File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0509, message 13

Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:41:43 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [D-G]words

thank you for answer unsent. here is the night and i
am filled with sleeping pills so i can not use my
it seems very wise dayly. i am taking the neuroleptics
now, since a month. i am more lucid. but not there. it
is like having a new brain implant. my intelligence is
twice the size it is at this moment of this night,
when i can survey my life and the composites in its
limbs and parts.

to day i have thought about the plane of composition
deleuze says he saw in artists and novelists of his
series of admired ones. i am wondering why the use of
"plane" of composition, because its visually when i
refer to the object, as something like the medium of
preparation, its an industry, the construction of an
artificial technology. the question is, while deleuze
seemed to have sent some parts of the "plane" ; up,
floating, elaborating, to float above other
mathematas,  i am thinking about the poor man, i am
trying to recapture the gilles deleuze the man. the
question resurfaces when you think about the
(re)construction in archipelagos of galapagos, as seen
in CC. my ideas are precious and i do not whant alert
those here, while , but in any case the death line, at
some point the critique i found to deleuze was written
on the next page, as if deleuze was conscious of these
critiques and was working with them in his mind. why
to write by the death line then? why to copy the
attacks of "reasons". its unproductive, death

do you understand something like that
is it human to be unsure? this list is strange. i am a
strange person also. you have changed here also since
last year. tomorrow is my birthday.

sorry i will read deeper as i said i am tired.
tomorrow or so this letter which is now yours.

--- NZ <> wrote:

> the grammar is useful in many many ways. It is
> useful to maintain a
> credible logos. Like an externalized socialized
> hypocampus. Grammar is
> also super important to create for capitalists for
> translating the
> "unknown" into logos to be used as rhetoric and the
> power of the
> differend. Ideas like "the paperless office" have
> found some weird
> credibility nowadays thanks to the grammar it
> imposes upon the office
> work space. There is no "third-generation" really,
> just cuz Brockman
> doesnt want to print out anything doesn't mean that
> it dont get
> printed, it just gets printed elsewhere by someother
> non-paperless
> office. To a certain extent Brockman was merely
> passing the buck, and
> with the time & materal he was able to leach out of
> this arrangement
> he was able to drive his competition out of the game
> (power of the
> differend).  The situation is not really so
> different but the grammar
> makes it look new. But grammar is not the bad guy,
> it is just that
> this case the leverage was behind Brockman's and the
> grammar helped
> communicate this into the hypocampus of ignorant
> office worker.
> So much of that contemporary electronic art is just
> dressed up
> "detentionalism" (without intention, and it looks
> like it was created
> by oppressed high school students in detention
> class) This electronic
> detentionalism adopts the frail grammar of
> conceptual art to basically
> sell consumer technology. Like selling millions of
> hi-definition TV
> sets to those poor folks who didn't have the correct
> resolution to see
> Janet Jackson's tiny nipple during the super-bowl.
> What does that
> Afro-American nipple have to do with Japan's newest
> Sony TV set?
> Nothing, but if I can convince myself of the
> capitalist grammar that
> will connect these together then I will certainly
> have something. But
> what is it without that grammar? It is a pretty sick
> relationship.
> But unlike our own hypocampus which deals tens of
> thousands of
> connections simultaneously, most grammar is pretty
> sparse, as you say
> minimal, that's why grammar usually sucks so bad,
> but we make up for
> it with our own minds which are much more robust.
> That giant gap of
> Socrate's "unknown" is once again filled by personal
> labor. Thinking
> is work, it burns calories. The capitalist does't
> need to think he
> makes others do that work.
> In English, grammar is all we have left of thoth's
> rebus, we have
> specialized cases I - you - we - he - she - they -
> that is all we have
> in terms of perspectives standing on that giant
> tree. Looking at the
> words "are" and "is" and I cannot see any
> similarity, not even a
> single letter is the same, but knowing the grammar
> ("we are" vs "he
> is"), I can see they virtually mean the same thing
> actually, thanks to
> my calorie burning hypocampus. I know this
> internally and I can make
> up for all the inconsistancies that rhetorical
> grammar of the English
> provides.
> Also from Thoth, the grammar of time seems to be
> some kind of ultimate
> grammar, especially for capitalism, and PVirillio
> (that good catholic)
> enjoys embracing this line of reasoning. I enjoyed
> his semiotexte
> booklet on warfare and currently finishing his
> "landscape of events",
> but he is so skimpy. I would like to compare it to
> Rebecca Solnit's
> "Rivers of Shadows" ($5 at !)
> but there is no
> comparison. Besides communicating truely radical
> philosophical ideas
> about time, "Rivers of Shadows" is also an excellent
> history of the
> standardization of time (annihilation of time) and
> shows exactly how
> warfare was emplyed to make such a thing occur and
> how the war
> industry used academia to transform itself into
> Hollywood so it could
> maintain those rhetorical differends in the present
> day.  Lets also
> not forget that it is the war industry that has
> given us the internet
> as well.
> _______________________________________________
> List address:
> Info:
> Archives:

Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005