Often when one thinks of ‘radio’, one may see the figure of the transmission tower, sending out signals across the landscape, a monolith of signal, creating spheres of influence over a large space. But this is only the larger narrative of Transmission, that which has been forced upon us by corporate interests, state interests, all working within the restraints of the dominant corporation, or over the guidelines of the FCC. One may not think of it as such, but the electromagnetic spectrum is ‘real estate’. certain modes of communications belong to certain bands, certain content can only be distributed through specific channels, but really this is only the illusion of the Law. ‘Interference’ is an excuse made so that corporate and state interests can be disseminated to the largest demographic, its a question of control, not one of ecstatic freedom, where there can be a heterogeneous lot of content, each transmission a haeccity, bursting forth into the airwaves, dancing on venue that is everywhere that it can be received. That beautiful coupling, Brecht and Benjamin had their own thoughts in their time when radio was in its infancy, before it became disenchanted by monopolization.

“The crucial failing of this institution has been to perpetuate the fundamental separation between practitioners and the public, a separation that is at odds with its technological basis. A child can see that it is in the spirit of radio to put as many people as possible in front of a microphone on every possible occasion…” (Reflections on Radio)

The key phrase to locate here is ‘a separation that is at odds with its technological basis’. Radio transmission is rhizomatic. Brecht, a ardent ‘transceptionist’ believed that radio was to ‘bring one into a relationship instead of isolating him’. Implicit in the technology then, is this element of inclusion. This may remind one of Deleuze’s concept of the ‘refrain’, and maps perfectly unto the three aspects of it as well. And in microtransmission, there can be a source, but it is never its center, a signal is distributed across a nomos, but isn’t the only expression of the source. The source can come from anywhere—a transciever can both transmit and receive a signal. It is territorial, but it is not definite. Microtransmission can serve as the medium for transduction to occur, where its milieu can serve as a basis for another milieu, similar but never self-same, or radically different.

On the question of the micro-political, microtransmission would not be a forum, an axial point in which a molecular revolution would be possible, but would rather create a collective assemblage of enunciation, where transversal and transformations of subjectivities would reach a pitch speed. Microradio, Microtransmission is an assemblage, it is not a possibility, or an actuality, its activity is inherent in its techniological machinery. The best example of this would be Sandy Stone’s ‘Nano-cast Task Force’, a series of microtrancievers that were purposed for small communities without a means of assembly. This technology would create a rhizomatic self-healing network that is not contingent on an arborescent model of transmission (radio tower, etc), but rather takes each individual as a node in the network. This means that radio production would itself be molecular, that each node is the bridge for sending and recieving, for relaying a signal would only be limited by participation in what is also concieveably a passive process.

So what does this mean? We are in the precarious situation of hearing, and not listening—what is sent to us through the airwaves should really incite a Benjaminian encounter with the aural. Day by day when the spectrums open up, and then are auctioned off to corporations that use it to sell us even more stuff—isn’t it about time we take it back?

Incredible footage of Deleuze working out some ideas for ATP in a classroom setting. French language. -Brian Ehrenpreis

