File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0501, message 37

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:16 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has


in my experience, reading Deleuze and Gusattari is more than hard,
because the needed backround is vast.
To be honest, such as you are writing in this group, I doubt
that there is a lot of real understanding - which in my eyes is more due
to the unneceassarily complicated presentation of D&G, which, as it is  
tested by its seminars,
Deleuze could do much better, clearer and understandable.
The main point is in create a very complicated new code, or a lot of  
which are in no obvious relations with the other, also very complicated and
elaborated concepts in Philosophy - if you are so kind to have a look at  
or Heidegger or original Kasnt or Hegel oe Schelling - even Spinoza is  
not easy to grasp, what had led to a lot of misinterpretations.
Now, one can ask, is it worthwhile?
It would be concerning the schizophrenics.
Physics, as you know, has really become great, as it left with Galilieo and
Newton everyday experience - which has been code in arestotelian physics.
The first law of Newton, that a moving body stays moving in a straight line
with unaltered velocity is noot everdy, this is Aristotle, where is to be
a mover for keeping the movement, otherwiese it will stop sooner (mostly)  
or later.
Now Quantum Physics and the the theory of relativity are based on
experiments and mathematical theories, which are both far away from everday
experience (the Michelson Morley experiment is not everday, similar with
Plancks thermodynamical considerations of the radiation of black bodies
leading to his quantum hypothsis).
This had led to the for yoe all well known state, that modern physics
is not understable for non specialist - or did anyone not studied in  
or mathematics really understand the popular writings of Hawking for  
example - and that is not
in first regard due to Hawking?

But, to come back to D&G, in the theories of mind and thinking
especially philosophers are not to bring about not to
start from everday thinking - what do I say - speaking or writing
behaviour of normal people - as for example Heidegger in zthe preface of
"Time and Being".
This reminds strongly on Hegels "The way to truth is not to go in  
 From the viewpoint of exploring the human mind it would be of
much interest to give sophisticated interpretaion of schizophrenic  
As you all know,
  Freud has elaborated his theories mainly the experience with neurotics
(with an overrepresentation of "hysteric" women).
His tackling of psychosis canot be seriously be spoken of as satisfying.
This one of the starting points of D&G in "Anti-Oedipus".
This book is, as the title and the interviews around show,
more of critical value.
I think, there a few people who have read this book, who didn't ask  
themselves -
as a question of character more or less in despair - what the hell
a "machine of desire" should be.
This a main thing. If you mention to a professional philosopher or  
the name of D&G t
they will mostly show, that they didn't read or understand it.
So what should a poor psychotic patient do with this?.

And that doesen't work.

Things in this area are complicated enough and the tendency to
bring it back to normal live - "This illnes doesen't really exist" -
"Ok, sometimes they dont't think at all,
  sometimes they cannot controll their thoughts,
sometimes they cannot stop thinking anyway - but do not we all have
some times, where we have such experiences - so, it is quite normal,
only the frequency
is a little bit unusuall."

D&G broke down almost every bridge to the
rest of scientific discours and that in  very
hard to understand way - affording a lot of
non standard background -
so that there is no real influence and
working further on their grounds.
But the theme of schizophrenia or psychosis
or non everday experience in the human mind
as a field of rersearch for philosophy or
new original psychology is almost blocked by them.
This is not more than regrettable, this is a catastrophe.
To speak as a chess player, they have made the worst out of
this variant of thinking and publishing.

To calm a little bit down. In "Chaosmose" of Guattari you can find, if you  
are used
to the slang, a more understable presentation.


Am Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:30:25 +0000 (GMT) schrieb  

> Dearest Forest in the east is the priestof repression sounds like she  
> got yer number and its like finding the
> voice in deleuze sans guattari c'est n'est pas possible.
> Its all a creation and a becomings.
> Dada
> So this is the second deleuze-guattari list that I have joined just  
> intime to see it fall apart?  Not enough for a pattern...not yet  
> atleast.  Does anyone have a point?  I have had poems sent to my  
> inbox,which are interesting and could stimulate discussion; I have had  
> someincoherent free-association pass my way, which also could  
> beinteresting; besides that, mostly banter, oh, and someone asking  
> foretexts.  Do I have this straight?  People are criticizing someone  
> forasking for texts?  Under the pretext that it is some sort  
> ofhierarchically driven authority loving captialist request?  What????  
> Am I missing something?  (quite possible since I have only justarrived)   
> Is it: promote creative conceptualisation but let's not readthe books  
> that inspired that idea because they have come to representthe  
> functioning of an overcoding regime?  Those of you criticizing:you have  
> read Deleuze and Guattari, right?  Or did the ideas manifestin your head  
> spontaneously?Now that would be
>  intersting...foris
> all  my words are on parole
> ---------------------------------
>  ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> _______________________________________________
> List address:
> Admin interface:  

Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul:

List address:
Admin interface:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005