Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:14:30 -0800
To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org


this limit is interesting.
the schizophrenic reaches a limit and must jump beyond it
the break down comes when the schizo has not the resources and cannot =20
CREATE the resources to mutate it's originary world
it's world of impulses
the impulses overwhelm itself
this is where the schizo (like artaud) goes to find a certain milieux =20
where it can expand this limit
but artaud was not a paranoiac
so he folded (good)

On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Chapman wrote:

> Maybe you're having some dinner or walking your goat, Harald,
>
> Let me give you the lines I'm thinking abt:
>
> "What transforms the breakthrough into a breakdown? It is the 
> constrained
> arrest of the process, or its continuation in the void, or the way in =20
> which
> it is forced to take itself as a goal. We have seen in this sense how =20
> social
> production produced the sick schizo: constructed on decoded flows that
> constitute its profound tendency or its absolute limit, capitalism is
> constantly conteracting this tendency exorcising this limit by 
> substituting
> internal relative limits for it that it can reproduce on an ever 
> expanding
> scale, or an axiomatic of flows that subjects this tendency to the 
> harshest
> forms of despotism and repression."
> (362, Anti-Oo, 1998)
>
>
> There is a beautifully ambivalent reception to capitalism in Anti-O, as
> though it were the avatar of the socius, fighting the repression of =20
> social
> codes that constrain. This ambivalence begins in the first chapter.
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org
> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On
> Behalf Of Harald Wenk
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:04 PM
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-AT-lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
>
>
> Hello,
>
> you dont seem to realize, that the experiences
> of schizophrenics led G&D to deny the autonmy
> of the "I"s, expressing themselves, as they have nothing other to do.
> This relates to philosophy in struggling of unity of the world,
> which is all in all very clouded and obscur, but a constant stream
> in thinking of east and west.
> In this regard, which is hardly not to be seen as very interesting
> for thinking people, pathological, especially schizophrenic experiences
> could give more solid empirical ground.
> And there is the danger to kill high forms of minds in the way as they 
> are
> treated now - which is really severe.
> That are some worthwile goals.
>
> Greetings
>
> Dr. Harald Wenk (Mathematician)
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:21:52 +0100 schrieb James Depew 
> <spatium-AT-gmail.com>:
>
>> I am not sure that understanding is the goal.  Or that there is a goal
>> at all, for that matter.  Deleuze and Guattari's background led them
>> to *express* something in a particular form.  It seems to me that they
>> tried their best to show how much the form can vary, from artists to
>> scientists to perverts and philosophers.  Life is there, they all say,
>> how do we find it?  A field of forces that takes on unlimited forms.
>> Absolutely, the writing is extremely difficult.  But the possibility
>> of connection is there.  Once you start, you can't stop.  Or, more
>> accurately, you have always been doing it.  I don't know, however, if
>> conversing about it can work.  You express yourself, I express myself.
>>  And maybe this is your point.  In order to avoid a kind of confusion
>> over what is being expressed, one has to take the time to attend,
>> intensely, to what is being expressed.  And more than that, why it is
>> being expressed, and how...
>> That means investing alot of time and energy, just like reading D&G.
>> Except, are we really going to do that for each other and for
>> ourselves.  Are we really going to take that much time to make sense
>> of what appears to be "the same old string of semicoherent slippages"?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:16 +0200, Dr. Harald Wenk <hwenk-AT-web.de> =20
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> 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 =20
>>> 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
>>> concepts,
>>> 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
>>> Husserl
>>> or Heidegger or original Kasnt or Hegel oe Schelling - even Spinoza =20
>>> is
>>> original
>>> 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 =20
>>> 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 =20
>>> 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
>>> physics
>>> 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
>>> housegoat".
>>>  =46rom the viewpoint of exploring the human mind it would be of
>>> much interest to give sophisticated interpretaion of schizophrenic
>>> experiences.
>>> 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
>>> psychatrist
>>> 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, =20
>>> if
>>> you
>>> are used
>>> to the slang, a more understable presentation.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>>
>>> Am Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:30:25 +0000 (GMT) schrieb 
>>> verlainelefou-AT-yahoo.com
>>> <verlainelefou-AT-yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dearest Forest in the east is the priestof repression sounds like =20
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> 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
>>>> http://fictionsofdeleuzeandguattari.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>  ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
>>>> Admin interface:
>>>> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-
>>>> driftline.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Erstellt mit Operas revolution=E4rem E-Mail-Modul:
>>> http://www.opera.com/m2/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
>>> Admin interface:
>>> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-
>>> driftline.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
>> Admin interface:
>> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Erstellt mit Operas revolution=E4rem E-Mail-Modul: 
> http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
> Admin interface:
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
> Admin interface: 
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>
>
Ms. Sylvie Ruelle
http://home.earthlink.net/~sylvieruelle
rw_artette_lc-AT-yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org