Perhaps it is a personal preoccupation with the history of magik and the macabre that draws me so to the chapter BECOMING-INTENSE, BECOMING ANIMAL. Particularly evocative and exciting was D+G’s discussion of the anaomalous. There is a strong connection with the concept of the anomalous with the early modern English conception of the familiar. The word familiar derives from the latin FAMILIARIS, or “household servant,” and is used in a hierarchical sense when it is found in early modern English magik texts. Generally the familiar is a type of servant, a way into another word. The familiar is the go between for the sorcerer and the beyond. The familiar acts as a channel through which ones desires are funneled through, whether those desires be to contact the dead, or to cast black enchantments, the familiar spirit (generally taking the form of an animal), acts as a guide and a medium. Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27; and Deuteronomy 18:9-14 speak of “mediums and familiar spirits” and forbid all involvement with them, seeing in such spirits an affront to God. The familiar is cast in the bible as a false spiritual guide. A ritual that was previously metnoymistic, with ones familiar standing in for the power of all spirits of a similar type (all cat spirits, goat spirits etc), was seen as a corruption of gods will. The familiar, according to scripture, cannot be trusted. One thinks one is combining with, or, reaping the power of a natural spiritual/animal subsect, yet in reality these spirits are only demons, doing satans bidding, perverting the actions of all who invoke them. Deuteronomy 18:10-12: “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD” Demons, in modern parlance, are not familiars. Familiars are bridges, they are mediums through which psychic spiritual energy is channeled. Too often  shamanistic seed-magik is conflated with dark prohibited ritual. Obviously this is intentional. There is a reason that transcendental meditation, divination, prophecy, visualization and necromancy are outlawed in scripture, but what is more interesting is that the scriptual understanding of the familiar is so off base. D+G tell us in BECOMING ANIMAL that “Becoming is certainty not imitating, or identifying with something; neither is it regressing-progressing neither is it corresponding, establishing corresponding relations; neither is it producing, producing a filiation of producing through filiation. Becoming is a verb with a consistency all its own; it does not reduce to, or lead back to, “appearing,” “being,” “equaling,” or “producing.” (p.239) The description here of becoming is more akin to how we should understand the familiar than one would think. The familiar (though perhaps hopelessly hierarchical in man’s mastery over it), is fundamentally about ACCESS. It is about the proliferation and amplification of psychic energy. D+G write that “…we are not interested in characteristics, what interests us are MODES OF EXPANSION, PROPAGATION, OCCUPATION, CONTAGION, PEOPLING. I AM LEGION.” (p.239) The familiar is a mode of expansion that is is not a social-form but rather an extremely powerful affectual involution. Familiar magik is a strange becoming, an unnatural nuptual. It is the harnessing of energies, energies of the pack, of the mass, into oneself for a certain desired end. If the familiar differs from the anomalous it is in this assertion of an end instead of treating the means (or the mode of expansion, as D+G write) as its own end. While one could argue that the familiar is goal oriented in a way the anomalous is not, it is important to remember that contact with/exploitation of the anomalous is not considered an end in itself. We are told on p.243 that the monstrous alliance with the anomalous is a necessary precondition for the set goal of BECOMING ANIMAL. The anomalous, like the familiar has a subservient structural role to play in the means-ends equation of becoming.The anomalous, like ones interface with the familiar is concentrated on its dispersion of affects. The anomalous is all AFFECT. In this it is a phenomena of bordering insofar as it is a tension between the wall of the pack and its center. The anomalous is a door into the pack, a door into possibility, into the affectual power of the entire pack. In this sense it is precisely like the familiar, who acts as a bridge to the power of all that share its form, a form that is a means, and a means that always seeks an end.

-Brian Ehrenpreis

What does the Bible have to do with Deleuze and Guattari? One can just as easily ask- what do current events have to do with Deleuze and Guattari? I will speak of the Book because the world today is terrifying. 

If it is certain that the Bible is often mentioned in A Thousand Plateaus, it is equally certain that the latter is not simply a work of literary analysis. Today, the Powers That Be- whether they be governmental, ecological, literary, philosophical, esoteric, or political powers- are motivated by desires of blood and earth. These desires are deeply political and deeply theological. In a time of war, we do not need new prophets of a new age. We need to remember something, and this something is not God. God is dead, and war is ravaging the earth. But ‘peace’ is an equally outdated word. 

A Thousand Plateaus may be read as a textbook for political theology. The Bible is a useless book which may be motivating modern political ideology. With this in mind, let us skip the beginning, and turn to the story of Noah, on the second page of the Book of Genesis.

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose”.

This Fall is an explicitly sexual one- it occurs through the generations, it is the delineation of lineage stated from a male perspective. It is men who write this book, and these men speak of men who came before them, the sons of God. These men were “giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward”, the “mighty men who were of old, men of renown”.

Today, we look back upon a tradition of Western thought and discourse which has been composed by men, and we name that tradition logocentrism. This is the written tradition of the West, a particular heritage which, because of capitalist globalization, becomes increasingly difficult to delineate in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. As the Biblical ‘sons of God’ spread their seed among the ‘daughters of men’, so the thinkers of Western discourse proliferated ideas, forms of thought which, since the 1700s, have been compiled under the name Enlightenment Reason. Deleuze and Guatarri stand in this heritage.

