falsedeity at lycos.com
Tue Mar 1 17:49:13 PST 2005
First, let me admot that your writing style is difficult and so if I am just talking past you (as though so one else entirely) I apologize.
The experience of the event proper (one might say the Event) strikes me as intensely personal in its very impersonal quality. It is a singularity, appearing in a specific time and space. If we are lucky then the event is stretched over a larger amount of space and time, but this must be seen as rare and limited.
I assume that the question on cinema is a way of asking about the repetition of the event; cinema's ability to replicate the event. I think that cinema can be an event but I do not see how it can replicate or maintain an event.
To replicate an event seems to be like trying to explain a joke or tell someone about a dream you had. Either way our interest fades with every word.
I am interested in hearing more on the connection between the event and archive. please speak to this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucy LeGentilSinge" <lucy100millionyearsold at yahoo.co.uk>
To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] Archives
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 06:08:41 +0000 (GMT)
> by reading you i have the impression you understand
> what i asked you, and talked about.
> by reading you also, the contrary appears to my
> consciousness. You seduces me, that's normal.
> that you don't understand this is normal, because the
> plane is not here,-- i was wondering indeed why nobody
> understand what i write. it's because the plane is not
> there. i should make a plane now. :) i should not talk
> about it, but like more human beings than my own work.
> so cannot feel ashamed.
> i am writing very bad i let you think this happyly
> the reason i am answering: is, that i find it, yet, it
> will i am sure look contradictory
> but i want to understand, or rather feel where's the
> problem if there is something which is not passing
> between to you and from me.
> theorize this as you want, "biunivocity", it will only
> be more deleuzian arguments, now the time is to let
> you see that my question was about
> Faucoult : did he ask to himself the question: to give
> the reader the event, and you say it's naturally done,
> yet the question is not, and actually there nothing
> you have not misunderstood , and i was "all" wrong,
> anyway, let me phrase this: do you know that they
> could though raise the question, when studying Greek
> Sexuality, about discovering little chatter between
> Male and Lesbian Lovers in a street, etc. You imagine
> the thing: extracts, archeological extracts, from
> which a "parfume" sheds away across centuries, and
> moves previous limits.
> Do you understand? Maybe mysteryous as this you will
> want to understand something of my question?
> The question do not seem alien to Metaphysiscs of
> Cinema at this point. Are you interested by Cinema? Of
> course you are right, and in case this seems strange,
> let it be answered by someone else on the list.
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:44:32 -0800, "sid littlefield"
> <falsedeity at lycos.com> said:
> > It does not strike me that the event is able to
> remain 'intact' through
> > an archi--- sid littlefield <falsedeity at lycos.com>
> > It does not strike me that the event is able to
> > remain 'intact' through an archiver. So the question
> > is: What remnants are we left with when we are
> > confronted by texts that show a 'fidelty' to the
> > event? I speak here of 'fidelty' with reference
> > with Badiou. Badiou admits that he is attempting to
> > showing fidelis to May68, but wonders whether the
> > event has, in a sense, closed, since it lacks a
> > name, it is still refered to after all as the event
> > of MAY68. I am not sure. One would hope that one is
> > able to catch a glimpse of the remnant, a glimpse of
> > the remainder, and perhaps this is what we see in
> > the works of Deleuze, Guattari, Ranciere, Badiou. It
> > seems that in Badiou's work it is precisely the
> > subject that is the remnant of the event and this
> > seems to work with what I have said about catching a
> > glimpse, but what then? This is my problem, as I am
> > sure it is for others. This could however explain
> > the seductive quality of certain works but also
> > objects and people...the glimpse of the remnant.
> > sid
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lucy LeGentilSinge"
> > <lucy100millionyearsold at yahoo.co.uk>
> > To:
> > deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> > Subject: Re: [D-G] Archives
> > Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:24:32 +0000 (GMT)
> > > > in my way to mark's post on gravity i peal past
> > > chapters and stumbles cross your syd your note on
> > May
> > > 68
> > > it's well and i like the idea of asking
> > > how do you about may68 is there a way to grasp an
> > > event that (it's a secret may68 i talk ) is it
> > still
> > > alive or actualised in memories
> > > do you know if Deleuze or Foucault they thought
> > that
> > > the event was kept in the archives, if it was a
> > > problem for Foucault to redistribute the evnt,
> > like a
> > > tiny molecular revolution as 68 or like Pasteur's
> > > invention to rabia? is there a way by talking the
> > > event can be presented "intact" by the Archiver?
> > ---
> > -- _______________________________________________
> > Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow
> > Pages
> > _______________________________________________
> > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > Info:
> > Archives: www.driftline.org
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari