Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:32:15 -0400
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze


ahoy hwenk!!

>
> Hello mister .+oot7AM martini - still refusing  identification,
>

you have just identified me. you already know who I am... :)

the changing addresses are to prevent spammers. it is very
conventional on the web to hide one's address this way, now you know.
Everytime you cut-n-paste my true address in this list I become more
likely to be spammed, this makes me unhappy and I wish you wouldn't. I
would recommend taking the time to do this for yourself also. As you
know everything we type is recorded and made searchable on google via
drifline. When you say someting silly, there are millions of
listeners. The one-to-one communication is nice, like habermas says
"necessary", and we certainly have that, but it is also broadcast
one-to-many, so it becomes more complicated then just "you and me" and
"our conversation." when I make reference to something obscure I have
in mind the vast audience wherein there are some for whom this is not
so obscure. I hope you can see that in this realm we exist in, that
the very idea of "appealing to convention" ultimately serves only to
promote "dominant ideology" and "dominant ideology" obscures
consciousness. I hope you see this as constructive criticism.


> 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
> strates.
>

sounds like you are judging me of subverting deleuze y guattari's
philosopphy. I think I am merely challenging a particular
interpretation of it that you happen to hold.

> 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.
>

I have thought about this too and have decided that D y G are not
intended for "ordinary" people, but a confrontation is not so bad.
instead DyG are intended for that lost special "intellectual class"
which was not so welll addressed by marxism. I see dyG's writings as
an excellent channel for the intellectual to arrive at a class
consciousness. they use a vocabulary so that an intellectual can
masturbate and find themselves, making them happier as their
consciousness grows erect. i believe that if one does take the time to
inflate their consciousness inside the topology of DyG's ideas, like a
mimesis of sorts, then they will have more then just an understanding
of their yogic-self but additionally have a consciousness about their
rhizomatic-self. yes, we simply have a disagreement on this, for I do
see the yoga-vs-rhyzome, like the self-vs-commune. But I do not want
to fight about this issue b/c I feel you will naturally understand
what I'm saying on your own terms, and it is not my battle, but yours.

> 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.
>
>

here you describe a kind of "comming to terms with the background". I
agree, the background is a very complex aspect of DyG, but  i've
realized that the "background" is also like a psychosis, and it is
strange for the doctor to give the patient such an illness so that a
cure can be announced. Do you see this strange logic to your
intentions? if some people already have the illness why not focus upon
them instead of breeding future patients?


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

I have already explained my personal aversion to n., so if you believe
in this one-to-one communication, please respect what you know about
me. But I leave the challenge open if you wish to change my mind.
FYI... This is my current thoughts: he is "a priori trans-valuated",
so in short I have decide for myself "everything he says can be
ignored." he is just part of the illness and that is why he is so
important for deleuze's cure. honastly, that is the limited extent to
which I have considered him.

>
> 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.
>

it is your argument, not mine...  and since it is your argument I can
choose to accept it or deny it on my own terms -  I gave my terms.. it
is mere rhetoric. I am not debating the logic of the argument, but
merely saying I do not accept the rhetoric flat out. If you can
explain the logic of the rhetoric (and I have asked for this several
times) then perhaps you can "talk me into" some of what you are trying
to sell me on.

> In regard of the intelligence of th epeople the lot
> of fight against one another is more than puzzling,
> as the advantages of cooperation, where almost
> the whole of human devolpment  relies on,
> are so obvious.

yes this bothers me too, and i must remind myself of the hydraulic
economy of the social game. here I can see that "crisis" acts like a
magnet of sorts, changing the naturally occurring speeds of flow
within the social economy. "Laws" in a very general sense are designed
to slowdown these "newer" flows... retardation. see, usually its the
biggest bully who can create the biggest changes, they use this to
their advantage. the only thing the little bullies can do to fight the
big bully is to retard his flow and that means make laws so that the
biggest bully must slowdown. In nyc there are new laws that say 12 or
more people cannot gather in a public space. here is a law designed by
the biggest bullies to prevent the little bullies from realizing their
common objectives. meanwhile the biggest bullies are not subjected to
these save laws because they do not rely on "public space" to
organize, they can organize in private halls in martha's vineyard.
knowing the intentions (re: direction of flow) is vital to knowing the
difference between true or false. (sorry for the baby talk..)
bye!
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org