And indeed, the inheritance of our Western culture is that material and spiritual wickedness we call capitalism. “Then The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”

 Today, we mourn economic capitalism as a destructive thought experiment which throughout the 1900s has destroyed our planet. As we grieve the capitalist world-system which grew out of the greed of the West, we suffer because this inescapable system continually births and nurtures our bodies, our souls, our thoughts and ideas. As Deleuze and Guattari show us, capitalism is Desire made manifest- desire of the individual for the pleasurable commodity, desire of the group for war, desire of the economy for monetary success, desire of the government for power. “Problems of peopling in the unconscious: all that passes through the pores of the schizo, the veins of the drug addict, swarming, teeming, ferment, intensities, races and tribes” (Thousand Plateaus, 29).

But let us hold off on bashing capitalism. We can no longer agree with each other regarding the meaning of the word ‘capitalism’.

“So the Lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them’. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”

Who is the Lord in this passage, and who is Noah? Today, are we to call the Lord the planetary assemblage, and Noah the cosmopolitan individual? May we transpose these terms, or has all meaning been lost? Here Deleuze and Guattari may reply to our question- “These questions are largely meaningless. The field of immanence or plane of consistency must be constructed.”

The ‘Lord’ of the Bible, like any term in A Thousand Plateaus, cannot be pointed to as a ready-made force, but must be dialectically generated through the labor of critical comprehension. To reflect upon the words of the book is to construct a picture of the world. “This can take place in very different social formations through very different assemblages (perverse, artistic, scientific, mystical, political) with different types of bodies without organs. It is constructed piece by piece, and the places, conditions, and techniques are irreducible to one another. The question, rather, is whether the pieces can fit together, and at what price. Inevitably, there will be monstrous crossbreeds.” (Thousand Plateaus, 157).

It is Noah who constructs the ark ‘piece by piece’, who fits the pieces together, who brings the animals onto the ship, who asks ‘at what price’, who allows for ‘monstrous crossbreeds’. Who is the Lord that orders Noah to build, who is the Lord who says that he will destroy man from the face of the Earth? If we accept that Noah was a man who walked the earth, this God appears to be the faculty of judgment in Noah’s head. And yet, if Noah is the ‘individual’ in the midst of the ‘planetary assemblage’, how did Noah arrive at his decision? Noah himself must have been able to formulate the thought of the totality.

“Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.” Noah walked the earth, saw the wickedness of men, and decided to build an ark. Walking with God, Noah saw that “the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” The gaze of God sees that, because of the wicked deeds of men, the earth itself has become corrupt, and all living creatures have become polluted.

Here we see a double movement- as God judges the Earth, Noah builds the Ark. The gaze of God looks upon and judges “the uninterrupted continuum of the BwO”, the ecosystem of the entire planet. At the same time, Noah’s hands assemble the body of the “ark of gopherwood”, and Noah populates this body with the living organs, the creeping creatures of the planet. There is a paradox here that may seem ironic or hypocritical- an act of repentant destruction intertwines with an act of futural construction. God promises Noah that the world-system will not shut down but merely restart itself. “It is this double turning away that draws the positive line of flight”, an Ark-aic preservation which, surviving the flood, will “not just bring the wandering to a halt, but [will] overcome the diaspora, which itself exists only as a function of an ideal regathering.” (Thousand Plateaus, 123)

There is a volcano exploding on the surface of our planet. In addition, there is an oil that spills and billows continuously into our ocean. The stock market, fresh from a near-death experience, is beginning to tremor unpredictably. Whatever we call ‘capitalism’ has been worried about the health of the earth for about 40 years. Let us pray that, soon, the entire human race may begin to pray together about something. At the risk of sounding apocalyptic, the revolution may have already begun.

There are more ambiguities of place and subject in this story of the Flood- “So it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth. He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had abated from the face of the ground.”

The raven mysteriously flits above the waters that still cover the earth, while the dove seeks to touch down upon the face of the ground. But “the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.”

This is the play of waiting upon the Ark, which proceeds as an eco-logical scientific experiment. The window of the Ark, the dove, the hand of Noah constitute so many tendrils of a single telescopic extension. Noah released the raven to watch it fly, to watch its search; Noah sent the dove out tentatively, again and again, until the second time the dove returned with an olive leaf, and “Noah knew that the waters had abated from the Earth; so he waited yet another seven days and sent out the dove, which did not return again to him anymore.” First Noah perceived the pollution of the earth and the wickedness of humanity, and built an ark; now, Noah uses what is contained within the Ark to test the waters. The first adventure of perception culminates in action, while the second is accomplished in waiting.

