File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0501, message 59

To: <>
Subject: RE: [D-G] mona has
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:37:04 -0500

sorry, Toronto.
I'm from Vancouver, BC.

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Sylvie Ruelle
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has

where is TO?
i am in the northern california redwoods along the nietszchean coastline

On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:35 AM, Chapman wrote:

> It's snowing in TO.
> One has to wonder quite what it is you're doing at 7am conjugating
> Deleuze
> against Leroi Gourhan and 'Quest for Fire.'
> Let's move sideways for a moment. Gourhan looked at the Lascaux cave
> paintings and found a moment between representations of ox and their
> symbolic convention. He called this moment 'synthetic- abstraction' or
> something like... This halfway between direct representation and
> symbol is
> an interesting point of comparison with the notion of asignification I
> think.
> Maybe you've read 'Clan of the Cave Bear' by Jean M. Auel? 'Clan' is
> neet
> because it has a moment where counting past, I think it's 4, is a mark
> of
> genius. Chagrin is much had by the men who see the novel's heroine do
> it. (I
> think it's because she was worried abt. prehistoric income tax -- you
> can
> still see women worrying about their cave-bears, roaming about Surrey,
> BC.
> But I digress.)
> I'll offer my humongous and deeply weighted pearl of interpretive
> wisdom,
> dripping as it is with gravitas: Deleuze knew the difference between
> disappointment and depression. The idea of nobility Foucault
> typologizes is
> depressing, I think you are noting this. It misses Deleuze's
> distinction
> between modern nobility, those like K. and other anti- bureaucratic
> bureaucrats, and those who inherit depression as if it were nobility.
> C, the ether-bunny.
> gotta do some work now.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On
> Behalf Of Sylvie Ruelle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 9:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
> 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
> cannot say if he betrayed that nobility lifestyle or was even capable
> of it  (this might not be possible if we are what we live???).  He was
> 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
> 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
> Noble (yes was) I mean someone with a certain degree of comfortability
> (for most of his life), someone with a certain security and stability.
> A schizophrenic (clinical) goes all over the place in thought.  Ideas
> of reference predominate.  There is nothing stable and secure about the
> Schizophrenic.  It is a life filled with depression, a liquid life of
> things melting into each other.  A rhizome life.  This is a quality (?)
> 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
> 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,
>> 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
>> were
>> scarcely visible, and the weight of the high, heavy forehead and the
>> strong
>> hooked nose seemed to have borne the head down. Because of this pose
>> 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,
>> 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
>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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 <>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>  From 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
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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:
> _______________________________________________
> List address:
> Admin interface:
Ms. Sylvie Ruelle

List address:
Admin interface:

List address:
Admin interface:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005