File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0501, message 54

Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:23:22 -0800

well, there is the noble gases relating to the clinamen and deleuze's =20
death as speeding it all up "beaking through to the other side"
but what i mean is that he is a sort of noble, a noble lifestyle in a =20
foucauldean sense
you know, he has land, plenty of time for recreation, money, servants =20
if he wishes, etc.
this gives him time for things the average cannot do. like his research

On Jan 19, 2005, at 3:46 AM, James Depew wrote:

> Don't D&G make a distinction between schizo and schizophrenic?  Schizo
> as choice and schizophenic as chosen, or that sort of thing?
> Chapman - that quote doesn't sound so ambivalent.  Yes capitalism is
> constructed on decoded flows that constitute its profound tendency or
> its absolute limit, and there is real potential there, but capitalism
> is constantly counteracting that tendency. "Capitalism has reawakened
> the Urstaat, and given it new strength."
> Sylvie - This idea of Deleuze as noble is interesting.  Can you say =20
> more?
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:14:04 +0000, stuart tait <> =20
> wrote:
>> That's great, I like a mixture of both personally. I admit to having
>> trouble keeping up with some of these email list because i'm too busy
>> with work these days to do much reading and the brain tends to move
>> into slower gears. I am clearly not an expert on D&G and have never
>> successfully managed to read a whole one of their books (collaborative
>> or solo) despite repeated attempts, and attempts to read
>> 'introductions to' D&G. This said, I got the impression they were
>> talking about a couple of different things when they talked about
>> schizophrenia; the clinical 'condition' recognised by psychiatrists in
>> the west/north, and a state of being in the world as a reaction to
>> capitalism. The former being a state of paranoia exacerbated by modern
>> consumer society where there really are voices telling you to buy,
>> sell, consume, destroy, cleanse, etc being blasted at you from walls,
>> TVs, radios, billboards, etc, where the message is constantly YOU ARE
>> KING IT'S YOUR CHOICE, etc, you are literally being consumed by the
>> thing you try to consume. The capitalist society is designed to put
>> people on that edge of ontological insecurity where they are
>> continuously taking their cues from external messengers in an attempt
>> to simply be. Whoa, that got away from me there.
>> Then D&G seem to be suggesting that the way to deal with that society
>> is to take control of that process of becoming schizophrenic in order
>> to be able to best deal with, analyse, and subvert that society
>> without becoming a victim to it. If the society is asking you to
>> become animal, and to live as a happiness machine, entirely focussed
>> on feeding your desires, it is important to understand that process of
>> becoming animal, what it is to be schizophrenic, to become an
>> homogenous body without organs, etc.
>> Not sure if i've missed the point of what they were saying, but it
>> seems like a good plan to me anyway.
>> stuart tait
>> James Depew wrote:
>>> I am not sure that understanding is the goal.  Or that there is a =20
>>> 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 =20
>>> 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 =20
>>> 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 <> =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 
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> look at
>>>> Husserl
>>>> or Heidegger or original Kasnt or Hegel oe Schelling - even Spinoza 
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> (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 =20
>>>> 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, 
>>>> if
>> you
>>>> are used
>>>> to the slang, a more understable presentation.
>>>> Greetings
>>>> Am Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:30:25 +0000 (GMT) schrieb 
>>>> <>:
>>>>> 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 
>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>> 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 revolution=E4rem E-Mail-Modul: 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List address:
>>>> Admin interface:
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List address:
>>> Admin interface:
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address:
>> Admin interface: 
> _______________________________________________
> List address:
> Admin interface: 
Ms. Sylvie Ruelle

List address:
Admin interface:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005