Well, Deleuze and Guattari have finally managed to explode my brain, or maybe implode it, or have caused it to turn into a superlinear assemblage rhizome fractal soup. To be fair, I blame Guattari mostly. And, the picture for chapter 4 is great. I didn't realize it the first time around and I don't recall the name of the movie, but that table has nothing but a speaker and a shadow. How appropriate.
Non-sequitors disengage. I'm still a little bit confused with why D & G totalize the field of language while at the same time maintaining its heterogenous functioninging within the assemblage. It is understandable to privilege the order-word in a structural analysis, but to claim that language is never informative or communicative? There seems to be a link in the chain missing there. Additionally, what seems to be the link between Derrida's conception of Signature, Event, Context and D & G's contextual order-words. It seems that they are saying opposite things. Is I Swear only understandable within a specific context or is there some difference between speech and written language that is not accounted for.
I never knew that Deleuze's analysis of Major and Minor language arose out of an analysis of major and minor music. That is actually a bit startling since his music analysis is not always the best. It is also arguable if minor music serves to destablize major music at all or merely serves as a complement. Deleuze seems to be much closer to rhizomes when he describes atonality yet he still insists on retaining the order-order minor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment