s Not a word, not a gesture, not the least movement. One day,Your Special “Desiring-Machines”, What Are They? ‘The readers of Les Temps Modernes will find chou has revealed some of the results from hi ‘masochists, those who have others inflict severe and often bloody themselves). For this inquiry, however, he does not address the themselves; he does not have them talk. They would gladly talk. Were talk, however, they would enter a preformed, prefabricated circuit: of their myths ideas everyone today is more or less fa knows more or less in advance what is expected of us, answering, “mommy-daddy” as soon as we are asked—that world of interiority find so tiresome. Pierre Bénichou substi lytic father-morher-ego: conclude that the ject does not speak, does not have the right to speak: he only wri his wishes and demands, he passes a or plans for the next one, But on the other hand, the prostitute, the cop Pierre Bénichou's psychoanalysis that perversion par exc in the terms of the cont hb beeween the contracting past jerre Bénichou remarks: “sex does more than provide an object; she is the object. A tens, records, answers, questions, decides; a drug thac wheel thar chooses its 0 own doses a rou! ays the other number at wd psychoanalytic relation, or does the psychoanalytic relation deface the perverse relat For a long time psychiatry was a normalizing discipline, name of reason, authority, and law, in a double relation ts, Then a new interpreting discipline came along: perversion, neurosis psychoanalyts wanted ro knovt “what did it . Today we are calling for the rights of a new function- \get what it means, but how it works, how it functions. As if desire to say, but rather was the assemblage of tiny machines, desiring- machines, always in a particular relation social machines and the Your particular desiring- machines: what are they? In a for the necessity to think human sex- bucas a relation “between human sex and non-human sex. thinking of animals, but of what is non-human in human sexuality: the machines of desire. Pethaps psychoanalysis had gotten no further than an casy and, . An exemplary investigati in giving us real ic machines (teal paranoid machines, real schizophrenic machines, Japs out the road to such a functionalism as we are calling for: the analy- non-human sex” in human kind, 243HM? Lerrens, “These letters ive. Not some impossible escape. But fleeing the lice who led him back to prison. To flee to India, where he want- sna. Or even in prison, H.M.’s Letters’ ights, where the that do nothing but imitate our fasc ce Jackson,’ whete one flees while looking secret, confirms as much. A counter-expert “Prison is nora solution to your problem.” We would like 0 ask this expert: for whom and for which problem i pri comprised of officers, criminal recot ” And if nothing else is possible, to flee by chances of escaping a first com becomes too difficult 10 als.” Young people today walk a fine line indeed berween le and the birth of a certain form of not about making vague rect ing, because I'm really down today” (written the day before guards considered ic personified mechanisms that ceaselessly push them into reform school, I, the army, confinement The need to a homosexual has “The opposit hhomosexual, ‘aught in a system of harassmer volar plays part inorder tn dvide the pi sd by the prisoners ine were not just a simple extension of policing. H. exemplary because its heat 244 245Texts ing a previous conviction for attempted larceny, when HLM, ime, they added forty-fi having beaten sweats he was attacked by the prisoner. Or how about this: having taken drugs for a psy ment, and being at the hospital for HLM, was pursued by someone who te ‘0 cop a few bricks of opium, and keeps ca finally denounces H.M. to the police. ‘or current, into a “dangerous deal. reactionary newspap: preventive dete 1% insisting, i is how they turn a drug user, order, by means of which the system creates its and condemned, in conformity with a politics shared by Power, the the admis in. A specific number of people are directly and responsible for the death of H.M. 246 Hot and Cool' built on a dominant color, and the the series began with the painting, Rouge de cadiniume and oished wih Vere representing the same painting, but this time exhibited in the dealer's painter and his painting have themselves become commodities. Sti igs and other endings. In any case, from one hinting tothe onhe, not only ste painter sling through the shops, but the salucs of exchange are isa journey of colors, and a journey in neutral or passive. And yet the painter doesnt mean anything by approbation nor anger. Nor do the colors mean anything: green Ww is not sadness; red is not happiness or joy. Only hot or cool, 0 say, he knows how hhow does he operate hi Newspaper photograph in hand, the paincer has plotted the positions: street, 's not about grasping the atmosphere, but rather an ever-sus- ce a new Kennedy aph captures a number of col «wll have chose thethe projected image, just like the technig 1e darkness for hours, This noc ww of the object, producing a ship berween model and Egypte. He starts constructs his painting on a gradient that docsni ot blends. An irreversible ascending series of squeezed from the tube, of rejoins this pure color, as though end were going to craw! bad fully explain how the painting operates, because circuit of exchange and com: is set up in the jinting to another. Look at Violet de Bayeucs with its hot ascending the background is painted a cool green, and so, by contrast, begins ing up the potentially ho I the foreground, a man and, with the green acting lover and above the green. But now the cool green is out of the loop, isola ‘exhausting its function self be sustained, ins color, which they divide u being transformed into Bayews, where one of the character-colors in the foregrounded gro chad Hor aNb Coot We have to an element that led toward red. Though present with such force, this black has no erves a primordial fun the painting. Whether hot 1c antithesis of the dominant color, or the same as this color: fat what was cool. Take the painting Vert Aubusson: the black a dead cool green woman. She is some yellow must be extracted ent of ye: sake her death blue must be drawn out as the compli ¢ black painter must be cooled off agai 1, £00, in Rouge de cadmium clair, how the young married models are very disreedy given deaths-heads, or in Violet de Mars, the dead bathing beau- jo are clegant vampires caught in a variable relation with the black silhouette) x has two functions in the pa paranoi heavy sho on commodity as commodity is fixated on him: but 2) he is also a mobile Schizoid shadow perpetually displaced with respect to himself, raversing the cool, reheating the cool and cooling down the hot: a ies dont mean anything, they function. And they lements (though there are many others): 1) the irre- the painting « lc ascending gradient whole system of connections marked colors, which forms dixjunctions of the hot and the other. There iNowapie THouaer dawn of our modern culture, Never mind that by doing so you defuse farx and Freud