dans la solitude des champs de coton

話說雖然前幾天看電影時，破天荒地掏出筆記本記對話，但在這裡寫下來對話反而比筆記本裡的還多。高達兩次提到大寫的歷史最讓我興味盎然，因為A Thousand Plateaus奉獻了一大堆字在高達著力的點上：

“Becoming-minoritarian is a political affair and necessitates a labor of power (puissance), an active micropolitics. This is the opposite of macropolitics, and even of History, in which it is a question of knowing how to win or obtain a majority.”

加上高達對Bergson的說法竟然是：memory has no obstruction。這又是透過誰所說的Bergson？總之，我把這部片當作對Deleuze的致敬片。

Paul Patton. 2003. "Future Politics."

In the concluding statement of rules governing certain key concepts in A Thousand Plateaus, deterritorialisation is defined as the complex movement or process by which something escapes or departs from a given territory (DG 1987:508), where a territory can be a system of any kind, conceptual, linguistic, social or affective. On their account, such systems are always inhabited by ‘vectors of detterritorialization’ and deterritorialisation is always ‘inseparable from correlative reterritorailizations’ (DG 1987, 509). Reterritorialisation does not mean returning to the original territory, but rather refers to the ways in which deterritorialised elements recombine and enter into new relations in the constitution of a new assemblage or the modification of the old. Absolute and relative deterritorialisation are distinguished on the basis that relative deteritorialisation concerns only movement within the actual – as opposed to the virtual – order of things. By contrast, absolute [21] deterritorialisation takes place in the virtual – as opposed to the actual – order of things. In itself, absolute deterritorailisation remains an unrealisable or impossible figure, manifest only in and through relative deterritorialisation. Conversely, relative deterritorialisation only occurs because there is a ‘perpetual immanence of absolute deterritorialization within relative deterritorialization’ (DG 1987, 56). In this sense, absolute deterritorialisation in the underlying condition of all forms of actual or relative deterritorialisation. [22]

眼尖的人應該看到有ｓ/ｚ兩種拼法。我是不是也該這樣用？回去看看我自己寫的對同一個段落的總結，哎，我還是引Patton的好了。（哭）

其實Todd May (2001) 在寫Paul Patton某本書書介時，公開地宣稱；"It is probably not out of place to confess here that when I began to study Deleuze, Patton's essays had more influence on me than any others I read." 真是有趣的關係。

這個議題越吵越兇。所以我把兩年多前看的【Frozen】重貼一下。我現在是滿喜歡Bryony Lavery的啦，另外，那之後我也跑去看Trevor Nunn的【慾望街車】，但是有沒有看完我是不記得了。。。

當我明白這件事時，只有昏跟OMG這兩個反應。再次證明，我實在是完全不了解出版界。。。

Continuum (London and New York) 從今年九月開始，陸陸續續將旗下一堆重要書籍翻新成"Continuum Impacts"系列。這系列書比起原版，個頭小了一點，字級也變小，但是印刷品質變好了——各位如果有看過某些Continum出版的紅白系列封面書的話，只會因為內文印刷品質嚇昏。我是昏很久了，因為有些書不得不買，但是新版本這麼漂亮，而且還更便宜，所以忍不住誘惑去買了幾本應該不算在我名下的、Deleuze寫的書。

剛剛翻開某本十月才出現的這個版本的書，對著筆記想確定有無typo，才發現竟然頁數不對！！絕對不可能是我標錯頁數啊！於是只得拿起新舊版一起看——是的，新版本真的有不一樣的頁數。

當然對多數讀者來說這根本一點關係都沒有，但是，但是想用新版本對照deleuzian scholar所用的引文將會氣絕！！我還以為，不更動頁面內容，是新版學術書的第一出版守則噎。。。OMG，我想我如果要貪圖美貌可能會一邊叫罵。還是得用舊版工作啊啊啊。這件事當然株連萬千，可是我除了一邊念該死的編輯之外，應該也不會有所行動吧。（抱怨信？喔，我的抱怨信容量是要留給大英圖書館的。。。這星期我又幫她們抓了兩次蟲。）

不想弄東西吃卻不得不吃時，或是想吃不那麼晚餐的晚餐時，會弄一堆比較好處理的食物，可是常常弄著弄著份量就超過正常的晚餐。

像是今天晚上完全不想開伙，都是冷食或是ready-made：
泰式雞肉湯、四片rustic bread，four leaves salad with olives/tomatos/basil etc, 水果，都是紅的：一顆紅肉葡萄柚，一顆紅石榴，四粒草莓，六個櫻桃。本來還要銷蘋果，看到裝蘋果的袋子還沒開以及這些加起來就份量驚人了，作罷。

有人就跟我說，怎麼人家的減肥食譜都被你弄成這份德行，難怪你一直胖。等我胖到比瘦下來的Margaret Cho還要胖時，應該就會有所改變吧。哈哈。

1.

