the proper name (nom propre) does not designate an individual: it is on the contrary when the individual opens up to the multiplicities pervading him or her, at the outcome of the most severe operation of depersonalization, that he or she acquires his or her true proper name.  the proper name is the instantaneous apprehension of a multiplicity.  the proper name is the subject of a pure infinitive comprehended as such in a field of intensity.  what proust said about the first name: when i said gilberte's name, i had the impression that i was holding her entire body naked in my mouth.  the wolf-man, a true proper name, an intimate first name linked to the becomings, infinitives, and intensities of a multiplied and depersonalized individual.  what does psychoanalysis know about multiplication?  the desert hour when the dromedary becomes a thousand dromedaries snickering in the sky.  the evening hour when a thousand holes appear on the surface of the earth.  castration!  castration!  cries the psychoanalytic scarecrow, who never saw more than a hole, a father, or a dog where wolves are, a domesticated individual where there are wild multiplicities.

deleuze, as crazy as you are, lets be together forever.
(diagram by marc ngui)


there is freedom within, there is freedom without
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
there's a battle ahead, many battles are lost
but you'll never see the end of the road
while you're travelling with me

hey now, hey now, don't dream it's over
hey now, hey now, when the world comes in
they come, they come, to build a wall between us
we know they won't win


does academia crush creativity?

if we think of truth as foucault suggests, it is a product of the procedure that establishes it.  we have certain conceptions of truth that are acceptable, even in academia.  there are competing 'truths' in the academy to be sure, but those truths are still limited to the range of acceptable truths that emerge from the forms of power that are 'fixed' by the academic institution.  academia is training, whether we want to think of it as 'radical' or not.  academics are reproduced.  even what we call 'radicalism' or 'resistance' is formed in a particular context that that defines what is radical and what is not. 

is there room for creativity here?  is there a place for someone that wants to do it all, without drawing connections or perhaps drawing tenuous and sometimes ridiculous ones?  i am forced to produce things that fit a certain mold.  my creativity is suffocating under a blanket of obligations, established epistemologies, imposing academic figures.  i was told once that academics don't really produce any new way of looking at the world.  we are supposed to stand on the shoulders of giants--we aren't expected to become giants ourselves.  more importantly, we are still expected to acknowledge the existence and importance of 'giants.' 

somtimes i like to think about what the academy would look like if we truly valued creativity and new ways of thinking about things.  what if we were all artists instead?  what if research was really an art?