are the dawn the dawn of a counter- Marxists and Freudians engaged cease of Marxism, you have a ‘eure you'—this Nomadic Thought’ recode as best they tends to come uncoded. Thi clsewhere. For Nietsche, itis about getting present, and future code, something which through on a new body, iy that would be ours, the covered by earlier generat is connection with Nietzsche in their mui ‘music that is Nietzschean in any sense that Nietasche would understand? it thar young painters, young film makers feel some connection with Ni What x going on? What we want ro know is how hy have ecxved Ni ‘outside, the only thing we can really explain is how Nietsche self and for his readers, oth contemporary and future generations, here the relation of the reader to the book pass- «through the law. In particular, moreover, they are called codes, canons, or sacred books. And the other sort of book you have passes through the c: the bourgeois contractual relation. This other book is the basis of secular litera- thing to read—a minute, and which on Descartes or Hegel whoever is working on in the course of an action, ps tiful recent text, one of the most pro! Richard Deshayess Viere, cest pas surviv wounded by a grenade during a demons Pethaps the two eases are nutually exclusive. Pethaps one can write on Nietzsche, and then in the of experience ptoduce Nietaschean utterances, ing someone away, which is des- “those were the good old days isin store for us.” And then ‘were people who escaped the bourgeois contract 252 253Deseer Istanps ano C Texts relation which up to that poi And then there are the st 1m ot a poem from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. But ce that cannot be understood by the establish- a law, or by the offer of a contractual the only conceivable equivalent is “being in the same boat.” Something of Pascal turned against in the same boat: a sort of lifeboat, bombs falling on every side, s toward subterranean rivers of ice, or toward rivers of fire, the id we're not even supposed ‘more.”) In terms of what he writes and thinks, Nietasche’s enterpris attempt at uncoding, not in the sense of a relative uncoding which would b open at random one of Nietasche’s text the interior of the soul oF consciousness, in other words, that which has always con- iple of philosophy. What constitutes the style of philosophy is isolved by an interior, and writing, in an painting or a beau- . 100. But whatever is respect to German. He something through that will be uncodable in German. That's what style ities means. More generally, how do we characterize such thought, which d to get its lows through, underneath the laws by challenging them, and. er neath contractual relations by contra by parodying the ng? There is a frame. ‘at what point does it become beaut which is framed comes from el is almost the opposit However, hooking up ophers have never done, 1. walk or fresh the exterior if you wane to hook thought up direct-Dist Nosapic THouctr wb OrveR Texts .ew forces which come from “They show up like dest at cause oF reason, without consi tion or pretext, there they are with the speed of lightnit sudden, too conquering, too other even to be an object of hatred.” This is asche's famous text on the founders of (The Genealogy of Morals I, 17). Oris it Kafka, writing The Great Wal of Obj impossible to understand how they made it is nonetheless quite far from the seems to increase their number. [. don't know our language. th. fork or explode. only relation wit intensive, And they'e the sam Tow they must be made co passthrough the codes of law ion, they mustnt be cashed in—it's quite the opposite: they must be flows which carry us always farther out, ever further toward the exte~ "The lived experience is not rism isa play of forces, a state of forces which are always exterior to one: mean anything, it signifies nothing, and no more aphorism is a state of forces, the last of which, meaning at once the most the most actual, and the provisional-ultimate, is the most external. Niet posits it quite clearly: if you want to know what I mean, find the force th what I say meaning, and a new meaning if need be. Hook the text up this way, there are no probl ‘would be like the representations of words i is where Niczsche is at his most mys- proper names, and these ate neither ns of words. Whether , the Romans, the Jews, Christ, Julius Caesar, Borgia, Zarathoustra, all the proper names sasche's texts are neither signifier or signifieds, but body which can be the body of the Earth, the body of Nietzsche's own suffering body: Iam every name in history. s designated respect, we come across the problem raised by some of Nietzsche's texts have a fascist or anti- et fascist. There was atime when it was imporeani twisted, and complerely distorted by the fascists. This was done in the haps no longer the problem Not because we are incapable of fighting ar thar le no longer useful. Rather, we must find, assign, rschean pha vel of method that bur bec in those external forces hhysterically, is almost not reading Nietzsche at all. This is true not 1+ Nietzsche, but forall the authors who comprise the same he Four ‘What shows us our own decadence and degeneracy way solitude, guile, the drama of commu- ren Max Brod tells us how the n Katka used to read The Trial, And 257certifying things, th every great book, and ever he health of tomorrow. You cannot help but tie the codes. If you pu sens of humor They sy: you ss, Niewsthe takes the unhappy on setiouslys he mak in the becoming-spirie of spiri ‘They pass over quickly what Nietzsche makes of spirituality because they. the danger. So we see that while Nietasche enti shee ci tsnespreuions which ae to explained by the spirit of seriousness, by the Zarathoustra, in other words, by the cae always harks back to the external movem pure matter of laughter and joy. If you can in an aphorism, a distribution of irony and humor a partition of incensities, then you have found " , nee ‘There is one last point. Lets come back to that great text, The Gencalegy Morals, on the State and the af . ti withour cause or reason... this we recognize the m tion known as Asiatic, On the foundation of primitive rural commu ing coge part, kept separate and even opposed in The how pr y.a question which Niet- phenomena tc “communities gave way to other for seche raises in the second essay of his Genealogy, we jroviuced which are strictly correlative, but quite diferen ss at their center are caught i bes, its priest wunities embark on another kind of adventure, display another kind of ‘a nomadic unity, and engage in 2 nomadic war-machine, and they tend to incoded rather than being coded over. Entice groups take off on a nomadic have taught us to consider nom: i edentary group ‘stand opposite the despot imadic unity opposite the wwar-machine, queted e ‘one another. Imperial unity gave birth to philosophical discourse, through many an 1e same avatars which lead us from imperial formations to the Greek city-state, Even in the Greek ci philosophical discourse m: relation to the despot or the shadow of a despot, to imperialist I find ample evidence in