File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0603, message 46

To: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:55:50 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


you don't have seem to understood
that the ethical question of
avoiding violonce - being "non-fascist" - includes the avoiding
of misunderstanding. So a reading
of Deleuze-Guattari denying plainly their philosophy as not sufficient
without worked out argumentaion
or example
and the denying of philosophy as such without giving concretre examples or a
setting is more than
misunderstable in a mailing list devoted to thework of Deleuze and Guattari.
It is this kind of "to narrow" that I meant.

If you like to say that Deleuze and Guattari should not be used as a
"bible" this has been already said by themselves.

So a broader reading is very unlikely ended up in a apraisal of "pure
Especially when it is not schown that there has been a "normal" reading.

As i pointed out several times I would also not adhere to a lot what Deleuze
and Guattari said.
But, to be "non fascist" that is far better to do so in a "clear and
distinc" and in detail expressed manner.

Deleuze and Guattari also pointed out the missing on the work on the
details - in the "Anti-Oedipe".

You can simply say that Deleuze and Guattari didn't say very much you like.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. Marz 2006 19:38
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

yes sometimes it nice to submit to philosphy as a wisdom that helps a
person's hapiness. but then sumtimes it is nice to not to submit to
philosophy and see it as a source of angst in a person's life.
both are completely fine by me and of course there are other ways to
talk a-bout the sub-ject of philo- sophy.... it is multi-dimensional
(but singluarly experienced).

If foucault wants to say that "anti-oedipus is a guide to non-fascist
living" that does not mean that is the only way to see ant-oedipus,
infact must of that partiuclar book is very un-fit to use as a guide,
a lot of it, most of it, is looking at psychology from an extreme
distance and saying "look at these bodies wi/o organs and see them as
alien subject for critzism!"

If you have the intention of fighting agaist other people who
focus/maintain the more broader reading  of DyG's pov then perhpas
that kind of violenc directed at people ought to be understood better.
of course it is so much easier to just submit to the blessed wisdom of
DyG... but why, whats the fun in that? That is like heraclitus(fire)
against the immobile earth(logos)... why makes everything so still and
un-moving. There is life that animates, and laws of animation, things
can move too and they do not have to be fixed. to study logos is to
study those "fixed" things, the "fix" of philosophy is often such a
problem in the "real world"... that is why we have DyG pointing their
finger at freud and the violence of his logos agianst the animated
reality, and the laws that are made to force reality into a "fixed"
state so that capital(surplus value) can be properly amassed within
the imagined closed social system.

List address:

List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005