Again and again, we could come back to the central point that “the plane of consistency of Nature is like an immense Abstract Machine, abstract yet real and individual”; we could say over and over again that “the One is said with a single meaning of all the multiple. Being expresses in a single meaning all that differs. What we are talking about is not the unity of substance but the infinity of the modifications that are part of one another on this unique plane of life.” (A Thousand Plateaus, 254)

But to hold this assemblage in mind, the element of decision in Noah’s action comes to be obscured. Rather than hold onto a tenuous duality between Noah and God, or between the Ark and the waters, we should consider the Ark itself as a revolutionary package amidst a sea of chaos. Noah’s decision and God’s command align when we see that the construction of the ark coincides with its floody context. As The Invisible Committee says, “the need to assemble is as constant among humans as the necessity of making decisions is rare. Assembling corresponds to the joy of feeling a common power.” (Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection, Semiotext Intervention Series 2009, 12)

Let us skip ahead now, past God’s covenant with Noah. Noah’s Ark may be considered a good assemblage. What, then, are we to make of the Tower of Babel? Noah leaves the Ark and God tells humans to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.”

And “these were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood”. But the people move outward from the East to build a cosmopolitan city, united in one language and one speech, capped off by a huge tower that reaches the heavens. ‘And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

The Lord and his minions go down and destroy the tower, to check the pride of the citizens of Babel. A modern example of Babel is America, the melting pot and mixing bowl of globalized capitalism and its myriad colors. America gathers and disperses, upsets and reconstitutes the flows of culture and capital across the surface of the planet. Yet America has already been given a sign of its arrogance at the turn of this new millenium, and today in the year 2010 we are waiting, in the midst of the storm, for the dust to settle. Meanwhile, there hangs a cloud of ashes over Europe.

The eyes of the world may be turned to politics. Let us pray for good news. While we wait, our play of interpretation may be put to good purpose. Deleuze and Guattari offer us a panoply of thought-forms, and invite us to critically analyze world and text, life and writing. The ‘Thousand Plateaus’ stand as living proof that if thought, word and deed align in the life of the reader, the pages of history may begin to write themselves anew. 

-bl

Especially commendable in A Thousand Plateaus is the insistence of the authors on real living actors proliferating experience ever outward. Against the reductive currents of psychoanalysis and state philosophy that seek to hem us in, D+G develop a model of individual potentiality that is not focused on form but on intensity. We do not speak of subjectivities, we instead speak of intersections. We name the individual as a “haecceity” (261), and in so doing recognize a mode of speaking about “individuation” as something distinct, “not of subject, thing, or substance.” (261) The recognition by D+G that there is a way to speak of the individual not as a ‘thing’ subject to enslavement but rather as a line on a plane, as “the sum total of material elements belonging to it under given relations of movement and rest, speed and slowness (longitude); the sum total of the intensive affects it is capable of at a given power or degree of potential (latitude)” is immensely important to understanding how they are able to conceive of the virtual as they do. There is a long and regrettable critical tradition of ignoring the productive power of the virtual, in particular with virtual technologies. Instead of analyzing technologies critically and interrogating them with an eye towards understanding them, we dismiss technologies of distance and virtual representation as inadequate world-screens filtering out the ‘real’ elements from our consciousness, leaving only its traces. The virtual is always defined downwardly in public critical discourse, as if it were a mechanism only capable of representing and mimetically producing, a mechanism utterly incapable of creating. D+G rightly recognize that nothing could actually be farther from the mark than this perspective. When we interface with new technologies we are experiencing the world(the ‘real’ world) through the use of a virtual prosthesis in a NEW WAY, a way that was previously impossible for us. When we do this, we establish a new and distinct connection to the world of things through a virtual medium. This is not mere word play, it is about whether or not we give value to the technological potential to experience and become. One couldn’t see a photograph of oneself standing in a field before the camera was invented. When one views said photograph one is experiencing the virtual: an always potential relation, but a NEW one between the various elements in play. The very experience of being able to see a photograph of oneself is virtual. It is a play of intensities, it is a realm of NEW experience opened up technology. Traversing the virtual gulf. D+G are useful for media critics and for those concerned about thinking seriously about technology because they take seriously the transformative potential of the virtual in ways Virilio and Baudrillard do not allow for. Virilio for example constantly makes broad general statements about the nature of technological vision in his War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception, seeing all aerial reconnaissance vision technologies as equilibrate to one another. Close analysis shows that this is not the case. Some technological systems produce certain affectual orientations, different intensities in their operators than others do. The bomber plane where you drop a bomb and leave before you see the carnage it causes is not the same as the drone, from which you may survey at a safe distance the havoc your weapon has wrought. The cinema screen is not the moving surface of a photograph. The technologies are distinct and distinctly VIRTUAL. Technologies of the virtual are irreducible to one another and each demands its own rigirous analysis. Susan Buck-Morss her essay The Cinema Screen as Prosthesis of Perception writes that,

