File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0608, message 24

To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:18:32 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze Also personal threatened by Lebanese

Hello .+oot7AM martini,

In my eyes identification is not settled,
changing email adresses make
wanted emails under the original address
more unlikely to be treated properly.
And senseless or working with enigmatic associations emails
are in my eyes impolite, academic or not.

I like to speak and write in a sense full way,
and I also like to communicate in a sense full way.

For to communicate is to share something, based on understanding,
which in turn is based and "cards open on the table".

In the Lebanese conflict some people at least sympathizing with the
Hisbollah found it necessary
to place a bomb in a very full fast train in mail station in Cologne - 60 km
from the town I am living in.
I sat in such a train from Cologne for almost three years and even now the
probability to sit in
one of these trains (ICE) is still very high.

So I feel a little bit personal attacked, also by psycholgical
identification with other train users -
here in Germany and elsewhere.
Here in my eyes the arguments which I told of the security as virtue of the
of Spinoza from
the "pure violence" mails apply.


What you say of intellectuals is the other way round, for the most them
the reading of Deleuze and Guattar is more frustrating as a way back
to own experiences and other current terminologies
 - even the abundant known to them -
is not to find.

To avoid this frustration and to enable a fruitful reading,
also a change of former reading into understanding, is one of the reasons
why I am writing in this list.
Maybe also by reading the mails in the archives.
In my eyes this one part of this list "raison d'etre" -
that is what her name and her obivious setting
expect her to be.
Maybe your - as it looks like - not very high opinion of intellectuals is
on even that frustarting reading,
also coming through the experience with others.


Even if you see things that you have "To take side on the other side of
as Foucault put it, it is very wise and clever to
use the intelligence of people that help you there.
This had also been done by Foucault himself,
whose writings are also full of
 requirements of intellectual education in order
to understand them.
As he changes or not often his methodolgy and themes,
a lot of professional intellectuals are trying to put the reading of
Foucault to a
simpler to understand level.
"Les mots et les choses" was
declared by Foucault
to be not understood fully by himself in later times.

Also I must remember that he was strongly engaged in the case "Rivere",
a juristical doubtly criminal case, who was set free on grounds of that
Rievere had nothing better to do than comitting the next crime
as soon as he was set free.
Foucault said: "What did you expect from a habitual criminal?".

As this man knew that a lot of people supported him, I had expected some
hesitation concerning crimes,
and instead using his popularity and personal relations due to the campaign
for him to get
some legal income.

But what should Foucault said instead?


That is, if some people are always looking for
actions. The outcome on some liberations in the third world,
especially Cambodcha and Iran - made a
naive supporting of such movements also a little bit doubtful.
Nicaragua maybe, just because there is also sometimes and somtimes not
a conserative gouvernment, which is the reality
of a functoning democracy on its own.
You see that the country does not change so much if there is only a change
of government
in the realm of normal function of democracy.
The support of conserative government in Nicaragua was much less than


Therefore Deleuze stated that the reading of the "Anti-Oedipe" is without
academic education a lot easier and more fruitful to read  in sense of
simple application and liberating thinking than
with acadmic background.
I have an introduction to Deleuze,
where the author compares Deleuze's writings with computer languages.
There Deleuze plays the role of a higher language like C, Pascal or Fortran
- refering short to known standard interpretations automatical compiled to
assembler, the  machine  language.
 The academic has to compile to assembler himself,
the language read by the processor and even changing with it.
This is very laborious and you have to go back to the original
texts and problems, which are in case of Deleuze coming from Plato
through the middle ages and including
such unknown authors as Peguy - for the theory of repetition for example .
Also his other writings - logique of sense for example refers to logique of
the stoa and Lewis Caroll-
and so on.

Deleuze declared in "difference et repetition" to try some sort of
philosophy of "difference".
The original essay on "difference" he refered to  by Heidegger is a little
bit short
and  using at a high degree the metaphorical  dimension of language,
including the field of associations of words.
For the theory of strates the name of Nicolai Hartmann, a famous collegue of
in his time at Marburg, is not even mentioned by Deleuze, though he is
the philosophical father of
this conception.
Of course if you look at the originals   you affirm not always the Deleuzian
view of the texts and the problems.
And the neurological background given here is almost
completely lacking.
Also the references to the existential aspects, normally associated with the
name of Heidegger,  are more than rare.

So far,

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
.+oot7AM martini
Sent: Mittwoch, 16. August 2006 18:32
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
> 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..)
List address:

List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005