the books losophical discourse has always main- of ferances would be produced not by a rational admi machine philosophers would be the bureaucrats of pure reason—but by a . is what Niewsche means when he says that appy in our regimes: we use cessary to pin them down, so they lead a troubled life. And Niet is shadow, wandering from one furnishedDe AND OTHER TEXTS Nomapic THOUGHT ty. and even historically speaking, nomads the contrary, nomads are mot they seek to stay i olutionary problem today i move around like migrants, ing a revolutionary war-machine. ads are being born (because the nut what sort of nomads, even motionless and stationai is capable of producing, need be, our [André Flécheux: Yes, but you omitted in your presentation what you referred siority... les Deleuze: You're punning on the word “interiority” unlooked for, underground, Iles Deleuze: punning ty’ todays Nictzscheans? [André Flécheux: The inner journey? Dibewssien les Deleuze: I said “motionless journey.” It's not an inner journey, it’s a jour- n a body, and collective bodies if necessary. Micke Taat: Gilles Deleuze, if I have understood you correctly, you oppose humor, and irony to unhappy consciousness. Would you agree that the and Nietzsche does not exclude the weeping of these tears do not spring from some inner or internalized ily the production of flows on the surface of a body..? aphorism from an emp fice—which from a Heidegge wonder whether the problem of and as though from the outside int of view seems ink you're right. Micke Tat: One more question. When you oppose itony and humor to unhap- .ness, you no longer make a distinction between humor and irony, The Logic of Sense, where one was surface and the other depth. Ate rony is dangerously close to unhappy consciousness? Deleuze: I've undergone a change. The surface-depth opposition no iow is the relationships between a full and lows that migrate. then resentment would nor be excluded, would it? : Yes, ic would! 261(ON CamrtaLisa AND Desine ize them. But underneath that, you find co be confused with investments of ir determination and very distrib- 1ds of libidinal-unconscious lows that constitute cory is the history of desire. Today's cap- the same way a slave trader oF a bureaucrat ‘would have. When people in a society desire tepres- On Capitalism and Desire’ infor themselves: when thee ate people who lke to haras others, love For the oppressive machine: Nietzsche has some beau- this permanent triumph of slaves, about the way the |, or the weak manage to impose their way of life on us. is proper to capitalism in what youve just described? of capitalism, you say: “There is or financial mechani dementia of the system and the pathol (nora false eat , but a true rationality ness, because the machine works, there can be no doul ic going insane, because through and through it is ate g0, and that’s where “abnormal” society, or ation, the slighte um that there would be only one equiva 00 complicated to describe ¢ have exploitation, you have ity comes from.” Does this mean that ‘There are even explicitly secret rere can be a “normal” society? i ng is scret, atleast in principle irrational. All this p result by chance, but legal comes up empry-handed, given the nature of the is legal: the prime ministers tax returns, real-estate financial mechanisms of capital — is already inthe eco- ic and fosters theDesert ISLANDS AND Texrs, the unity of desire and the economic take two examples. Education: the Leftists of May ‘68 wasted ing thar professors publicly criticize themselves as agents of weal but that’s every dl Church is all 00 happy (ON Carrratise AND Desiné overall analysis of the Soviet Union or capitalism is convincing, but[Disext Istanps AND OTHER Text 2 Can you give any precise example ty of society,” if you dont reject that term as Foucaule does. Félix Guattari: We chose as our reference a state of desire at its acu: the dese ofthe shizopbreni. And the chaophrenic who i al duce something, beyond or beneath the schizophrenic who has been locke beaten down with drugs and social repression. Tn our opinion, some lirectly express a free deciphering of its mechanisms of reproduction, a movement of Tn May ‘68, from the first sparks to the ‘Actuel: Might there have already occurred in history a vigorous, last tion of desire, beyond brief periods of celebration, war, and ci revolutions for ad believe in an end to history: ater alienation, social evol fi erate desire forever? resolving the contradictions of th schema again and again: they detach a pseudo avant-garde able to bring they levy weeds a war-machine, but an analyzer of the desites of the masses, abs schical and bureaucratic encoding of a n of desire 1e8 was able to subsume social remarkable lows ofThe answer is no. At least I dg think so. From capitalism has been connected Ic very quickly acquired its organizat already set up the gears of its power previous regimes. Its always like th progress. Even b cruments of exploitation and repressi bourgeoisie—the two terms are synonymous. Si bourgeoisie by the socialist utopias of the nineteenth- and ee leads introduction of a category that never existed. Gilles Deleuze: Here again, what youre saying fis the schema of a rts of things come uncoded, all sorts of unpoliced flows circulating: for exam ions of peasants in feudal Europe nomena of “det ‘The bourgeoisie imposes a new code, ic was revolutionary. Not in the le that which had escaped the coi the previous system, the bourgeoisie was resolved to control it in its turn. The bourgeoisie owe OW Carriauiso AND Desine ccuel: They certainly marched to their death at Verdun, alix Guatearis Exact ins, these ved by a soci aptured by power. A revolut role of the avant-garde. All of the sudden, while the Social-Democracs Fre rocked by the events of 1905 and have ation of desire on a wide social scale ion, and they functioned according to al Congress—alternating between had developed at the Seventh Internati popular fronts and sectarian retractions—and they always lead to the same repressive results. We saw it again in 1936, 1945, and 1968. By their axiomat- ies, these mass machines refuse to liberate revo in its underhanded way reminds one of the p is corresponds to a this poli President or the clergy. And in our view, re, a profound way of en So then what is the nature of this profound, fundamé es humanity and human beings as social anim: it always ready to be invested in those machines, Couk ‘out consequence, oF to perpetual betrayal? One last question: can there ever be expression of liberated desire at some the sam[Drserr IsLaNps AND OTHER Texts tem, you will always find lines of escape, as well as sticking poi these escapes, or else (which is not che same thing) embryonic appara them, to reroute and stop them, in a new system waiting to talism is founded on a generalized decoding of every flow: flows of flows of labor, flows of language, flows of art, etc. It did not create any i created a kind of accounting, an axiomatics of decoded flows, as the of its economy. It ligatures the points of escape and moves ahe ‘own borders, and always finds itself in