what fascinated the first filmmakers was precisely the fact that it could be a matter of indifference whether what is perceived [on the cinema screen] is real or not. On the screen the moving images have a present meaning despite the absence of corporeal bodies, which thereby becomes a matter of indifference. What counts is     the simulacrum, not the corporeal object behind it. In the prosthetic cognition of the cinema, the difference between documentary and fiction is thus effaced…they inhabit the surface of the screen as cognitive equivalents. Both the real event and the staged event are absent…In Baudrillard’s terms, the code takes over and dominates the meaning: “the code no longer refers back to any subjective or objective ‘reality’ but to its own logic.” …once the simulated imminence of the  reduced cinema object is the source of meaning, then a certain kind of violence becomes possible…I am speaking of the violence of the prosthetic perception itself (50-51)

Critics arguing against the productive/intersectional capacity of virtual technologies make an argument similar to this. They set a technology of interaction on a plane of equivalency with the cinema screen. Such a theoretical move is reductive and materialist in its critical thrust as it sets up a ‘screenification’ of the world, seeing equivalencies between two visual forms appearing on screens and goes no further than that. When a critic such as Baudrillard bemoans the ethical perils of reducing the world to a ‘screen’ unresponsive to ethical norms, he does not realize that by ignoring the actual technological aspects that differ between a cinema screen and a screen of another technological apparatus that he makes his argument a self-fulfilling prophecy. In refusing to actualy engage the ever changing factors the virtual holds in flux, he misses the rhizomatic productive capacity of the virtual entirely.

