The split

I want to paste this quote from the magnificent K-Punk journal because I suspect I am going to want to refer to it later:

Deleuze proclaims that the ‘only enemy is two’. He understoods perfectly well that a split is involved but is unable to grant any ontological specificity to the concept of the split, and rushes to reduce it to a dualism: ‘the source of dualism, it seems to me… is this flattening of all statements of thought, precisely, by this speculative, Oedipal apparatus in which the statement, on the one hand, is related to the subject, to a subject, and on the other hand, and simultaneously, the subject is split into a subject of the statement and the subject of enunciation.’ (By contrast with Deleuze, the Irigarayan concept of the ‘not one’ – with its Imaginary figuration as the lips which are neither one nor two – does grant ontological consistency to the split.) Perhaps we can oppose the Lacanian spaltung to the Deleuzian ‘between’; whereas the between takes its place in the interstitial gap between unities, the spaltung breaks unities into less than one (there is no possibility of unification) and more than one (the subject is always doubled, which is not to say dual).

The split (Lacanian, Deleuzian and Irigarayan) is a subject that fascinates me as it defies logic, mathematics and even dialectics. “1??2=1” is a seductive thought, in the same way as the luxury equation, developped by Sally Mara, alias Raymond Queneau (“1+1=32”), leads thoughts astray. An enigma (like the analyst); a teaser; a riddle (like the “even” in The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even) ‚Äîperhaps a product of appearances as well‚Äî is what keeps my desire for knowledge (all desire is a desire for knowledge) in constant flow.