![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rax"SIgnificance is never without a white wall upon which it inscribes its signs and redundancies. Subjectification is never without a black hole in which its consciousness, passion, and redundancies." The white wall over the black hole --- a pair of strata, one with holes --- constructs the face. The face "defines zones of frequency or probability." "They are engendered by an abstract machine of faciality," which is the white wall/ black hole system. The mother and child are a "four-eye machine?" The white screen of the dream is the mother's breast approaching? (But breasts aren't faces, and aren't all white, either.) The mother's face as a guide for finding the breasts. Um, OK. I mean I guess there's probably something instinctual about finding breasts for babies, since that's how they eat.
The face as a surface that maps a volume (the head) I can actually get down with. Fetishism as treating other parts of the body as the face? I'm a little less clear on that. "An operation worthy of Doctor Moreau: Horrible and magnificent." Well this could tie into becoming-animal, later, or could also tie into the monster-trans discourse of "My Words to Victor Frankenstein." This also makes me think --- the desire to escape the face --- of the video phones in Infinite Jest, how people don't actually want to appear on video phones and get customized faces for themselves to appear on the video phone when they aren't actually there.
They're trying to look past the mirror and the gaze? Hm. This all seems awfully binary; Dosse said they only put up binaries in order to tear them down, so I am quite curious where they are going with this.
Need to think about body without organs, not organs without bodies. (There's a pretty direct and simple trans parallel one could make here, although I'm not sure it's what they mean.) We are... deterritorializations of the animal? Huh? This part I have to admit I don't get.
The talk on pg 173 about tearing and cuts in canvas and "axis of escape" brings me back to Barad and agential cuts.
"One never deterritorializes alone. There are always two terms... and each of the two terms reterritorializes the other." Sometimes I think what they are saying is amazing, and sometimes there are two pages that I think are just total bullshit, like, they are having a laugh at my expense for bothering to read the drivel they have produced.
Is the abstract machine of facialization an apparatus?
"Certain assemblages of power require the production of a face, others do not."
In primitive societies, they say, "there are profound moments of deterritorialization... [that] connect the body not to faciality but to becomings-animal, in particular with the help of drugs." Are we really going to go into primitivism? Apparently here the animal enters the body and "takes possession of the...interior" rather than making a face for it. What then of furries who become animal to create faces they are more comfortable with, huh?
"The decoding of the body implies an overcoding of the face."
Oh _huh_ I think their answer to my question about furries would be that the face creates is a mask which creates the becoming-animal of the head along with the body of the person donning the mask, such that the person is animal and the mask is not even though the person is human and the mask is animal. If I can hold my brain in this one exact pretzel shape this seems brilliant. Unless of course the mask becomes the face and then you're back to square one.
Page 183 just WHAT. "Proliferation of eyes by multiplication of border" complete with drawings. WHAT.
"For it is through writing that you become animal, it is through color that you become imperceptible, it is through music that you become hard and memoryless, simultaneously an animal and imperceptible: in love." THIS JUST BLEW MY HEAD OPEN. Oh my god. Only in her nerves the past // sings. Tidings of the immaculate present. No skin except for caresses. (later) "A non-subjective living love in which each party connects with unknown tracts in the other without entering or conquering them."
"Dismantling the face is no mean affair. Madness is a definite danger."
Primitive heads, Christ-face, and probe-heads?
...yeah I'm gonna stick with the things I liked and think about those and carry them into the next reading. If I try to understand everything in this paper I will go insane and not get all my reading done.
The face as a surface that maps a volume (the head) I can actually get down with. Fetishism as treating other parts of the body as the face? I'm a little less clear on that. "An operation worthy of Doctor Moreau: Horrible and magnificent." Well this could tie into becoming-animal, later, or could also tie into the monster-trans discourse of "My Words to Victor Frankenstein." This also makes me think --- the desire to escape the face --- of the video phones in Infinite Jest, how people don't actually want to appear on video phones and get customized faces for themselves to appear on the video phone when they aren't actually there.
They're trying to look past the mirror and the gaze? Hm. This all seems awfully binary; Dosse said they only put up binaries in order to tear them down, so I am quite curious where they are going with this.
Need to think about body without organs, not organs without bodies. (There's a pretty direct and simple trans parallel one could make here, although I'm not sure it's what they mean.) We are... deterritorializations of the animal? Huh? This part I have to admit I don't get.
The talk on pg 173 about tearing and cuts in canvas and "axis of escape" brings me back to Barad and agential cuts.
"One never deterritorializes alone. There are always two terms... and each of the two terms reterritorializes the other." Sometimes I think what they are saying is amazing, and sometimes there are two pages that I think are just total bullshit, like, they are having a laugh at my expense for bothering to read the drivel they have produced.
Is the abstract machine of facialization an apparatus?
"Certain assemblages of power require the production of a face, others do not."
In primitive societies, they say, "there are profound moments of deterritorialization... [that] connect the body not to faciality but to becomings-animal, in particular with the help of drugs." Are we really going to go into primitivism? Apparently here the animal enters the body and "takes possession of the...interior" rather than making a face for it. What then of furries who become animal to create faces they are more comfortable with, huh?
"The decoding of the body implies an overcoding of the face."
Oh _huh_ I think their answer to my question about furries would be that the face creates is a mask which creates the becoming-animal of the head along with the body of the person donning the mask, such that the person is animal and the mask is not even though the person is human and the mask is animal. If I can hold my brain in this one exact pretzel shape this seems brilliant. Unless of course the mask becomes the face and then you're back to square one.
Page 183 just WHAT. "Proliferation of eyes by multiplication of border" complete with drawings. WHAT.
"For it is through writing that you become animal, it is through color that you become imperceptible, it is through music that you become hard and memoryless, simultaneously an animal and imperceptible: in love." THIS JUST BLEW MY HEAD OPEN. Oh my god. Only in her nerves the past // sings. Tidings of the immaculate present. No skin except for caresses. (later) "A non-subjective living love in which each party connects with unknown tracts in the other without entering or conquering them."
"Dismantling the face is no mean affair. Madness is a definite danger."
Primitive heads, Christ-face, and probe-heads?
...yeah I'm gonna stick with the things I liked and think about those and carry them into the next reading. If I try to understand everything in this paper I will go insane and not get all my reading done.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-22 12:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-22 01:00 am (UTC)That is in fact pretty fantastic.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-22 04:21 am (UTC)It sounds like very dense stuff, and even this brief exposure is twisting my head a little. I have to consider that an overall good thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-09-22 04:43 pm (UTC)