a si crossing its own elf in alarming situations when he says: ing, but as T flee, I'm looking weapon") is not the same thing as other kinds of escape, the schizo~ the drug-escape. This is precisely the problem facing marginal grouy ies of escape connect up on a revolutionary plane. In ines of escape take on a new character, and a new kit jonary potential. So, you see, there is hope. Félix Guattari: The crusades were indeed an extraordinary schizo movement. Suddenly, thousands and thousands of people, during a that was already divided and troubled, were corally fed up with their lif spontaneous preaching rose up everywhere, and whole villages of men ened papacy tried to give this Land. This strategy had © (ON Garrats ax DisiRE ‘actuel: Do you sce any parallel here with contemporary movements, such asthe ‘oads oF hippy colonies, Recing che factory and the office? Is there a pope to co- fe them? The Jesus-revolution? felis Guattari: A recuperation by Christianity is not out of the question. Ies seady 2 reality, toa certain extent, in che United States though much less so here .ce of Europe. Bur you can sce a latent recuperation beneath the naturist the idea chat we could withdraw from production and reconst society out of the way, as though we werent all branded and corralled apitalist system, the Church in a country like ours? rower in Western society well into the eigh- reenth-century;, it machine before the mn-State emerged. The technocracy has deprived it today of its old function, ¢ Church, too, appears adrift, a rudderless ship divided can ask whether the Church, pressured by currents of progress tot becoming less confessional than certain political organizations. The Church was Félix Guattari: What about ecumenism? Is that not the Churchs way of landing. om its feet? The Church has never been stronger. I don’ see any reason t0 oppose the Church to wechnocracy; the Church has its own technocracy. Historically speaking, Christianity and positivism have always gotten along quite well togeth- sa Christian motor behind the development of the positive sciences. it really claim that the psy replaced the priest, nor that the ‘What has become outdated power + aspect of your book: the critique of psychiatry. that France is already under surveillance by psychiatry at the local 1 how far does this influence exter structured like a state bureau- time the State had been fied with a politics of coer ing for almost a century. It was after the Liberation that any signs of anxiety appeated: the first psychiatric . the opening of the hospitals, free treatment, iDeseer Istanps AND Orie Texts more underdeveloped regions. Still, we're headed for a major crisis, on the: of the university every level: equipment, personnel trai the director “uncle,” use “mother.” I have even heard tht game groups follow a matetnal principle, and workshops a paternal 272 273 (On Canrratisa aN Desineby ‘xial environment. What makes one del obs. Paychoanalysis,possesed of a pre-ens corresponding to an rough the analytical machine, ily, nor with his par- populations, and tribes. We say that the uncon: genealogy, but rather of world population, ns oF fami a certain kind of group, Freud by bringing everything back to a single wolf who is necessar entire collective libidinal expression manifested in the delirium of the let alone conceive of the statements that are for this way because of is terpretation machine. This interpretation machine can be described ing way: whatever you say, you mean something different. We cantt ines cause. When someone explains to usa great deal about the unconsci duce the unconscious, to destroy 10 imagine it to say there are always as polymorphous pervert shows another, wish to reduce the unconscious: we prefer to produce it: there: jous that is already there; the unconscious must be produced polit y. The question is: in what place, in what ct an the unconscious be produced. Producing the group that milieu or the appearance of statem My second proposition is that psychoanalysis is a designed in advance to prevent people understood as an expressing subject. Whatever he does ‘work and his play will be compared ro a superior auth preting, such d 275.estar Istanps aNp OriER Texts Five Provo oN PorcHonsatysis Discussion ipant asks a question about memory in Freudo-Marsiim and the positive face of forgetting, are is the sense in which we set a whole field of expe group experimentation, azz the interpretive act My fourth pro peculiar power str In spite of my i cexts by Nietzsche that make a dist forgetting as an active force. Forgetting as an active force is the power one's satisfaction, In this case, icis opposed co a med~ ‘on that which even {0 ne therefore distinguishes two forms of for- and the other a force of positive Revolutionary forgetting can be tied to another common theme, that of an active scape that site opposed toa passive scape of an entirely different kind. \Whep, for example, Jackson, in his prison, says, “yes, I can very during my escape, I'm looking for a weapon,” this is active revolutionary escape as opposed to other escapes that are capitalist or personal, etc. that produce them. My lase props effort consistent that, for our part, we prel th a Freudo-Marxist pers in the end, a Freudo-Marsi And this for two rea effort proceeds in general fr A puricipant asks for a clarification of the nation of forgetting with respect t0 the between Freudianism and Marxism. Iture of memory appeared right ar che beginning oy Freud Mars efor i all is: political economy and lib 00, we find the observance of this duality economy. In Reich, desire invests d economy and desi 276Five PROPOSITIONS ON PSYCHOANALYSIS spoken from wi ly organize themselves cs surprising examples in 's happening in America: there the setting in motion of a complex, an entire of signs, political programs, and economic programs. Everyone says, small number, every country says, “very well,” and no one is for a small number of individuals there’ a minor incident, no big deal, between one American poli inscribe oneself in a movement of developn ory. bur in the preservation of the force of forgetting and the fore underdevelopment as properly revolutionary forces. A participant (G. Jervis) points out a difference of comtens between the Five sitions and Anti-CEdipus, for example, the divappeanance of the tiao-anabyis'in favor of that of an “ant-psychoanabytical analysis” and he r distinct evolution: there is no longer am effort to crit analysis. What isthe reason for this evolution? ical pary and another Sudden) the good people who accept the war in Vietnam, who accept ing to say “The president of the United States is no longer true, Neither Guattari nor myself are attached to the pursuit or even the coherence of what we write. We would! for the contra s whar preceded the frst volume, it doesnt mater. I mean that we are not among authors who think of what they write as a whol change, fine, so there's no to things that are imp. ‘We have been criticized for using the word schizo-anal and the revolutionary. And yet we were extremely careful to escapes, and then cap- xe