From: "hwenk" <hwenk-AT-web.de> To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:58:27 +0200 Subject: Re: [D-G] reterriolization, nihilism, new thruth seeking Hello, in a certain way the way of imagelessness, wordlessnmesss and thinglessness is a very ambitious and high way. But this is possible with keeping narratives and science intact. I nevetrr had thge feeling of language to be an obstacle ans scince is going too fast even for the scientiest. A l ot of science mentioned D&D has been furthe develeoped or is overcome. And the best narratives are love storys - from the ages. Greetings Harald wenk -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2005 11:16 To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org Subject: Re: [D-G] reterriolization, nihilism, new thruth seeking I see D+G's work as very un-territoralizationsist, they are far too poetical - ready to resort to poetics instead of meaning and I imagine that they wish to situate themselves away from any territorialization process. The "new truth seeking process" that I see coming from D+G is outside of academics and science. Science is far too slow a process for D+G. They do not deny meaning that is outside of logos, in fact they help define that meaning within a poetical logos that is thankfully outside of logic and science (actual rhizomes on plants are actually analogies to non-scientific processes that have truth yet they are non-logos-centric... they are poetic.... like the physisist's expanding universe described as a "bowl of raison pudding.") Popper's rule for the sciences is quite relevant: that faliblity is inherent within arguement. This is a grammar issue that D+G avoid because they do not pretend that philosophy is science (strickly connected to logos, it is unique because it can contextualize logos). Without a grammar that includes falliblity, then all we have to concider is that which is outside of logos, and that is very important. To the sciences, that pov is all irrelavant, but to a history of "meaning" it is completely relevant. The issue is to expand meaning beyond the logos without re-territoralization. How is that possible? They start by creating a context for logos, and then fill in the rest with poetic meaning that resonates with specific identity-creation.... just like Jay-z or any other rockstar who capitalizes upon tempo to draw the audience into the narrative of limited logos. The difference that i see is that D+Y create a narrative that encapsulates logos, which is good, but it is still restricted by the boundaries of a limited narrative. In this day and age I believe that the narrative element can be done away with and we can begin looking at all the raw data that this narrative has called attention to. _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005