*Question/JA on Deleuze/Totality

[Heikki Raudaskoski]

>    D&G:  'Totality/molar unities are b-bad, fascist.  Multiplicity,
> molecular flows, schizoid-formations good.'
>   Pynchon:  Yeah but m-maybe not (?)

I think this is an excellent remark. Although D&G say that rhizomes 
subvert binary root-thinking, they make some kinda new totality out
of "desire", it becomes a new Messiah or something, creating new 
oppositions as Adrian doesn't fail to notice. Since "desire" is not 
contaminated by the molar tradition, flowing rhizomatically, there is a 
problem: how to talk about it in language that is always already 
contaminated by root-thinking? (This, of course, goes for Foucault's
"madness" & Levinas's Wholly Other as well, as frere Jacques has 
written.) _GR_ acknowledges this, I dare say, and that's why we seldom 
meet within it the jouissant, free and easy hip-hurray feeling that is so 
prevalent among D&G. It is here that the Derridean notions of 
supplementarity hold better, in my humble opinion. 

> PS  I liked the equation of Jimmy Stewart and Slothrop.  When I picture
> Slothrop cinematically, I picture a young Jimmy Stewart, and sometimes
> a slightly chubby Cary Grant.  Who would play Blicero and Enzian?

But wouldn't the decent Jimmy S. be too, hmm, monogamous to walk in
Slothrop's shoes?


Heikki