http://lazylife.org
babe, keep it simple and stupid

迄今看過最清楚明白的解釋－－

We often think of becoming as something that a being does or goes through. Deleuze reverses this relation. There are becomings, such as actions, perceptions, variations and so on; from this flux of becomings we perceive or organise beings. We also tend to think of becoming and action as directed towards some end or goal, so that we become or act in order to be ‘human’ or moral. Deleuze argues that true becoming does not have an end outside itself. So, becoming-animal does not mean acting in order to impersonate or be like an animal; it means changing and varying in inhuman (animal) ways without any sense of pre-given purpose or goal. ‘Man’, traditionally, has always represented an end or goal of life, such that we act in order to fulfil our humanity. By contrast, Deleuze insists that we value action and becoming itself, freed from any human norm or end. This is why becoming begins with becoming-woman, becoming other than man. Finally, literature can be seen as a becoming-woman, for in literature we no longer see language as the representation of some underlying human norm, but as the creation and exploration of new styles of perception and becoming.

Claire Colebrook, Gilles Deleuze, Routledge, 2002, Page 145.

This entry was posted on 20060623 at 00:31 and is filed under 抄書. You can follow responses via my RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your site.