are schizophrenic escapes, there are people who escape in a very different ir problem (we are not completely stupid, we are not saying that this and I now f ‘a revolution) is as follows: given a system that escapes in urgent not to use: 'schizo-analys awful, if we use them, we'e caught in the trap. We dot they mean, we no longer believe in the wor ocks escape-routes by every available means, what can we do so that these pts of small communities, but may ‘And for what reaso q vithout a c h your fisDe JANDS AND Orne Texts nic existed in the revolutionary field a machine that didn't reproduce sos cls: a state apparatus, the very institution of repression. Hence the pr hhow can a war-machine account forall the escapes that happen i present system without crushing them, dismantling them, and without ducing a stare apparatus? So when Jervis says that our discussion is geting ink he's right, because as much as we insisted, in the homosexual discourse, all the that all these escapes and discourses can graft that won't reproduce a State or Parry Apj ‘What interests us isa em, and the direct pol revolutionary parties have constituted ther than functioning as analyzers of mass and individual desires. Or else, amounts to the same: revolutionary parties have consticuted th embryonic State apparatuses, instead of forming war-machines inreducil such apparatuses. 280 Faces and Surfaces Stefan Czerkinsky: Me, a painter? I'm no painter. And we're not going to do a preface cither. Well do some surfaces, not a presentation. Slip-slide. You do the drawings. Ill do the bits of No trading places, no exchanging anything, it’s no exchange, not at all Gilles Deleuze: Oh awright. I've got the drawings... here.’ The worse they are, the better they work. Look, they're surface-monsters. Like brownish-violet, and every surface color. How does violet work? Stefan Czetkinsky: How does therrory work? How does a surface-monster work? Deleuze: Therrory is violet. Therrory is painting-desire-writing using many ings, too, on the borders, in the corners, at the centers, and elsewhere. Its gan-membets “the concept squatters.” This is its program: 1 support-free construction of therrotherapy in conjunction with the ses of our day: psychopomp, hypochondiaches, of campaigns and slogans like: us, produce more, still more, and more after that.” Nothing to interpret.” all good, but really.” “Make every French citizen carry a visa and a work permit, accompanied by ‘regular police shakedows “OF two movements, the more detertitorialized prevails over the less deterritorialized.” 281Gilles Deleuze: You put your blinker on, and check in your rearview mirror rake sure another concept isnt coming up behind you: once you've taken precautions, you produce the concept.’ What are the precautions to be the directions (vectors) you've ce the cardinal points: eg., you North-East, North-South, South-East, North-West t with red or: red and blue, either mixed off the canvas, or if you want co produce different shades of around the back to see what happened on the other side fused through the unprimed (non-oceluded) canvas. You may of may not where you become the color-diffuser, the side-switcher, the time-passer: di painter or the painting, the nomad “This is how you get deterttoralized movements of color, and many 282 Faces AND Suneaces sign. The hole-border is physical reality ngs physicists are saying these days, concerning bord . We would have to be scholars to understand it. Long live Pa Fermi, But we can't understand it. So what, that’s even better, same. The hole-particles and the border-partices are in motion.* phenomena and hol Stefan Czerkinsky: We're not finished. After you Pain the canvases, you create a ple currency: from objects. 283Preface to Hocquenghem's L’Aprés-Mai des faunes' ‘The Preface. No one escapes ace writer, who is the real no need for a preface. This ‘gay? could also have been called: How the existence of homosexuality came t0 doubted; of, no one can say “Tam homosexu: sand declarations. It is only remaining homosexual forever, remaining and being homosexual more and being a better and better homosexual, that one can say “well, no one is homosexual.” Which isa thousand times beter than che hackneyed, insipid i that everyone is homosexual oF Wi conscious latent queers. quenghem does not use the term erelurion, nor even revolution, but vole Imagine an extremely mobile spiral: Hocquenghem is there on several k simultaneously, on several turns at once: sometimes with a motorcycle, s times high out o i against psychoanalyti pposed £0 rack TO HocQUENGHEM “shocking” desire can have no worth of its must be traceable to a fhe mother’s breast. Freud thinks we would get Idhood was already a pres- refer to a past. Because desire never represents anything, and in the wings of the familial or per- assembles, it machines. E.g, the motorcycle: the motorcycle is another sex. same time formulating utterances, Because producing desire and. formu ances are the same thing. Of course, Hocquenghem does not sound like '5—so are generational ways of saying “I” (cf. the world of difference nd Burroughs the son, when they say “I” and talk. tics. This is the importance of Tony Duvert oday produces its utterances from within @ cerances do not and must not revolve around homosenu- ion of saying “every man is a queer.” it would Bur the 285ive of pl sroveual model of ou soi P y on girls, to whom it assigns the role of playing seductrs seduced. From that point on, whether there exists a ae compli ‘among girls who prefer gils, or boys who prefer boys, or boys who prefet moto cycles to girls, oF girls who, etc, the pseudo-signfier or symbolic relation rment like FHAR appears to have if his is inespressbl plimentary to the frst nor by disprng insctibe its power relations in homosexual when as a marginal phenomenon, ouiset ion: we thought Hocquenghem was up on the m: digging himself in. Bu what i ths margin? And the cody lesire, the counter ty wanting £0 asi unclassifiable that created this part ter to conquer, the pseudo-scientific transformed barbarous intolerance ‘where something strange happens: the less homosexual the more homose: 286 Pretack-To Hocavencrtes ress. We claim femininity for ourselves, that femi even as we declare these roles tobe meaningles.. We ks has universal val Iommage to dialectics, ro the Ecole Ni ian-Marxism? But Hoeqenghem is already elsewhere, on , saying what was i jon, Who among us has already killed Marx or Hegel famous dialect he dispersal of groups homosexuality is going to open itself up to all sorts of possible n ransversal with as many sexes as there are assemblages, not even excluding new relations ity of particular S8CM relations, the poten- thousand forms of love, or the 7-sexes nger about being a man or woman, but inventing sexes, such that 2 homosexual man can find in a woman those plea~ sures which a man would give him and vice versa (to this exclusive homosexuality ime, Proust already opposed a more multiple and ‘localized’ homosexu- Judes all kinds of transsexual communications, such as flowers and a beautiful passage on cross-dressing, Hocquenghem