[D-G] Freud and an Oedipus Complex

[Johnatan Petterson]

Holà Mike.
Found p54of french Cart.Schiz. your englishp37.
related for architecture, and wall refurbishing and construction generally
speaking.
                the extract, as written
in the list yesterday looked (to me) like a
condensé of Ed.Said Orientalism.yet i also browsed in the book,
and found, p96 (about [gr.lettr.]Phi as a category of exo-reference.)
(...)Les mémoires elles-mêmes ne sont pas de simples enregistrements
passifs. Toutes les
mémoires sont des machines. Toutes les machines sont des mémoires. (...et
seq.?: about les plus-values potentielles..)-

(((memories themselves are no mere passive records. all memories are
machines,, all machines are memories ))))
Guattari's p54 CartSchz extract can be read as self-Guattari-referent. (not
exo-referent)
both the destructive, and the mimetic components.
relation in architecture with new molecular révolutions seen p55 (end of
§)& role of cartography in architecture.

i take a day off tomorrow (go see a movie show in Barcelona)
so can't warrant regularity on list, but will try if there's wii-Phi.

regards,
Johnatan.





2017-02-25 20:24 GMT+01:00 Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com>:

> The adoption to absurdity is exemplified in petroleum addiction, whereby
> trillions of homothetic images become normalized.
> If homology is similarity attributed to a common origin, Deleuze shows
> the homothetic in LOS: the Colonizer places the significations onto the
> surface3 of the earth as emblematic of its regime. Some of the prisoners
> might like to see the French text of this passage in cyberspace.
>
> Homothetic, Gk. theticos 'fit for placing'; orig. formed as French
> homothetique -- more at thetic: similar and similarly oriented -- used
> of geometric figures.
>
> Guattari's homothetic is in at least two places, pp. 27 and 149 of SC.
> G's p. 37 resonjates with D's use of it in LOS:
>
> 'Let me explain: for all times, and whatever its historical avatars
> might be, capitalist drive has always knotted together two fundamental
> components: one, that I characterize as deterritorializing, of the
> destruction of social territories, collective identities and traditional
> systems of value. The other, of the recopmposition, even by the molst
> artificial of means, of individuated personological frameworks, schemes
> of power and models of submission that are, if not formally similar to
> those that it has destroyed, at least homothetic to them from a
> functional point of view. It is this latter that I characterize as a
> movement of reterritorialization.'
> (SC p. 37)
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////