To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:16:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze Also personal threatened by Lebanese


Hello,


I have the impression that you experience
things such way, that there is a very pure and in
a metaphorical sense related to divine inner self in you what
is in danger to be destroyed or to be damaged if
anyone or anything is speaking or doing something
other as to resist to any change or touch.

"there is
immediate inside decay. "
(From your answer to FOUCAULT : THE SIDE OF POWER
below)


Now the tragical constellation is, that a lot of
other people in order to defence their pure divine
core self act in a way indeed hurting or threatening
the core self of the others.
Second tragical is if this natural and
spontaneous core self defence is
clever used to pursue
the more common material,
interests, which is the ground of the condemning
 of  "egoism" by moralistic discourses.

That is really tragical, for the people who real
defend their core self are thus hindered to develop
generous manners to
pursue their materiel interests, which of course have their right.
And this in turn hinders their inner core self to become stable
 and generous and nor so easy to hurtled
and threatened. It keeps it small.
It is not so bad that one looks for good education, good jobs,
beautiful and lovely partners and nice places to live.
But, as we in Germany say, "You don't have to go over dead men"
especially if this dead men is the divine core self - or your biological
driven desires.

And in such conflicts always the rebellious side brings the inner core,
even Islamistic argumentation - paradise and the soul in heaven are a
historical expression for it,
and the other side tries to bring it back to the original material question.
But as a third, sometimes really the development of the
divine inner core self is attacked by the attempt to bring it
back to material everyday interests.
Then "down to hearth" is something like
cutting head of.

Looking at this, you got a problem on
what tragedy you are working on, where is the core self,
where are the material interests, where are
both mixed up or substituted in a tricky way leading astray for both sides,
the material and the core self.



That is why some kind of solidness even for the tissue  fine
rhizomlike core self is required.
If this fine art spreads over to the pursue of everyday life,
all is well and good .


Things are more complicated as it also a question in what
phase you are, in crisis, new
 building of the soul,  these
strata are expanded, rebuild or be broken, or hardened.
Here often there are very astonishing and often really hard interventions,
using strong emotional contradictions,
if the soul strata are rebuild.

It is often so if some interest conflicts are
supported by a social strata, which
lead to a much more contradict ional
combining of the experiences of the own soul.
What has been no problem or was felt positively,
is now to be felt as bad for example.


In a way this sight has also been expressed by Wilhem Reich,
who was talking about three strata,
one heavenly, cosmic, one animal and earthly and the third
as the middle, mixing both.
His analysis was that the horror is in the middle strata,
where the animal, self-defence, sexuality, eating desires and so
on are brought to character and behaviour structures not fitting with the
ideal,
 divine looking part of the soul.
This is also mentioned in the Anti-Oedipe, referring the unconsciousness as
being "rousseauistic",
from nature it experiences itself being good.


To go to a third order,
it is one of the greatest tragedies if
the animal unconsciousness and the ideal divine soul
are combined by the middle strata soul,
the "I" character,  so that
the different aims of them are made
to a really contradiction in practice:
"I have to be a warrior, a slave I couldn't be .. "
(Wishbone Ash, Argus; Warrior)
So suddenly there is war where commerce, trade, economy, production,
talking, flirting, marriage, talking, make and receipting arts, to take care
of children and so on is expected and necessary.
But is there really someone who makes you a slave?

What  I mean is that the stressing of the contradictions,
to make it more contradicting as it is,
is a strategy bringing more horror
and naturally one asks, where this
"fatal strategy" is made.
It maybe also the social-personal sense of
Deleuze and Guattari's
capricious remark:
"Contradictions are ridiculous."
What contradiction is so hard to die for it to get a lot of
really damaging trouble, including the damage  of one ore more of the three
main strata of  the soul?
If things are driven so hard, something has gone in a wrong direction.
And it is not always the minority, especially oneself, who has driven
things  in that hard contradict ional direction, that's right.

In mathematics we keep of course in spite of that social remark our science
clean and free of contradictions.
Our science.  This is so, because otherwise it would lose its social
utility.
In mathematics we are trained in case of contradictions to enlarge or relax
t
the presumptions, also by abstraction, such both sides can exist
mathematical in a logical way again.
To be able to exist is the core of logic.