talks about a no intermediary between man and woman, oF the ine part of a world transferred into another as one moves sm one universe to another, paral ‘a million displaced gestures, transferred characteristics, € iFin on the identity of a sex, a loss of identity, to the iyvocal desire.” We see how the tone has changed a he homosexual is no longer demanding to be reco exclusive connections of precise point on the , no longer takesDrsexr LANDS AND OTHER TEXTS and homosexual assemblages that produce utte roi e.g. S&M and cross-dres i sal is specif, there are homosex: just a word, and yer lets take it lity is nothing, t pass necessarily through it, it yield all the otherness it contains—and this otherness is not the uncoi of psychoanalysis, but the progression of a future sexual becoming A Planter’s Art’ ‘The films long opening shot to the music of Couperin. We see the camera , stop in this particular decor, chat particular spot, before this example of We see the director laugh, speak, point to somet ‘on a particular arrangement of elements. We fear thi ple of chat way of introducing, into the film, the fil it isn't. The opening is not long at all, The cameras mobi appears to be something new. It is a way of planting. Not buryi on its fect, but rapidly planting i, just below the surface of th he film crew works root, just stabs. In the film itself, the camera, the crew and the the couple making love: this is nota “literary” effect, film-making process in the i fs planted here, stabbed thete, to be immediately picked up and planted elsewhere. The film, everything which the film shows, follows this procedure without im and its opening are the same mobile story in ewo as though unhinged, will pass through a series of metamorphoses: a sadistic small-time crook, a disturbing dic walker, a young man in love. The actor who play he wise man, jumping around a young wom ‘Saint-Sulpice’s square. With astoni to persuade her of som 289,Desexr Istanns ano Orne Texts the player in every direc ha knife. henry and static, bur with fi ensemble, bringing which one finds the novels of Asturias, and it emanates from other landscapes: the Savann the pampas, fruit company, a field of corn or tice. The pre the story is inserted or stuck in Paris is a small bookstor as,” the father’s business. But there is no appl symbolism, no literary game, as chough an Indian story were being te ly shared by music, the parrots screech in the Odéon hotel, and the Parisian booksell truly an Indian. ‘Cinema has always been closer to architecture than to theatre. A partie ‘elation of architecture and of the camera holds everything together here. ‘metamorphoses have nothing to do with fancas point to another, around an architectural whol the huge stone fountain. The bookstore’ characters leap from one 10 fe around Valery, the heroine who knows how to her posi that the « cinema endowed with a new mobil already moving in this dis Spinoza? Maybe because the two Americas, the wo worlds, the city and th pampas, are like two attributes of an absolutely shared substance. And this has nothing to do with philosophy. ic is the substance of the film itseNotes Introduction 1. In 1989, Deleuze reviewed an Desert Islands Ja Ganon Sean Paine Pe Geass, 1922 in nae comptes a Clan Hl 13 Jean Hyppolite’s Logic and Existence 1 ia gg ao eng, CR wn “ ate ca ee a 2.Jean oe its and Sora of Penman of Spirit Erno Not Hyppolite, Logic and Existence (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997). 292 Bergson, 1859-1941 Mary Fon Lp The fll eflebrs, Edicions d’ At Lucien Mazened, 1956. ‘Memoir vie, some iy this edition. The pagina ‘rtent edition of Bergson’ individual works by the PUF in the Quadvige 17. PMN, MALIN. ley Donneesimmédiaes de acomscence. “PMV 25. Les Dew sources de le morale et de a religion WM: L Energie spire. 24. BC, p. 10, 26, MALI, 219. 27. PM MI, p20 2s. aa 293,Desear BtaNps Nb Orie Texts 29. MAN, 30. BS. 31. Man, 32. MALTY, p. 269. 38. MAIL 115 and i, 34 Mar 35. PM VI, p. 206-207, 36, PMVI, p. 208. S7-ECW. 38. PAL 39. PMV p18, Bergson's Conception of Difference 1. From Le Ends bergonionnes vol. 1956, ated cititions for Bergin wor in French In ge tubes omen sh ions Delete wed nae noted in he et The to the current editions of Bergions work from PUF inthe Quadrige collection. 2.MM, p19, 62-63. 3. PM, 52-53, 4PM, p97. 5. PM, p. 207, 6. PM, 23. TES. ped 8. ES int chapter 9. MR p. 263. 10. Mp 292, 1 BG, p. 217 12. Pp. 13. £6 p. 107. 14. BG p07. 15. Cp. 186, 264-265, 294 16 MR, p. 225. 17. BG, p. 107. 18. BC, p. 3164, 19, BG, p. 232, 235, 20. MM p. 182. 21, PM, p61. 22. PM, p 208. 25, PM 179, 24, PM, p19) 25. MA p59. 26. Dh. ist chapter: 27. Dh p.90. 28. MM, p. 219. 29. PM, . 163.167. 50. EC, p. 267, 270. 53. BC, chap. 1. Bh EG pT. 35. EG, p86. 36. EC. p88. 37 MR, p 318 12 MR p. 314, $3.MR, pp. 313-315, 44S, p13, 45.68, pL 295,Desert IstaNps aND OTHER TEXTS 46, Lo net lee, howe ws incre by Pl 0 his pin re, who characterized his own ph losophy of fom philosophies of oppor onception of esence and renee is very different from Tarde’, 47. MR, p11 48. EC, p. 8859, 49. PM, p. 198. 50. PM, p. 207. SUM, p. 317. 52. PM, pp. 259-260. 53, MM, p. 247. 54. MM 9.249. 55. MM, p74 56. PM, p 210. 57. BS, p. 187 58. BS, p37 59. MM, pp. 172-173 60. PA, pp. 183-184, 61. ES, p40. 62. BS p. 140 63. EC, p.201 64, Dl 3d chaps 65, PM, p.214. 6. PA, p. 59 67. MB, 9. 83.39, 68. MMA. 15, 69, MM, 188, 70, td MM, p. 272 72. PM, pp. 169-170. 73 MM, p. 226. 74. PM, 208 Nores 5M, p. 210. 6. MIM, p. 188, 83. MM, p. 135. 4 MM, p83, 85. MAM, p. 138. 6. Dip. 180, 97. AIM, p. 280. 88, Gp. 20, AG pe 2B 90. BC, p 319-326, MM, p. 5. 2 Bap. 255, 99. Dh p. 137. Jean-Jocques Rousseeu: Precursor of Keka, Céfne, and Pong juin 1962, p. 3 (On the occasion of Rousseaus 250th birthday). 1959-1960, Deleuze devoted a year of coursework 10 Rousseau typed summary. elite by le Cente de Docueniar Ocnares carps, vl. (Pais G * Les Confosion, VU ibid, 277. Pde Quincey, Les Demers ous dEnmanuel Kane (Toulouse: Orbs, 1985)Disexr Istanos aND Orne Texts 9, La Newell Habe, cinguitme pani, The Idea of Genesis in Kant's Esthetics 1, Rame dthiigu, vol. XV, 99.2, 2 Deleuze will pulls Kame Critical Psp 2. CE Gti di ju ‘come From Critique de jag 3.935. 4. On this theory of proportions, § 21 5.6 Lf and 5, In these wo passages, thetic lem isis unlikely, 6.540. 7. thd 8922, 9.$ 20-22 10.922, 11,826 12. tid 13, Remarqu inde Ii 15.529 16.530 17.5 38: "What makes chi deci so xy sthat it doesnot have ejay ee objective sconce 18.930 19.558 20 hi 2 thi 22.$ 10. This paragraph launches the problem ofthe deduction all over again, 23.982 24. Tid 25.658. Ads admit sch 3 posi for certain people ete I, ibid, p. 571. 1a makes the fllowing argument: colors and sounds imagination were able o elect the vibrations that fof rations produces divisions of ime that exape us 298 jin (Pais PUR, 1963), p. 113-136. That same 26.939. 2.942 28 id. D646. 40.947, 3.509. 52.5 Remargue de la Diskesigue 33.540. 3.548, 55.919. 50. 17 Induction, § 3 and 9. 58.559 39. hid 40.