"The chapters grow from but also apart from each other in a direction that is not always linear. The readers may have to be patient at times and bear with the stress of a journey that has no set destinations. This is a book of explorations and risks, of convictions and desires. For these are strange times and strange things are happening" (Braidotti, 2002: 10).

without taking risks, theories are boring and can never be practical. the same for reading Deleuze and Guattari and Massumi and all alike. :)

2.

Braidotti: "...Deluze refuses to canonize his favourite authors. He thus presents them exactly for what they are: dearly beloved texts" (66). So, why to keep me from idolising my favourite authors? It is merely a way to show my love to my "dearly beloved texts." ^_^

"Cinema may seem more fun than theatre, but as two adaptations of his novels return to the stage, Philip Pullman says he knows where the real magic is."


I've tried to catch His Dark Material for months, but never managed to do so. I will.

這裡比Blogger漂亮，我想還是先搶下名字。反正我對blog這種東西沒有忠誠度。 :p

先警告大家，Safari會有亂碼，請用Firefox或Camino。可能會搬來這裡。還不曉得。

Todd May. "When is a Deleuzian becoming? "
Continental Philosophy Review36: 139–153, 2003.

What is his objection to deriving difference from identity in the way traditional philosophy has? Deleuze’s response here is actually threefold. First, there are problems with making identity founding. In Difference and Repetition, Deleuze points out that basing difference (and repetition) on identity fails even to ask the question of whether there is such a thing as difference (or repetition) beyond identity. Moreover, founding difference on identity leads either to an infinite regress or a circle; the founding identities must find their ground in other identities, etc. (DR, p. 13). Deleuze makes a similar point in The Logic of Sense, where he says that signification (the grounding of linguistic meaning in stable linguistic identities) leads to an infinite regress in the sense that a proposition follows from other propositions only given that yet other propositions are true; and those other proposition are true only given that still other propositions are true.... Moreover, if one tries to ground signification in other aspects of language – denotation or manifestation – one winds up circling among them.

Second, and related to this, there are aspects of our world that can be better accounted for if difference is seen as founding identity rather than the other [144] way around. [...]

The third response to the objection is that in seeking to articulate a concept of difference in itself, Deleuze is engaging in the project of philosophy, as we saw it delineated above. He is resisting the traditional philosophical approach – what he calls in Difference and Repetition “the dogmatic image of thought” – and trying to create concepts along a plane of immanence that offers a new and different perspective.

*******
DR, p. xix.

The primacy of identity, however conceived, defines the world of representation. But modern thought is born of the failure of representation, of the loss of identities, and of the discovery of all the forces that act under the representation of the identical.

這些幫我解決了部份問題。

[...] when one speaks of a popular theatre, one always privileges a certain representation of conflicts, conflicts, of the individual and society, of life and history, contradictions and oppositions of all kinds that cut across a society as well as its individuals. But, whether naturalist or hyperrealist, etc., this representation of conflicts is truly narcissitic and everyone’s affair. […] But why do conflicts generally depend on representation? Why does theatre remain representative each time it focuses on conflicts, contradictions, and oppositions? It is because conflicts are already normalized, codified, and institutionalized. They are “products.” They are already a representation that can be represented so much the better on stage. A conflict that is not yet normalized depends on something more profound. […] But just how do we break free of this situation of conflictual, official, and institutionalized representation? How do we account for the underground workings of a free and present variation that slips through the nets of slavery and eludes the entire situation?

To render a potentiality present and actual is a completely different matter from representing a conflict. It could no longer be said that art has power, that it is still a matter of power, even when it criticizes Power. For, by shaping the form of a minority consciousness, art speaks to the strengths of becoming that are of another domain than that of Power and measured representation.

To conclude, minority has two meanings that are related, no doubt, but very distinct. First of all, minority denotes a state of rule, that is to say, the situation of a group that, whatever its size, is excluded from the majority, or even included, but as a subordinate fraction in relation to the standard of measure that regulates the law and establishes the majority. […] There follows a second meaning: minority no longer denotes a state of rule, but a becoming in which one enlists. To become-minority. This is a goal, a goal that concerns the entire world since the entire world is included in this goal and in this becoming inasmuch as everyone creates his or her variation of the unity of despotic measure and escapes, from one side or the other, from the system of power that is part of the majority. In the second sense, it is obvious that the minority is much more numerous than the majority.