-Brian Ehrenpreis

-Brian Ehrenpreis

A Thousand Plateaus is an eminently practical book. It is a stirring defense of plurality and democracy against state,corporate, and technological fascism, though without ever being overtly so. ATP above all is about possibility. In her Human Condition and Origins of Totalitarianism, the great political theorist Hannah Arendt argues for a renewed focus on plurality. Plurality, Arendt argues, is the fundamental bulwark of any non Totalitarian society. It is only from pluralism that action and the potential to act is born. Totalitarian and fascist systems are completely overdetermined in Arendt’s formulae, and it is only the UNCERTAINTY that is born of pluralism that allows for acts (something closer to the greek sense of the term for Arendt, major acts, public, political acts) to occur. Arendt writes in the Human Condition that:”Under the conditions of a common world, reality is not guaranteed primarily by the “common nature” of all men who constitute it, but rather by the fact that, differences of position and the resulting variety of perspectives notwithstanding, everybody is always concerned with the same object. If the sameness of the object can no longer be discerned, no common society can prevent the destruction of the common world…it may happen under conditions of mass society…the end of the common world has come when it is seen only under one aspect…one perspective.” (57-58) Representational equality for Arendt is equilibrate with conformism. If everyone is given access to the public in equal measure the value of the public realm will be destroyed. Equality in the public makes men behave instead of act. If all are represented equally in our media spaces, on our screens, and are given ample and equal time, even this ridiculous hypothetical scenario will not produce freedom but will instead only produce slavery. Arendt is absolutely committed to inequality. Pluralism, Arendt (I believe rightly,) notes, is always inequality, but it is REAL. It is actual. It is not overdetermined. We all do not have the same possibility to act because of our differences, but it is also because we are different that some are able to act at all, even though we never truly know what we are doing. Uncertainty for Arendt, much like for D+G is at the heart of life. In fact, the way Arendt defines action is so similar to the way D+G define the PLAN(E) that it bears mentioning. D+G write, “The Plan(e) is infinite, you can start it in a thousand different ways; you will always find something that comes too late or too early, forcing you to recompose all of your relations of speed and slowness, all of your affects and to rearrange the overall assemblage. An infinite undertaking.” (259) Becoming for D+G, like action for Arendt, is always uncertain and ALWAYS RELIANT ON PLURALITY. In Arendt, you never quite know what you are doing. You write a book, you release it into the public sphere, you think it is clearly written, yet it is really only a prism reflecting and refracting bits of other things, interacting with them to create affectual orientations you did not anticipate were possible to create. Actors are catalysts for events they cannot control and cannot anticipate. Reality (for D+G) and action (in Arendt) are symptoms of momentary affectual orientation or intensity. D+G write in Becoming Intense Becoming Animal that “the reality of becoming-animal” is that it is “affect in itself” that drives a person but that this affect “represents nothing” outside of its own presence (259). Acts in Arendt do not signify either, they present. They are PRESENT, but can merely herald the arrival of a chain of EVENTS (not representations) to come. Acts for Arendt are almost potential in the sense proposed by ATP, always avenir, always uncertainly becoming. D+G, though they would never say so, are as committed to inequality as Arendt is. I do not mean this in the negative political sense, but rather in a more virtual-vitalistic one. We are only an amalgamation of intensities at any given moment, a vibrating chain of differential speeds and affects. We are at all moments plural and unequal within that plurality. We are not all things at once, nor are we all of these things in equal measure. For D+G IT IS ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE PLURAL THAT WE ARE. Plurality is the essence of any democratic and free society in political theory and it goes hand in hand with the uncomfortable specter of inequality. But let us not forget, it is better to be unequal (in intensity/affect for D+G and access to the public sphere for Arendt) that to be UNREAL. Dematerialized by a totalitarian power (for D+G this could be the state of the pincers of god) that has made pure potential (to act, to become) an impossibility.

