[Scrap] I have nothing to admit...

Feb 2 2013 9:50 pm
"The history of philosophy plays a patently repressive role in philosophy, It’s philosophy’s own version of the Oedipus complex"


Feb 3 2013 11:33 pm
"I myself ‘did’ history of philosophy for a long time, read books on this or that author. but i compensated in various ways by concentrating, in the first place, on authors who challenged the rationalist tradition in this history and I see a secret link betweem Lucretius, Hume, Spinoza, and Nietzsche, constituted by their critique or negativity their cultivation of joy, the hatered of interiority, the externality of forces and relations, the denunciation of power…"


Feb 4 2013 11:29 pm
"What I most detested was Hegelianism and dialectics. my book on Kant’s different; I like it, I did it as a book about an enemy, a book about an enemy tries to show how his system works, how its various cogs-the tribunal of reason… but I suppose the main way I coped with it at the time was to see the history of philosophy as a sort of buggery or it comes to the same thing, immaculate conception. I saw myself as taking an author from behind taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offsprings, yet monstrous. It was really important for it to be his own child, cuz the author had to actually say all I had him saying, but the child was bound to be monstrous too, cuz it resulted from all sorts of shifting, slipping, dislocation and hidden emissions…"


Feb 13 2013 9:38 pm
"What one says comes from the depths of one’s ignorance, the depth of one’s own underdevelopment…."


Feb 13 2013 9:47 pm
[Difference & Repetition] & [The Logic of Sense] ; I know well enough that they’re still full of academic elements„, They’re heavy goings, but they’re an attempt to jolt, set in motion, something inside me, to treat writing as a flow, not a code as far as it went, but it was a beginning and then there was my meeting with Felix Guattari, the way we understood and complemented, depersonalized and singularised. In short, loved one another, out of that came Anti-Oedipus, and it takes things a step further.

I’ve wondered whether one general reason for some of the hostility toward the book is simply the fact that there are two writers. Because people want you to disagree about things, and take different positions. So they try to disentangle inseparable elements and identify who did what. But sind each of us, like anyonelse, is already various people, it gets rather crowded and we wouldn’t of course claim that Anti-Oedipus is completely free of any scholarly apparatus: it’s still pretty academic, fairly serious, and it’s not te pop philosophy or pop analysis we dreamed of.


Feb 20 2013 6:00 pm
"There are, you see, two ways of reading a book; you either see it as a box with somethig inside and start looking for what it signifies and then if you’re even more perverse or depraved you set off after signifiers. and you treat the next book like a book contained in the first or containing it. and you annotate and interpret an question, and write a book about the book or there’s the other way; you see the book as a little non-signifying machine, and the only question is “does it work, and how does it work? how deos it work for you. if it doesn’t work, if nothing comes through, you try another book". It’s just like plugging into an electric circuit…"


Feb 21 2013 6:00 am
"Writing is one flow among others with no special place that comes into relations of current, countercurrent, and eddy with other flows; flows of shit, sperm, words, action, eroticism, money, politics, and so on. Take bloom, writing in the sand with one hand and masterbating with the other: what’s the relation btwn those two flows? our outside, at least one of our outsides, was a particular mass of people who are fed up with psychoanalysis they are trapped, to use your expression, because they generally continue in analysis even after they’ve started to question psychoanalysis. What on earth are they doing on a couch?"


Feb 21 2013 12:00 pm
"You say or report people saying I’m doing nothing, that I’m impotent a big old sterile queen… You explain I’ve got a wife, and a daughter who plays with dolls and potters around the house and you think that in the light of Anti-Oedipus that is a huge joke. You might have added I’ve got a son who’s almost old enough to go into analysis. If you think it’s dolls that produce the Oedipus complex, or the mere fact of being married, that’s pretty weird. The Oedipus complex is nothing to do with dolls. It’s an internal secretion, a gland, and you can’t fight Oedipal secretions. Non-Oedipal love is pretty hard work. and you should know that it’s not enough just to be unmarried, not to have kids, not to be gay, or belong to this or that group, in order to get round the Oedipus complex-given all the group complexes, oedipal gays, oedipized women’s libbers, and so on."