[Deleuze-Guattari] waffling, again...

[Santiago Colas]

Hey Charlie,

a quick word of congratulations on the book!  I'm glad to see it's  
out (or coming out soon) and will be sure to pick it up as i loved  
what you did from it in the deleuze seminar a while back.

also, incidentally, to let you know:  i'm doing another seminar this  
term, this time just on d and g (AO, Kafka, ATP, and WIP), wednesdays  
from 6 to 9 same place as last time.  it's the last in my trilogy  
(you were there for the first, then this past winter i did just  
spinoza).   you are welcome any time.  i hope you might join us one  
evening.

peace,

santiago
On Sep 9, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Charles J. Stivale wrote:

> Dear James, you send out a plea of sorts, so I will take this break  
> from reading Stendhal's De l'Amour (first text, excerpts that is,  
> in a grad seminar on Constructions of the masculine, in 19th C  
> prose) to return to GD's Letter to a Harsh Critic. First your  
> suggestion:
>
>
>> Charles,
>>
>> Thank you for that.  I too had a great laugh envisioning a group of
>> size 10 hats suddenly emerging from the shadows and presenting us  
>> with
>> their delicate words of wisdom.  But surely someone such as yourself
>> can recognize when a certain amount of expertise might promote a
>> little more attention from the list members.
>>
> Yes, in the abstract, I can recognize how a bit of specific  
> orientation based on some reading experience (notice the waffle  
> there?) can be useful. But I still feel the siren's call of the  
> size 10 hat with use of the word 'expertise'. My appeal to GD comes  
> from the point midway through his Letter to Michel Cressole (cf.  
> Negotiations) in which he mentions how Nietzsche (his work on/with  
> him) gives one "a perverse tastes . . . for saying simple things in  
> your own way, in affects, intensities, experiences,  
> experiments" (6). Here is where what he says resonates a bit with  
> this appeal to size 10-ers (hats!):
> "It's a strange business, speaking for yourself as an ego or a  
> person or a subject. Individuals find a real name for themselves,  
> rather, only through the harshest exercise in depersonalization, by  
> opening themselves up to the multiplicities everywhere within them,  
> to the intensities running through them. A name as the direct  
> awareness of such intensive multiplicity is the opposite of the  
> depersonalization effected by the history of philosophy; it's a  
> depersonalization through love rather than subjection. *** What one  
> says comes from the depths of one's own ignorance, the depths of  
> one's own underdevelopment. *** One becomes a set of liberated  
> singularities, words, names, fingernails, things, animals, little  
> events: quite the reverse of a celebrity" (6-7). And, I would add  
> quite the reverse of an expert.
>
> To respond to Ruth's earlier query (and greeting) re what I am  
> working on, here is the short cut for that answer, a press URL  
> (that functions here as self-serving publicity!), http:// 
> www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/9483.html, but which also  
> connects back to the work I was doing thanks to this list back in  
> the mid/late-1990s that resulted fortunately in another  
> publication. The fact that I had to go through yet another process  
> of reflection and elaboration a decade later suggests the extent to  
> which I have been struggling to climb from the depths to which  
> Deleuze refers. Sisyphus anyone?
> CJ Stivale
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari- 
> driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>
>