File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0501, message 56

Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:59:14 -0800

Well, I mean your last sentence, yes (19th).  But Deleuze's research 
was not noble in another sense too.  As far as theories stand, so far i =20
cannot say if he betrayed that nobility lifestyle or was even capable =20
of it  (this might not be possible if we are what we live???).  He was =20
a noble schizo then if he could?  With Foucault i have found much on 
this in his book "society must be defended".  Foucault general 
historical style carries this idea of nobility of landownership, the 
upper class, etc.  And, we should be careful here cause this can 
"logisize" (reason away) into fascism!  Anyways,  I was looking for 
refinement of the ideas of savages, barbarians, and civilized man 
distinctions.  Then I went to the film "Quest for Fire"  (even the 
"2001", "2010" films), for a picture of things and some back up before =20
reading Leroi Gourant (spelling?) and how man stood up for the first 
times (because there were several that did).  So when I say Deleuze was =20
Noble (yes was) I mean someone with a certain degree of comfortability =20
(for most of his life), someone with a certain security and stability.  =20
A schizophrenic (clinical) goes all over the place in thought.  Ideas =20
of reference predominate.  There is nothing stable and secure about the =20
Schizophrenic.  It is a life filled with depression, a liquid life of =20
things melting into each other.  A rhizome life.  This is a quality (?) =20
Deleuze had, it is clear in his works.  SO he is also noble in the 
artistic sense.  BECAUSE, he could do both.  A double articulation, a =20
schizo and a schizophrenic but noble in both senses.  Something very 
difficult to achieve.

I hope this makes sense.  I do have weak spots in my readings.  It's 
all a life's worth process and yet I have only just begun.
On Jan 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, Chapman wrote:

> K. is woken up by the peasants and landlord, they don't believe he's a
> land-surveyor at all. They have to ring central office. Funny stuff, =20
> eh? The
> next morning he re-notices something,
> "But it was a picture after all, as now appeared, the bust portrait of 
> a man
> about fifty. His head was sunk so low upon his breast that his eyes =20
> were
> scarcely visible, and the weight of the high, heavy forehead and the =20
> strong
> hooked nose seemed to have borne the head down. Because of this pose =20
> the
> man's full beard was pressed in at the chin and spread out farther 
> down. His
> left hand was buried in his luxuriant hair, but seemed incapable of
> supporting the head." (The Castle)
> K. thinks it's the Count at first but it turns out to be, according to 
> the
> landlord who is newly awed by K., to be another minor Castellan.
> I've never been perfectly certain, Sylvie, if Deleuze and Foucault 
> were ever
> on the same page when it comes to power and nobility. Isn't K. a better
> 'schizo' than the head-down 'noble' he sees? To chunner the old saw, =20
> would
> you say that Foucault has a discourse about nobility but misses what in
> effect is most noble in man. Perhaps? Maybe you have a different view? 
> I
> like the idea of the 'noble schizo' but in light of Kafka we see 
> nobility
> migrated into modern bureaucracy. I'm a poor reader of Foucault. Does =20
> he
> have anything to say abt. modern nobility or is itjust an empowered
> refinement of 19C lines of, presumably colonial, inheritance?
> Chris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On
> Behalf Of Sylvie Ruelle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
> well, there is the noble gases relating to the clinamen and deleuze's
> 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
> foucauldean sense
> you know, he has land, plenty of time for recreation, money, servants
> 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
>> more?
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:14:04 +0000, stuart tait <>
>> 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 =20
>>> 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 =20
>>> 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
>>>> 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, =20
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> 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 <>
>>>> 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 =20
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>> in
>>>>> physics
>>>>> or mathematics really understand the popular writings of Hawking =20
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>>> 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:
> _______________________________________________
> List address:
> Admin interface: 
Ms. Sylvie Ruelle

List address:
Admin interface:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005