-Brian Ehrenpreis

Much of A Thousand Plateaus is a shell game devoted precisely to developing a linguistic frame from which its authors can appropriately discuss things too large and amorphous for words. Each time we believe we have localized the correct linguistic framework from which to discuss potential we realize the cup hides nothing underneath it. There are few lapses in the book into Heideggerian language, but where they exist they are particularly notable. “The rat and the man are in no way the same thing, but Being expresses them both in a single meaning in a language that is no longer that of words, in a matter that is no longer that of forms, in an affectabilty that is no longer that of subjects. Unnatural participation.” (258) A rat that is not rat, a man that is not man, language beyond language, matter beyond form. There is violence being done here to the idea of order and yet D+G take recourse to a Heideggerian ‘Being’ to describe the meta-state encompassing all of these hacceties, the question is why? For writers so obsessed with populating their world with vocabulary all their own the question is not an idle one. The ghost of Heidegger lingers heavily over much of the proceedings in the book to an extent quite surprising. The summoning of Heidegger’s ‘Being’ is due to an obsession D+G develop with the notion of ‘ground.’ Instead of inquiring into what thought is grounded IN, D+G ask more practically “how do we get off the ground?”-a more practical question, to be sure. It is also a more incantatory point, a ritualism, a magik. The modern age, as we are told, is “of course, the age of the cosmic.” (342) The cosmic is about propulsion, it “tends to elaborate a material of thought in order to capture forces that are not thinkable in themselves.” (342) The cosmic is about the way in which we get ourselves OFF THE GROUND. It is the way we propel ourselves through different states of becoming. Tellingly D+G remind us that the cosmic is all about technique, or techné (“It should be, a question of technique, exclusively a question concerning technique. The essential relation is no longer matters-forms…neither is it the continuous development of form and the continuous variation of matter.” (342)). D+G, even while punning on oppositionals are waging a war between Techne and Episteme in the margins. Michel Foucault talks about the episteme thusly,: “I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.” (Power p.197). In introducing techne the critical project of the book is further distanced from the Heidgerrian epistemic forensic-investigative programme and reintroduces it squarely back into the cosmic Nietzschean model of rupture. What is so hilarious is that even while debasing Heidegger D+G are appropriating him! They are making Heidegger work for them, using his language as an incantation that CREATES a ground rather than vainly searching in the dark for it. Amazingly, and with a deft and subtle move, D+G are instrumentalizing Heidegger to their own ends, appropriating his episteme and making it a techne. Techne is about art in the sense of doing things, creating things in the world. It is dynamic and productive. It is about means, not about ends. It is about the ‘here and now’ as opposed to an epistemic ‘enduring truth.’ Techne is about what can be made out of something else: it is about what can become something else. Heidegger is MADE INTO an incantation, his epistemic words are morphed into words of freedom, words spoken into clay. Heidegger reaches escape velocity. He is instrumentalized, he becomes a technique for our cosmic propulsion away from the ground of being, away from any sort of ground at all. In fact, Heidegger, in becoming, literally, a technique, becomes our new ground for the period of time that we engage with him. His language, is turned against him and he merely becomes a technique through which we fabricate a new linguistic ground to speak of a meta-state of existence. This is cosmos philosophy, appropriation, and magik. This is technique, MAKING things out of other things. This is overflow, this is effusion. D+G give life to dead words. By removing the ground of his words, by changing the notion of an epistemic ground into an incantatory spell that seeks to propel (through techne), D+G perform their analysis through their methodology. Furthermore, when D+G later in OF THE REFRAIN go on to speak of the Nomos as “customary unwritten law” being “inseprable from a distribution of space, a distribution in space.” They go on to note that “by that token, it is ethos, but ethos is also Abode.” Punning again, they use ethos in the sense of the musical nome, to critique Heidegger in a doubly removed thrust, as the musical nome ‘ethos’ is often also called THE GROUND. D+G deftly instrumentalize the abode concept to remove it of its epistemic semblance, making the NOMOS the seat of the ethical (a complete Heideggerian reversal) while also making musical structure equilibrate with chaotic intersections of intensity.

-Brian Ehrenpreis

May 9, 2010

“We may draw some general conclusions on the nature of Assemblages from this. On a fist, horizontal axis, an assemblage comprises two segments, on of content, the other of expression. On the one hand it is a mechanic assemblage  of  bodies, of actions and passions; an intermingling of bodies reaction to one another; on the other hand it is a collective assemblage of enunciation,  of acts and statements, of incorporeal transformations attributed to bodies” (D&G 88).

kc

Love and Line of Flight

Do you know what love is?

“When one person says to another, love the taste of whiskey on my lips like I love the gleam of madness in your eyes, what lines are they in the process of composing, or, on the contrary, making incompossible? Fitzgerald: “Perhaps fifty percent of our friends and relations will tell you in good faith that it was my drinking that drove Zelda mad, and the other half would assure you that it was her madness that drove me to drink. Neither of these judgments means much of anything. These two groups of friends and relations would be unanimous in saying that each of us would have been much better off without the other. The irony is that we have never been more in love with each other in all of our lives. She loves the alcohol on my lips. I cherish her most extravagant hallucinations.” “In the end, nothing really had much importance. We destroyed ourselves. But in all honesty, I never thought we destroyed each other.” Beautiful texts. All of the lines are there: the lines of family and friends, of all those who speak, explain, and psychoanalyze, assigning rights and wrongs, of the whole binary machine of the Couple, united or divided, in rigid segmentarity (50 percent). Then there is the line of supple segmentation, from which the alcoholic and the madwoman extract, as from a kiss on the lips and eyes, the multiplication of a double at the limit of what they can endure in their state and with the tacit understandings serving them as internal messages. Finally, there is a line of flight, all the more shared now that they are separated, or vice versa, each of them the clandestine of the other, a double all the more successful now that nothing has importance any longer, now that everything can begin anew, since they have been destroyed but not by each other. Nothing will enter memory, everything was on the lines, between the lines, in the AND that made one and the other  imperceptible, without disjunction or conjunction but only a line of flight forever in the process of being drawn, toward a new acceptance, the opposite of renunciation or resignation—a new happiness?” (D&G 206)

kc