On a personal level that would be a point where the
threats to the divine inner core
are banned, giving a little bit free view.
And this is suspected to be the case in normal
development of intelligence and soul growing
at some age with some experience.
And there I think, this is one of the paradigmatic situations for
morals, where is some point.
There is no need to strength the contradictions in that way.
Or you should have stayed to you inner core or to your desires.
And, by making it habitually, there are very often ways back to
not so hard conflicts, this makes things severe.
But even this is part of the struggling for the self.

Is there really a need to go back? -  Because where you are is totally
allowed.

It very easy, I produce a very hard conflict and say, "you have to
compromise",
your line is really to hard and idealistic.

"Hard and idealistic - what are you talking about?"

That's "the contradictions are ridiculous" the other way round.
And that could be something you have in mind,
it looks like, that you indeed are left very little alone
with your struggle combining the strata of your soul.

Very often  the uncertain tendencies in
ones soul are suddenly confronted with
situations - mostly urgent  binding decisions,
 where these parts are very
contradictional and are only to be
integrated by a already successful integration,
which, by this early hard task, where the integration is very fragile,
is made very complicated.

"She or me". You have talked five minutes with her.
This is in common language handled moralistic as
jealousy.



This has also been an attempt to understand you and
to relate it to theory - and practical and theoretical soul problems.


Greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Donnerstag, 24. August 2006 21:52
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze Also personal threatened
byLebanesetrain-terrorists attack in Cologne


>
> IDENTITY
>
> that I cannot see any sense in it, especially if taken as dialogic as
> answers
> to emails I have written.
> Often the points I replied to are not confirmed,
> and not discussed further.

we talk about a lot and it is often unpractical to summerize every
step, it is rough territory isn't it? it seems like one of your
tactics is to bring up lots and lots of issues and then you ask me to
respond to each one, is unfair dialog that you wish? I would like to
ignore some of your distractive talk, but I also want to bend it
around to what I wish to speak about. perhaps I will begin bombarding
you with some thoughts that will force you to respond to me now?? or
maybe I have already done that. :)


> But so the whole relations, the possibility to build up a flowering
economy
> and in short, to live a comfortable life, are almost destroyed.
> The conflicht about Isreal is from the start in 1948.

no, it is not. it about the "western" narrative of the anti-christ and
the apocalypse. it is a very big issue. it is also about the american
revolution as an american-isreal and the anti-christ... leaving
england in 1666 and converting to islam...  perhaps we will have to
talk more about this complex narrative so that it is clear and not
sounding like some crazy idea... and it is a crazy idea actually.
(Then there is the question of science that was born from the
apocolyse religions... this science is wonderful and secular but it is
entirely limited by the political social structures that have been
co-birthed from this same crazy narrative.)

>
> FOUCAULT : THE SIDE OF POWER
>
> The legitemacy of the state or political power
> is drawn from divison of work and the need to organize
> a lot of things as millions of people are
> living together on camparatively small
> domain or territory.
> Security is the most basic,

I disagree. as this territory you describe has expanded for thousands
of years we face a more basic threat then outside attacks... there is
immediate inside decay. the environment which surrounds this "western"
terrritory is not an incorporeal ideal, it is material and phsyical
and cannot bend like imaginary "wooden iron".. I feel that this is the
bigger and harder question to respond to.

>
> And indeed it is often so, that a technological invention based on a
> scientific ideas
> does much more for comfortable life of the people than
> hard poltical or economical struggle.

technological invention is not about making ordinary life more
comfortable, it is about control.. this is fundemental... to imagine
otherwise is to give voice to an imaginary world with which you can
dialog infinitly. this dialog is false.. it is broadcast technology
which we are asked to submit to. if we respond as in dialog form we
have begun submission. this is the surplus-value of language as ntz.
has scripted with his methods of transvaluation.



>
>  Also arts and developing taste and abilties to produce arts
> make life much mor happy - if one likes it.
>

arts provide a communication of this "crazy" narrative that cannot be
understood by the soveriegn authority. arts is one of the very few
spaces left for actual dialog, but it is under attack. without "arts"
ordinary people will loose sight of this important dialog and become
submissive to fascist authority. just like arthur miller and kazan and
huac and marilyn monroe and the cia and the beatles... it is a real
story to understand and it is also a crazy story which we must live
inside of.


> The real problem is how to make the peole skill to
> be happy enough on the ground of their own abilities.

you want to make "art" or teaching art ??

g'luck
art is 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