[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.12433045 [View]
File: 1.48 MB, 2560x1992, 1483770646657.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12433045

In his essay Bartleby; or, The Formula, Deleuze says that the phrase "I would prefer not to" is neither a refutation nor acceptance of a command, but "simply rejects a nonpreferred." In doing so, Deleuze says he removes both the thing he would prefer not to and also what he would presumably prefer doing.
>The effect of the formula-block is not only to impugn what Bartleby prefers not to do, but also to render what he was doing impossible, what he was supposed to prefer to continue doing.
Why does this remove what he would prefer doing, here copying? Surely "I would prefer not to" is a rejection of something other (the proofreading, the errands, etc) in preference for doing something else. He further writes
>he does not affirm a preference that would consist in continuing to copy, he simply posits its impossibility.
Why would an affirmation of a preference be required? Surely since he's already engaged in copying and continues with it after would imply that is what he would prefer doing. Even then why would simply rejecting a different, though related, action also cause the previous action to become "impossible"?
>It not only abolishes the term it refers to, and that it rejects, but also abolishes the other term it seemed to preserve, and that becomes impossible. In fact, it renders them indistinct: it hollows out an ever expanding zone of indiscernibility or in determination between some nonpreferred activities and a preferable activity. All particularity, all reference is abolished. The formula annihilates “copying,” the only reference in relation to which something might or might not be preferred.
Can someone help me understand this? I don't get how this rejection of proofreading or doing errands also rejects copying. Deleuze just says it does and that Bartleby doesn't outright say.
>And yet he will never say that he prefers not to (copy): he has simply passed beyond this stage.

>> No.9613210 [View]
File: 1.48 MB, 2560x1992, 1483770646657.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9613210

>> No.8939768 [View]
File: 1.21 MB, 2560x1992, 1306067578931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8939768

>>8936356
please tell me if you're being sarcastic to insult me. I will accept it, but only if you tell me.

>>8936557
glad I helped you enjoy your day a little more

have some cozy

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]