“I don’t agree that I am controversial. What I feel is that most people are not critical thinkers. The society tells them what to believe, what to think…and their knee jerk reactions are guided completely by that conditioning. They usually realize later on that what I’m saying is not controversial… when they take time and think in depth. Even if they don’t agree with me… they understand what I’m saying without all the claims of being shocked by controversy. I’m not a controversial person if you’re a critical thinker.”
[E]ffective differences pass between the lines, even though they are all immanent to one another, all entangled in one another. This is why the question of schizoanalysis or pragmatics, micropolitics itself, never consists in interpreting, but merely in asking what are your lines, individual or group, and what are the dangers on each.
What are your rigid segments, your binary and overcoding machines? For even these are not given to you ready-made; we are not simply divided up by binary machines of class, sex, or age: there are others which we constantly shift, invent without realising it. And what are the dangers if we blow up these segments too quickly? Wouldn’t this kill the organism itself, the organism which possesses its own binary machines, even in its nerves and its brain?
What are your supple lines, what are your fluxes and thresholds? Which is your set of relative deterritorialisations and correlative reterritorialisations? And the distribution of black holes: which are the black holes of each one of us, where a beast lurks or a microfascism thrives?
— Deleuze and Guattari: Toward Freedom. Read more HERE.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device