wellspring & datepalm

even in Deleuze the wellspring and the datepalm. But this, these, not above all. The important articulation is of the ‘and’, the conjunction. And lose now the definite articles: wellspring and datepalm.

The problem is that of the role of sexed reproduction with regard to speciation and the interdependence, the reciprocal relations between these two series: species and generation – as with the genitality of structure.

The term commonly sensed to be identical with itself, generation here, as in sign systems there say, in 1000 Plateaux, fragments because each sustains the other’s difference in an ontology of difference. Or more to the point, neither can support the illusion of negation that the other represents.

So in 1000 Plateaux we have Signifying Regimes where the roles of the symbolic actors do not negate and follow (or precede) Regimes. For instance, the structural topos of Saussure’s negative terms becomes all too readily the singular if relativised plane of representation as an itself of itself. But, before any such representation can be made, these symbolic roles reciprocally determine the finitude and generative virtuality of that which hitherto, common-sensically, has existed in the elastic girdle of its infinite concept, Signification.

Simply put, you don’t fragment signification – its singularity is a given. And you accept as given the symbolic forces, actors, inside the singularity, naturally, as multiple. However, each informs the other and each fragments the other – because neither, tautologically, can negate the other. (Again the affirmation of the conjunction.)

Wellspring and datepalm – the multiplicity of genital structure in which both collocate – in which place both participate in the many – metexein – after – how can we start asking the question of whether communication occurs between these or any two? Neither is reducible to the other and each has its singularities. Whatever information passes between them has and is before representation. Communication is elsewhere.

The ideal and ethical function of a writing or a speech cannot be simplified to communication because there are communications of which the point, whether ideal and ethical, or simple and ironic, is a writing, a speech.

The absurdity of a non-writer writing or a writer writing nonsense finds no higher calling, must sense depth?