File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0608, message 21

To: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:00:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze

Hello mister .+oot7AM martini - still refusing  identification,

my opinion of your intelligence is so far a little bit better than
you wrote as I am sure that you know the requirements of feedback
communication -
minimal identification.
This knowledge I presuppose on the ground of practice with other people for
- which gas been indicated by you in some emails.

This gave space to increase my opinion
as your  kind of communication in your emails as more or
less obviously and consciously
aberrating the issue of Deleuze and Guattari
philosophy or any other sincere discussion
concerning philosophical and anthropological
background of human thinking, feelings actions and structures - as in

That is what you are doing.

This is in my eyes double to  regret,
for you and for the users of this and other lists -
and dminishing a fruitful use of freedom.
This is more than puzzling, for the theme of Deleuze and Guattari
philosophy is somewhat academic and specialized,
restricted to few people.

And then things got even a little bit severe.
Especially for  people suffering
under mental structures which are handled by this philosophy or
people who trying to overcome the immense
barriers of understanding it by  getting some
explanatory understandable background.
This are in my eyes and also in emails occurring in the last two years
the theme interested users of this list.

What have Deleuze and Guattari done to you
that you are so hostile with  discussion of
themes on a level of their writing?

You may know that already Nietzsche knew,
that in not only politicians use
"claims as excuses for their arguments".

In general claims sparing arguments are felt
very often to be stronger - which indeed is
not the case concerning the issue but may gain
"surplus value on code"
as arguments look weak by being complicated and needing
other arguments which in turn can be doubt on so on.

So Nietzsche versioned the strongest form of intellectual
dominance by:
"This is good and this is bad" - id est valuing by taste without argument.

Sophisticated people use than not false or right -  which may be refuted by
logical and empirical grounds -  but weaker
forms of  taste or valuing.

This concerns your argument less condemning of "wooden iron"
 already explained as metaphorical - as false.

In spite of that good night

Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
.+oot7AM martini
Sent: Dienstag, 15. August 2006 16:30
Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze

I am simply unaware of this kind of explaination that you desire, what
terms? It is like your concept of the conventional, I do not know what
you wish to see. If you find what I have written to be disturbing then
I apologize sincerily. I have no desire to promote myself on the basis
of some ethos which you wish to establish, I am much more fond of the
world of ideas and feelings. I don't know why you would use this term
"wooden iron" it is satirical term that demonstrates how language can
create fanciful relationships that have no bearing on reality. it is a
 sad word to use because it asks the listener to imagine something
that is false. like the opposite of poetry, where language is used to
describe things that are not contained within language
List address:

List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005