From: "hwenk" <hwenk-AT-web.de> To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org> Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:26:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [D-G] desire - conatus - lacan - spinoza - deleuze Hello filip, unfortunately I didn't read Lacan's seminar on ethics until now, but I am very interested in it. So I would also be pleased, if you would tell us a little about your reading. The most easiest way to start understanding Deleuze on Spinoza and Spinoza himself is the little book of Deleuze "Spinoza, practical philosophy". There is a glossary with the main notions of Spinoza, also conatus. It is very wise to read that completely first, before going ahead with further reading on Spinoza - also there are of course different readings of Spinoza, but you will get more acquainted with both - Spinoza and Deleuze. To your question about Spinoza and desire, you must know that Spinoza defines human soul by the desire with the consciousness of that desire. The desire is tied to its survival, to stay in existence as much as possible - that s the conatus - the wish to "be" as much as possible and the power to do so. Therefore it is ontology, the science of being. Thus the desire is also the power to stay or increase in existence or being and the pleasure one has. Pleasure come if you get more "being" or better "being" - the synapses or in the brain are more working together or there are pleasureful neurotransmitters in the brain. This is also Freud's principle of lust and unlust. At best these pleasures are produced by the brain or the body itself, like understandings or moving the body or by uniting, aslo emotional, with other appropriate people. By definition there cannot be any desire within the human soul which desires to destroy the existence of the individual. There can be desire in the soul of a part of the soul which has the effects of destroying, as I will explain. Now, the thing with obsessions is that of disturbing the harmony of the soul or its acting together as a whole or a unit. As the human soul is made of a lot, Deleuze, going to subatomic areas, liked to speak of an infinity, of parts, a complex of complex of ideas, mainly the synapses of the brain. Spinoza and the other philosophers of the 17th century knew that already. Now the theory by an obsession is, that one part of these complexes got so much pleasure, that its desire, the parts have also a tendency to get their specific conatus as a part pleasure pleasure, increases as their pleasure as parts. So, if you eat sweets, an addiction to sweets can occur, for the pleasure of the part of the brain, receptors in the brain which consume the sugar in the sweets is and becomes so great, that it overruns the tiny part which tries to keep the teeth healthy or not to get to thick. So, the pleasure of one part of the soul acts like "fan the dog with the tail", that is the sweet addicted part of the soul dominates the whole thinking and behaviour of the soul, neglected or dimishing the desires of the other parts of the soul. This is the justification for the power of the parents over the child's. "If you would let them act alone, they would eat so much chocolate that they die or get sick." This addiction, sugar is only an trivial and harmless example, may result in decreasing the "sense" for reality and neglecting vital desires so much, that situations may occur, also illness, which result in destroying the body. There is then an overrun of "red warning lamps", the desire which wants to keep in life, like a red lamp "there is no fuel in the motor" are overrun. This overrun of warnings from the sensory of the body and the soul maybe something like the source of madness, a division from reality, to get into a "false reality" from the point of ones own vital interests. Reality is substituted by phantasy - also going to the framework of interpretation. If this process goes very far, no real communication or contact with "reality", especially the common inter subjective interpretation of it is possible. People would need a lot of time and information to get the idea that someone has overrun the red lamps of no fuel so consequently for such a long time. He didn't talk and react in the way. And the car becomes slower, for the motor will be more and more really destroyed. So he will run very slow, people will ask automatically themselves: Why does he not drive faster in this situation? This is dramatically expressed in Descartes'' madness picture: "to think to be a king and in reality being a poor man". For the part of the soul which is able to something like a king, your narcissm, is driven to phantasy, where it becomes very great without any real possibility of acting and satisfaction bound to real adequate activity - on the contrary, the ability of acting gets smaller. A common solution is to identify with something successful great in reality, like nations, soccer teams .. but that is a complicated own story. And there is the great realm of seeking "private" solutions for heroism or great tasks or something like that. This must not be wrong. This is also the start of Lacan's analysis of madness, starting from Descartes picture in his article about psychical causality, which goes back to his dissertation on paranoid psychosis There maybe also another process, that by evolving your abilities and your feeling for red lamps, conflicts our something dangerous so high, that the "red lamp" only flickers one time and you already stop and try to repair the car, which is very difficult but healthy. This is also very unusual and gives some trouble with common reality. "You are very anxious, there is nothing, go ahead." " - But I saw tee flickering of the red lamps. -" "Be quiet, if we would act on every flickering, we had a lot to do. We have a lot to do already, for there are burning a lot of red lamps for some longer time. There is also often flickering without any real danger. " That would still be within common communication " I saw no flickering of a lamp - to be honest, I doubt if there had been some flickering". This is already slight division. "There cannot have been any flickering - only you imagine flickering - You are flickering" This is hard division. "I saw only the flickering of another orange lamp" - that something like "shifting". Which is also very important. So far for today. I hope, I could help you a little. greetings Harald Wenk -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip Sent: Dienstag, 1. Mai 2007 02:17 To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org Subject: [D-G] desire - conatus - lacan - spinoza - deleuze hello everybody, i'm a student philosophy trying to get into the thinking of deleuze, which is quite hard. but anyway here is my little question. i'm trying to find out if i can find something like a lacanian "la chose" in spinoza and deleuze. i mean: for lacan there can be something in our lives which become so important without actually knowing why, that we would do anything to achieve it. Lacan speaks of this in his 7th seminair: the ethics of psychoanalysis. I wonder if spinoza has seen this? : could the conatus of a person express itself boundlessly such that the person itself becomes disolved ? i know that spinoza nor deleuze are not subject philosophy's so that there cannot be really a subject, but i think that is less important for the question. Can desire become so big that the subject dies ? something like an obsession or something. Within spinoza the conatus can never gets in the way of the individual, well that's what i mostly read. i know that spinoza writes that we tend to desire repression in a social system. but actually it isn't desire that is repressed, because desire itself has to be mediated ? is it not that desire is invested in the social system and thus has to come to expression in this system ? or is there really a diminishing of the conatus ? and why would we want a social system: is it because in this system we can expres ourself more ? is it like a small sacrifice to get much more afterwards ? (if it is a sacrifice) and how do we know such thing in advance ? or do we just revolt if it ends up bad ? anyway lot's of questions thanks in advance greetings _______________________________________________ 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