From: "hwenk" <hwenk-AT-web.de> To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:43:16 +0200 Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi Hello, It is not so important, that the quote is really from Nietzsche and not from Schopenhauer. What puzzled me more is tha you deny the correctness of my citation of a cite of Nietzsche - without an argument and any need. The discussion of the wooden iron cite is some time ago. In my eyes things have a simple explanations as the aphorism in the joyios science after NUmber 356 _We ferless, wher is the cite - is followed by the Aphorism number 357 -Whatis german wher a long discussion of Leibniz, Hegel and Schopenhauers opinion about Hegel - which indeed was not very favourablew for Hegel toookj place. Taking in account that the arriving time of the email is 23p.m - Idon't know when it was ent , a little bit unconcentration mixed up with wishfull thinking, maybe unconciuos - and we have the false claim. But this is only pure speculation - which would settle things so harmelss, that Mr. NZ could give this expalnation by himself. The other Email of the neurological basis of bad conciuos and the parnaoid machine of the anti-oedipus maybe real interseting. greetings Harld Wenk -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ Sent: Montag, 10. Juli 2006 23:58 To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi I want to move forward now... ----- if this "wooden iron" is indeed supposed to illuminate upon benjamin's notion of pure-violence I think then there is something to be learned. so I can see this "wooden iron' as a joke made by one philosopher about another... not you or I, but it seems like schopenhauer was making fun of Hegel's metaphysics wherein such a fantasy of "wooden iron" could exist. Neitzsche summons a simmilar use of this word as a joke-response to notion of "free society", obviously Nietzsche (like Rousseau and his "contract" of compromize) cannot take such a concept seriously so why should we be looking to this poet for a philosophical answer? (and I must ask this question rhetorically b/c I am not very interested in what Neitzsche has to say about pure-violence.) But I do see the lesson here and that is the violence of ignorance. perhaps ignorance is not a pure-violence but it is certainly divine (it can strike at any moment). I had brought this up earlier in order to compare the absolute width of spinoza's divine-wisdom to a corrillary divine-igorance.... and to show how this leads to unfortunate solipistic attitudes. (re: sophic paradox vs sphinx) A pataphysics of ethics is a terrible and violent ethics. Like another poster had noted, the violence gets harnessed by sovereignty, it is not sovereignty itself. (RE: What is Philosophy?) and It takes a philosophy to harness the two pieces together, a philosophy of divine-ignorance (re: Mills). I will have to expore this retarded nature of modern philosophy a bit more as I can see that it is very difficult for even the most well read philosophy buffs to take it seriously.(re: loss of vocabulary) --- skinner's pigeon's clicking at the button, trying to follow the F ratio is easy, but the psychological effects of the V ratio are tremendous. It makes me think o f the poetry of the computer mouse, why a "mouse"? clicking like skinner's subjects, running through virtual mazes. it is so very literal and the loss of vocabulary prevents even a philosopher from having fun. _______________________________________________ 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