پایان نامه با کلید واژگان the، of، and

draw chaos into their works with enormously powerful effect. In Not I Samuel Beckett presents, on one level, an ambiguous attempt to produce order:
The movement from ‘suddenly she felt’ to ‘gradually she felt’ might be read as a correction, implying a search for a more accurate expression and therefore an attempt to produce an order of representative truth. This kind of order, of representative truth, is prompted at a number of points in the play by an inaudible interlocutor who apparently offers corrections that are taken up, for the most part, by the speaker, Mouth; although they are also refused at certain vital points. However, this particular pattern, the movement from ‘suddenly’ to ‘gradually’ is repeated precisely at a number of points throughout the play but does not appear to involve any external intervention. 
It is also worth remarking that the movement is not, in fact, from a vague to a more accurate expression of a separate content but is rather between antonyms. This indicates not a correction but an experiment: experimental attempts to produce order from the chaos of a virtuality of language in which all enunciative or narrative possibilities exist simultaneously. Such simultaneous virtual existence on a collective plane of enunciation (all enunciation being first and foremost collective practice) would be a plane of chaos from which individual acts of enunciation emerge to actualize specific possibilities and so produce order. In this case, however, such order is left in the balance: two virtual acts of enunciation are actualized, with no satisfactory way of settling on one rather than the other without assuming a significance for linear order that would be difficult to justify. Even if such a significance were justified, then the linear movement to ‘gradually’ would still fail to erase the existence of ‘suddenly’. Thus order becomes unstable; the actualised enunciation fails to signify and has a deterritorialising affect that opens onto the chaotic.
The play begins with Unorthodox textual ellipses and if one concentrates on the text for the moment, what one notices first of all on a graphological level are the ellipses that do not mark omissions but rather breaks in the movement of the text. These breaks do not slow the text down, but instead produce rapid shifts, implying a search for and a grasping after language. The ellipses are miniscule hesitations, flickers in the movement of the language as it attempts to produce expression. They are fractures in the flow of enunciation, lines of disturbance; the text is segmented. Segmentation can be, as Deleuze and Guattari say, ‘well determined, well planned’ (A Thousand Plateaus 195) and as such is the segmentation of a life of habit and the production of order. The supple segmentations of Not I, however, ‘are like quanta of deterritorialisation’ (196); the lines are not lines that separate and connect well-ordered areas of a life but are cracks in discourse, shifts of enunciation. The repetitions, hesitations and interruptions of enunciation are movements along the lines of the ellipses that mark struggles. Everything in the language of this play marks a struggle for nonsignification by means of disruption of order:
time . . . in a god for- . . . what?. .  girl?. . yes . . . tiny little girl . . . into this . .
Mouth refuses, for example, the order of identity or subjectival interpellation: “what? . . who? . . no! . . she! . .  (377).” This explicit refusal of identity between the speaking voice and the subject of the enunciation is not the only expression of such; fractures in the subject occur throughout the text. For example: “but the brain still . . . still sufficiently . . oh very much so! . . at this stage . . . in control . . . under control” (378). Here there is a fracture between the sense of the brain as the seat of control and as the object of control, a fracture that is embedded in certain difficulties of the language itself and of everyday forms of expression. The hesitation between the options of the brain being in control or under control, and the knotty philosophical and theological problems that these very normal expressions imply, reveals further the problem around the relationship between language and the subject, a problem that is inseparable from the collective plane of enunciation. Both expressions have a prior virtual existence on that plane and there is no justification for choosing one over the other; yet each implies a very different understanding of human being. The question of who or what is in control, and the question of the identity or otherwise of enunciation and subject are clearly closely related; and if that identity is being explicitly refused, then who or what is the agent of refusing?
It would be too simple to make a straightforward claim for the autonomy of language itself; language is, after all the product of collective practice, it does not spring into the world fully formed. However, language and enunciation clearly stand apart from the speaker:
her voice at all . . . (379).
The stream of enunciation is an event, a line of flight that the speaker is propelled along beyond ‘her’ control, that she is incapable of deciphering; the signified meaning is not where the significance of this event lies. It lies rather in the event itself. It is an infection of chaos that comes neither from inside nor outside. It certainly does not have its source in her subjectivity, yet it comes from the mouth, an orifice that marks the permeability of the subject, the uncertainty of the border between inside and outside – or between order and chaos. While language is an element of the individual, it is also not that individual or the order of a subject; it has its basis for existence in the chaotic plane of collective enunciation. Even while it is not strictly autonomous, it is not exactly under the control of the individual who speaks either, and it does not have its origin in her; therefore it is inside and outside and, through the deterritorialising force of this both-and, when it is revealed through a non-signifying and deterritorialising disruption of the subject, it produces a confrontation with the world itself. The opening onto the chaos of language provides an opening onto the unassimilable world – not I – that language is an element of, even as it is an element of the human individual.
Not I, resulting, addresses a refusal of identification with the recognizable subject and the unified order of the self and as such presents the audience with an encounter with the real of language, with the chaos of language and with the chaos of the other with which they are inscribed. The text produces openings onto the chaos of the world of the real beyond the ordering dominance of the signifier; the text traces different but clearly related lines of flight through chaos that may transform the relationship of the individual with that which lies beyond it. In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari refer to life’s production of ‘lines of flight’, where mutations and differences produce not just the progression of history but disruptions, breaks, new beginnings and ‘monstrous’ births. This is also the event: not another moment within time, but something that allows time to take off on a new path. In fact, the human becomes more than itself, or expands to its highest power, not by affirming its humanity, nor by returning to animal state, but by becoming-hybrid with what is not itself. This creates ‘lines of flight’; from life itself we imagine all the becomings of life, using the human power of imagination to overcome the human.
3.1.1 Regimes of Signs
To keep in mind Deleuzean postulates attention must be drawn to his celebrated theory of regime of signs. The list that comes into consideration is limited. Based on Deleuze and Guattari’s idea, A Thousand Plateaus, all semiotics are mixed and not only combine with various forms of content but also combine different regimes of signs, “presignifying elements are always active in the signifying regime; countersignifying element are always present and at work within it; and postsignifying elements are already there”( A Thousand Plateaus 119). The semiotics and their mixture may appear in a history of confrontation and intermingling of peoples, but also in languages in which there are several competing functions. Doubtless, every regime of signs effectuates the condition of possibility of language and utilizes language elements, but that is all. As Foucault clearly shows, regimes of signs are only function of existence of language that sometimes span a number of languages and are sometimes distributed within a single language (Anti-Oedipus 367-378).
As mentioned above, Deleuze and Guattari discuss regimes of signs thoroughly. The main points extract to be followed:
A certain number of semiotics displaying very diverse characteristics. The presigni-fying

پاسخی بگذارید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *