"I do not know which of us has written this page." -Borges
We do not lack communcation. On the contrary, we have too much of it. We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present. Artaud said: to write for the illiterate–to speak for the aphasic, to think for the acephalous. But what does “for” mean? It is not “for their benefit,” or yet “in their place.” It is “before.” It is a question of becoming. The thinker is not acephalic, aphasic, or illiterate, but becomes so. He becomes Indian, and never stops becoming so–perhaps “so that” the Indian who is himself Indian becomes something else and tears himself away from his own agony. We think and write for animals themselves. We become animal so that the animal also becomes something else.
Deleuze and Guattari, What is Philosophy? (via rhizombie)
  1. diveniredeleuze reblogged this from rhizombie
  2. katswg reblogged this from laceandorchids
  3. laceandorchids reblogged this from matryoshhka
  4. deleuzenotes reblogged this from hookedonsemiotics
  5. tragicregimeofinfinitedebt reblogged this from matryoshhka
  6. book-of-disquiet reblogged this from hookedonsemiotics
  7. matryoshhka reblogged this from rhizombie
  8. orioleorgans reblogged this from rhizombie
  9. hookedonsemiotics reblogged this from rhizombie
  10. rhizombie posted this
sleepy
theme