$ 49 and 57. How Jarry’ Pataphysics Opened the Way for Phenomenology La Chandlle verte, “La Pasion considésée comme course de cBte" in Ocweres imard Pigiade, 1987), p. 421 2. The Gay Science, 1, § 125; Haman, All Too tama, «opp ed eee Fel pape, imard Pléiade, 1972). p. 668. ne “He Was my Teacher* | dts 28 novembre 1964, pp. 8-9. One month earlier Sartre had refused the Nobel prize. 2. Quince que b litéature? (Pats: Gallimard “Folio Esai") 162-163, 5. Quivce que a lienaare? ibid. 293 299Diser Istaxs aND Orie Texts NOTES op, seca fa medic dong ad wander FS Recto ar Docs js Nebo The Philosophy of Crime Novels 1, Ane Lavin, 90.18, 26 janvier fe Sétie Noire” at Gallimard i i series, losopher, Leiba specials. 3. Maurice Leblanc, Anse Lupin contre Sherlock Hales, 1908, redited by Livre de Poche, losopher,epistemologist. 4. In 1952, a democratic losopher and math philosopher and epistem« ibsoper, uho neo nvdetng 5M le Pride (Paris: Flamma ishas abo worked on cosmology dies on Heidegger (whose fon Grek though. On Gilbert Simondon in 1912, theologian, philosophe 16, A. Philonenko, bora in 1932, philosopher, Kant and Fichte specialist. Enfomar "The second part was mor p 89, at Aubier, under iduation psychique et collective. ll to Power and the Eternal Return 967), pp. 275-287. Conclusions on the 1. Cahiers de Reyanmont na, VI: Nietzsche (Editions de Mit jum on Nietzsche which tok place inthe Abbey of Royaument, ly iat he would ver organize. Asis customary, Deleuze pants and sum up thei pos Humans: A Dubious 1, Le Nowee Obereteur, An archeology ofthe Honan (6, pp. 32-34. On Michel Fou ‘lan Sheidun-Smith, New 2. MG, p. 321 de l'énigme” and "Le convalescent.” 3.MC,p. 383. im The Method of Dramatization “Thinking and taking something seriously, taking on is burden, ey have no other experience enenk, Lay rename, Prk 2. Zarahowens “Des hommes sublies” aus thtmes de a cosmologie grecgue:devenr eyligu et plurlité des mon- ‘Nietzsche's Burst of Laughter en from an interview by Guy Dum, Le Noweel Obsersatewr, April 5, 1967, pp. 40-41 erkepaaed, Sart nt philosophy, worked extensively om 6-198). philosopher, special he SorbonneDiseer IsLaxns AND Orne Texts, 2. Sigmund Freud, Oxuore competes, vol. XV ). 3, La Mire de Dw and Pichetesd'imes were newly edited by Champ Villon i (On Nietzsche and the Image of Thought 1 Bai Lean frames, lure” [sic]. Conducted by Jean-No#l Vuarnet, 1968, pp. 5.7.9. with 1233, 28 F675 m: 2, See foounote 2 for 3. Ludwig Feuerbach, LBsence di Jasper, 1968) 4, Archur Rimbaud, leer so Pal Det 1871, Ocworescompltres (Pade, 1972) losophy Colombel, Lt Quinzaine linéeire, no. 8, 1-15 mars I Gueroult’s General Method for Spinoza 1, Reoue de méaphysique et de morale, ol. LXXXIV, no. 4, octobre-décembre 1969. pp 4 ‘The amc refers M, Gucroults Spinaca, I, —Diew. Eshigue I Dars: Aubier- Montaigne, 1 "Peotone: a strate de a Doctrine de la Scene chez Fiht (Les Belles Lees) vol. p. Descartes el ordre des atsons (Ad vol. 1, avancpropos such nexus. Descartes of, Decerte vol ofthe moe profound aspects of Reon of pops don Ii: why i the ex ot bythe neces seaings se the def ty Bch and Spinazap. 163. 302 the notion of figure, see appendix no. 1 (p. 422). icy see where Lam headed provided you simian a of Ged, ppm to he sof hich compel enc 22. Ibid, p. 204, pp. 191-193. bid. 206. 24 Thi, p. 238, 447 25. Ibid, p. 239, 1 pp. 379-380. 2375" Infinitely difrens st ther eee, they a thus iden a thir came a fouieal oe ing he es fo oh ero ope ig a wyterte anthropomorphism,Deseer IsLaxps ab Orne Teer, escartes, Malebranche and Leibni, in their conception of «see the two passages pp. 347-348, 381-386, The Fissure of Anaxagoras and the Local Fires of Heraclitus & opened the Wy p46, BAR, p. 172. 4. VPP, pp. 100-102. 5. JM, 266. 6.JM.254, 71M. p.273. 9.JM p42 10, PR p. 312. 11. AR, p 160 59 12, CL André Glucksmann, Le Dios del ere (Here pp acconling to Heat" see Aaclas 13. On the question “Is ther a univer mentary in Meal et 14. AR pp. 20-22. 15. Cf Axel preface to Gytigy Lukes, Hinaire et conscience declan. sa Ananagoas in AR see VPP, Le Ponce fen 1 poate du monde plandir fe Noes 18. Eugen Fink, Le Jew comme symbole du monde, Ed. de Minuit. Hume In Frangois Chitelet ed Histone del philoophie. IV: Les Lumiée (Pars: Hachette, 1972), pp: 65-78 2, D. Hume, Tut dela nature humaine, trad. Leroy ( Deleuze oF Hum subir, 1973) p 5524 Ti ately lacques Lacan, Forts (Pai “Réponse au commentaire de Jean ges an, fi a5 pp. 386-389) ite sur ln"Verneiaung 5 Lacan no doubt as gone the farthest in the orignal nays ofthe inti been apyam bolic Bor tis dsinton il sn tives forms found i al the suet 4, See Claude LéviSurauss, “Reponses A quelques questions, 5 Trans: On the concept ofa pure, unestended spar. ee Deleus, Difrene et épttion (Pats UE 1968), pp. 296-397, Diflronce and Repetto (New York: Columbia University Pres, 1994), pp. 229-231 ds: Masper, 1965), 2p. 157 (Reading Capital, imard, 1966), pp. 329-333 [The Onder of 1970), pp. 318-322). Esp 30 Sena on "The Pain Lee ans Jey Mma p ) Levi Srauss,“Réponses a quelques questions” Bprit 33.11 (1963), p. 637. i: Maspeto, 1965), pp. 87-128: For Marx, cans. Ben Brew See Deleures Logie ds sen (Pais: Minuit, 1969), pp. 88-89, Lagi f Sense (New York 7 Pour Mars (Pass Maspero, 1965) pp. 11-152; Fer Marsan. Ben Brew 1969). pp. SL T31y "The Taeolo eae erolze ard Beech tars pos, “Un Monor and Jean986), pp. 124-125 [Fowaul, tans. Sein Hand (Minna ‘of Minnesota Press, 1988), the work of Raymond Roussel. See Diffrence r of determination, sce Diffene et épeition pp. 221-224 (Dire rrence and Repetision, p. 183) for a definition of which an Men emerges, 1. Anthrpoloie ruta (Pass: Plan, 1958), val. 1, pp. 235-242 rane Cle jcabson and Broke Grandes Schoep (New Yorks iy Press, 934, pp. 3) itn, pp- 219-201 & 359 [Diflrene ad Kepertion. pp. 19462), p. 112 [Tnemi ‘Git totemism and es struc 19, Quel Seas Arpt cule pp 33-3944 (Seta Ainley 310-312 20, Serge Lecare, “Comprer avec la psychanalyse,” Cahiers pour liamalye 8 (1967), pp. 97-1 Lie ke Capital (0 pp 52-157 (Reding Capi, ke Veo, 1979) Ei "8 alae 22. Roman Jakobson, sas delnguisigue général ifundamenial of Language (The Hague 23, Tans: This expression is drawn from Proust Le Temps ron ‘end ari Galard, Pade, 1998), 3.8730 Martel P pp. 56-59. concept of uf Repeition, pp. 208-214) 24. Louis Alchusser, Line le Cap Rimbaud enigmatic prose sd owe comple ane and of thea and of feo Samsara Faliss Hl shows how suctures 10 this tom 161 [Difference and Reps le J. Lacan,” Cahiers pour Hanae 3 (1966)Drser IstaNns aND OTHER 447, Michel Foucault, Ler Mote le cho pp 48. Tian: Deleure cites Sollers and Faye p.257 [Diferenc and Repetition, 326) 4. [A Mile “La uur (mes de a logige d the logic of the signifier)” pp. 2632) 1 (The Onder af Things, pp. 3-16) discussion ofthe “blind spot” in Difrenetipitin, Mauss, Secole Utagi of Sen pp. 850, 51 Tans See Logique sens, pp. 57-62 (Lagi of Sse, pp. 44-47) 52. Thame: On the object = and word Repetition 53, Michel Foucal, Rgmond Rowse (Pa Word of Reymond Rane tans. Chases Russ (Garden Ci, NY. Doubles 54. Tans: See Logique da sens, pp. 266-268 (Logic of Sense, pp. 228-230), as “object = "see the thtty-second series in Logic of Sem, 58 Tam: Se Differin p. 251-266 Dffrenc and pein, pp. 195-206) Ie tse pp 879 lage of ep. 3257 59. Les Mote es choes, p. 393 [The Onder of Things. p. 342) p- 316-319, pp. 354-357 (conclusion) lichel Fowcal ference and (The Raw and the een Weightman (New 62. Ci the schema proposed by Serge Lesa, allowing Lacan ‘Pune prychothetpic des psychoses Lodi pcb 2 230 [The Onder of Things ies), hough im Nores Three Group-Related Problems sper 1972) pp ek. cy quick ded vo active efor which a theoretical and pact 5, Marcel Jaeger | Caiers de Vite, sti "Sciences humaine indergroural de af 5, Daler ase add note 2 genom copy: or ample A least decided at's Europes snide level, whereas social 6, Michel Foucaule, Madues and Cis ion. Random House, 1965, appendice I. “What Our Prisoners Want From Us...” there Affe, which appeared Jauber beaten up ina ited for 309Des 18 TEXTS Intellectuals and Power Temps moder 10. 