Power Is Tolerable Only On

Do Not Use Thought To Ground A Political Practice In Truth; Nor Political Action To Discredit, As Mere Speculation, A Line Of Thought. Use Political Practice As An Intensifier Of Thought, And Analysis As A Multiplier Of The Forms And Domains For The Intervention Of Political Action.

There Is No Binary Division To Be Made Between What One Says And What One Does Not Say; We Must Try To Determine The Different Ways Of Not Saying Things.

One Can Say That The Author Is An Ideological Product, Since We Represent Him As The Opposite Of His Historically Real Function. (when A Historically Given Function Is Represented In A Figure That Inverts It, One Has An Ideological Production.) The Author Is Therefore The Ideological Figure By Which One Marks The Manner In Which We Fear The Proliferation Of Meaning.

My Point Is Not That Everything Is Bad, But That Everything Is Dangerous, Which Is Not Exactly The Same As Bad. If Everything Is Dangerous, Then We Always Have Something To Do. So My Position Leads Not To Apathy But To Hyper - And Pessimistic - Activism.

The Constitution Of Madness As A Mental Illness, At The End Of The Eighteenth Century, Affords The Evidence Of A Broken Dialogue, Posits The Separation As Already Effected, And Thrusts Into Oblivion All Those Stammered, Imperfect Words Without Fixed Syntax In Which The Exchange Between Madness And Reason Was Made. The Language Of Psychiatry, Which Is A Monologue Of Reason About Madness, Has Been Established Only On The Basis Of Such A Silence.