-
Interested In:
Dating Men
-
Member Since:
Aug 2003
-
Hometown:
Colombe
-
Félix's URL:
http://profiles.friendster.com/1724170
-
Occupation:
schizoanalysist
-
What I enjoy doing:
schizoanalysist, chaosophy, chaosmosis, transversality, micropolitics, soft subversions, molecular revolutions, becomings, refrains, ritornelles, cartographies
-
Favorite Music:
birds
-
About Me:
What I want to emphasize is the fundamentally pluralist,
multi-centered. and heterogeneous character of
contemporary subjectivity,
in spite of the homogenization it is subjected to by the
mass media. In
this respect, an individual is already a "collective" of
heterogeneous
components. A subjective phenomenon refers to
personal
territories - the
body, the self - but also, at the same time, to collective
territories -
the family, the community, the ethnic group. And to what
must be added all
the procedures for subjectivation embodied in speech,
writing, computing,
and technological machines.
-
Who I Want to Meet:
It is true that it is difficult to bring individuals out of
themselves, to disengage themselves from their
immediate
preoccupations,
in order to reflect on the present and the future of the
world. They lack
collective incitements to do so. Most older methods of
communication,
reflection and dialogue have dissolved in favor of an
individualism and a
solitude that are often synonymous with anxiety and
neurosis. It is for
this reason, that I advocate - under the aegis of a new
conjunction of
environmental ecology, social ecology and mental
ecology -
the invention
of new collective assemblages of enunciation
concerning the
couple, the
family, the school, the neighborhood, etc.
The functioning of current *mass media*, and
television in
particular, runs counter to such a perspective. The tele-
spectator remains
passive in front of a screen, prisoner of quasi-hypnotic
relation, cut off
from the other, stripped of any awareness of
responsibility.
Nevertheless, this situation is not made to last
indefinetly.
Technological evolution will introduce new possibilities
for interaction
between the medium and its user, and between users
themselves. The
junction of the audiovisual screen, the telematic screen
and the computer
screen could lead to a real reactivation of a collective
sensibility and
intelligence. The current equation (media=passivity) will
perhaps
disappear more quickly than one would think.
Obviously, we
cannot expect a
miracle from these technologies: it will all depend,
ultimately, on the
capacity of groups of people to take hold of them, and
apply them to
appropriate ends.
|
 |
How you're connected:
| You |
 |
Félix is in your extended network |
|
Félix |
|
The means of estranging the new workers from
the realization of their submission and the
knowledge of their strength. Also the means of
keeping the new workers in a perpetual state of
haziness, servile hearts, chained to their own
possessions. In respect for the old and now
empty frame (State and money), in fear of their
individual future and without hopes of their
collective one.
work as a singularity. I'm more and
more convinced that you were the truly
innovative and more radical of
the "dastardly duo." Your terminology
and concepts demand a lot on the part
of the reader, but that's all the more
reason why I love and respect your work
with unrestrained enthusiasm. In other
words, don't tell Gilles but I like you
better!
Guattari, the way we got
along and completed,
depersonalized, singularized each
other - in short
how we loved. That resulted in
_Anti-Oedipus_ which marked a new
progression. I wonder whether one
of the formal reasons for the hostile
reception the book occasionally
encounters isn't precisely that we
worked
it out together, depriving the public of
the quarrels and ascriptions it
loves. So they try to untangle what is
undiscernible or to determine
what belongs to each of us. But
since everyone, like everyone else, is
multiple to begin with, that makes for
quite a few people. And
doubtlessly "Anti-Oedipus" cannot be
said to be rid of all the formal
apparatus of knowledge: surely it still
belongs to the university, for it
is well-mannered enough, and does
not yet represent the "pop"
philosophy
or "pop" analysis that we dream of.
But I am struck by the this: most of
the people who find this book difficult
are the better educated, notably
in the psychoanalytic field. They say:
What is this, the body without
organs? What do you really mean by
desiring machines? In contrast,
those who know just a little bit, those
who are not spoiled by
psychoanalysis, have fewer
problems and do not mind, leaving
aside what
they don't understand. Such is the
reason for our saying that those who
should be concerned with this book,
theoretically at least, are fellows
between fifteen and twenty. There
are in fact two ways of reading a
book: either we consider it a box
which refers us to an inside, and in
that case we look for the signified; if
we are still more perverse or
corrupted, we search for the signifier.
And then we consider the
following book as a box contained in
the first one or containing it in
turn. And we can comment, and
interpret, and ask for explanations,
we
can write about the book and so on
endlessly.