310 imard, 1994), Le Quinzaineliséire, no. weds Dec Fa Hélene Cixous, or Writing in Strobe 1. Le Monde, no, 8576, 11 20% 1972, p. 10. (On the book by H. Cixous, Nene sex, 1972), r“Mawsais sang,” Ones complies 310 2. Pie Arpillange Ditetor of Crimi even ha ake ie in Je citerry se | Michie Deer os 3, George Jackson, a her Mt arid on Hot and Cool Je adele (Pais Baudard A gts hil? noticed in May '68 by exh In Bromanger le peinve Fe ncered here |. Maurice Blanchot, LEnmetion infin 4 Frans Kafka, La Maile deDiserr Istanps an OrHER Texrs Faces and Surfaces prs Mai des fwnes is: Grae, 1978) pp 7-17 ‘writer and a member ee HAR moron ome mand Ade Bad, ho fd soc and gig On the egho hey i gear, Buds pup wa oppose othe scala” pobh deanna EA A Planter's Art 1. In Deleuze, Fie, Roubaua, Touraine parle de “Les Autres*—un film de Hugo Sa erat eal iy Caran org as Rog (aris Cian Bo itbuted atthe door ofthe theatre Quartet the Cannes Film Fest 312 List of Translators Bergson, 1859-1941 ‘Translated by Christopher Bush How do We Recognize Structuralism? Translated by Melissa McMahon and Charles J. Stivale Hot and Cool “Translated by Teal Bich. Five Propositions on Psychoanalysis “Translated by Alexander Hickox 313,130 Bentham, Jeremy Louis Ferdinand, 52, 54, 297 Bergson, Henri, 22-51 UI (Chapa, Madelei 139, 144, 292, 296, Index 19, 55, 133, 134, 167, 201, 202, 53, 254, 255, 257, 259, 276 226,227, 23 268, 270, 273, 276, 279 228, 229, 273.275, 315Ferencti, Sandor, 98 249,25 267,268, 270,272. 273, difference of degree, 27, 34.35. difference of intensity 37,3 “ze 317Desexr ISLANDS AND 227,228,235, 296, 257,259,263, 266, xs Aol, 84 ‘ideology, 172,175, 181 207,210, 21 318 10,122, 137, 149,151, 152, 153, 154, 168, 223, 267, 303, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 202, 210,211, 218, 25, 228, 236, 241, 253, 254,255, 257, 259, 271, 272, 274, 276, 278, 280, 309 nal psychotherapy, 201, 202, 241, 271, 309 38, 38,49, 50, 88, 132, 134, 229, 230, 297, 309, 311 54, 56,57, 58,59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 6, 67, 68, 69, 114, 124, 138, 139, 147, 149, 162, 165, 297, Leckie Serge, 178, 182,221,223, 224,225, 228, 229, 306, 307, 308, 310 legislation, 55,57, 58,59, 60,61, 63, 64,69, 40 102, 106, 3046, 307 81, 301, 82, 84, 126, 1230, 253 40, 158, 159, 218 Mallarmé, Stephane, 187, 305 Malraux, Ande, 81 206, 207,228, 265, 267,273, 310 Marchetti, Vittorio, 232, 233, 235, 236,237, 239, 240, 310 Marcuse, Herbert Marx, Karl, 75. 12 159,175, 0 319INDEX ‘DESERT ISLANDS AND OTHER TEXTS 231, 232, 233, 239, 244, 262, 263, Pleven, René, 204, 205, 245, 309, 311 Poe, Edgar Allen, 183, 184 158, 159, 160 227, 229, 252, 257, reasons of being, I reasons of knowledge recollection, 29, 253, 254.255, 269, 271,272, 273, 274, 276,277.27 279, 280, 285, 286, 297, 309, 312 economy, 91, 92, 195, 199, 228, 276, 309 Pong, Francis, 55 14,126,136, movement, 9, 26, 27, 28, 30, 210, 21 213, 218, 221 246,263,264, 265, 268,269, Ricardo, David, 91, 93, Riceur, Paul, 175, Rimbaud, Artur 74,76, 125,130,139, 222, 223, 282 al Gérard de 277, 278, 284, 288, 310 320 321y . . . . INDE 218, 219,221,223, 26, 228, 232, 25 263,273,274, 275, 276, 281, 282, 28 Simondon, Gilbert, 86, 87, 88, 89, 300 34, 43, 46, 56,57, schizoanalyss, 200, 221, 225, 226, 241, 278, 279, 280 schizophrenia, 156, 193, 202, 203, 14, 218, 219, 224, 225, 226,233, 234,235, 23 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 245,249, 250, 266, 270,273, 275, 278, 279, 280, Schetber, Dari Peal 200, 229, 235,275 Schull, ierre-Maxim, 103, 104, 300 Schwob, Marcel, $4 290, 299, 302, 303, ‘pi 24,67, 78,504, 3 7, 228, 245, 258, 266, Sean Joseph, 216,265,268 statements, 274, 275, 276 q 300 war-machines, 199, 200, 254, 259, 260 261, 267, 269, 279, 280 Weierstrass, Ka subjectivity, 15, 68, 74,78, 78 174 103, 279, 283, 308 322 323,'SEMIOTEXTIE) - NATIVE AGENTS SERIES Chris Kraus, Editor Airless Spaces Shulamith Firestone Aliens & Anorexi is Kraus Hannibal My Father Kathy Acker How I Became One of the Invisible Davie Rattray You're a ‘Anne Rower I Love Dick Chris Krous Indivisible Fanny Howe Leash Jano DeLynn ‘The Madame Realism Complex Lynne Tilman The New Fuck You: Adventures In Lesbian Reading Eilon Myles & Li Kotz, eds Not Me Eileen Myles The igin of the Species Barbara Barg ‘The Pain Journal Bob Flanagan ‘The Passionate Mistakes and te Corruption of One Girl in America Michelle Tea Reading Brooke Shields: The Garden of Failure Eldon Gamet ‘Through Clear Water ina Poo! Painted Black Cookie Mueller ‘SEMIOTEXTIE} - DOUBLE AGENTS SERIES. Sylvare Lotringer, Eaitor Aesthetics of Disappearance Pau! Vii Archeology of Violence Burroughs Live (The Collected Interviews) Syivre Lotringer, ad Desert Islands and Other Texts (1953-1974) Giles Deleuze jes Joan Baudilard : Collected Interviews of Michel Foucault Syivere Lotinger, eo, Hatred of Capitalism: a Semiotextie) Reader Chris Kraus & Sylvére Lotringer, es. Lost Dimension Pau! 'SEMIOTEXT(E) » THE JOURNAL ‘Sylvare Lotringer, Editor Flesh Eating Technologies Sara Diamond & Syivére Lotringer, ed. Imported: A Reading Seminar Rainer Ganahi, ed Polvsexuality Francois Pera, ed. ‘Autonomia: Post Politics Politics Syivere Lotringer & Christian Merazai, Eds 'SEMIOTEXT(E) - FOREIGN AGENTS SERIES. Sylvere Lotringer, Editor ‘The Accident of Art Syivere Lotringer & Paul Vnlio CChaosophy Felix Guat io & Syvere Lotringer Crepuscular Dawn Paul Driftworks Joar-Francois Lyotard Ecstasy of Communication Jean Bau Fearless Speech Michel Foucault Forget Foucault Jean Baudilard Germania Hoines Mu A Grammar of tude Paolo Vino Mt Inside & Out of Byzantium Nina Zivancevie In the Shadow of the Silent Majoritios Jean BauiiillarcPolitics of the Very Worst Paul ‘The Politics of Teuth Michel Fouca Popular Defense and Ecological Strug) Pure War Pai io & Syivére Lotvinger Re he Said Julia Kristeva Sadness at Leaving Eye Ayden ‘Simulations Jean Baverilard 69 Ways to Pay the Blues Jurg Laedarach Soft Subversions Félix Guat Speed and Politics eu! Vio ‘Why Different: La ay ‘SEMIOTEXTIE) « ACTIVE AGENTS SERIES Hedi 1 Kholt, Chris Kraus & Syivére Lotringer, Editors “The Empire of Disorder Alain Joxo Reporting from Ramallah: An Isra in an Occupied Land Amira Hass ‘Still Black, Stil Strong Dhoruba Bin Wehad, Mumia AbusJamal & Assata Shakur