File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0705, message 5

To: <>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 19:44:48 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] The Anti-Ordipe is so to say "Neurobiology" pur

but it would be helpful to read a while, Hello,

I am very pleased about your email.
I got the second impression, that the ways to understand something
of mathenaticians, programmers and electricians are a little bit
less metaphorical and more machinistic functional, also having a tendency to
seek the
difficulties in the concrete details or to less abstraction than that of
more aesthetical professionals.
The successful aid to make learning faster and more efficient is without
doubt a real
and very important contribute to increase the ability to be happy a lot.
It i slike in the chines saying: "If you give someone, who is hungry,
a fish t ea, the will be satisfied for one day. If you teach him fishing,
he will never be hungry again."

Now concewrning your difficulty about joy/sadness. If you look through
Neurobiology, things are not so difficult.
First we are eating and breathing, so theat are body
is "reproduce by external bodies in a steady manner".
Without oxygen, the brain and the joy stop very quickly.
Now, as I tried to make clear several time, th feelings of joy and sadness
are mostly chemical and electrical produced.
As I also already wrote, the connection between the
ideas, the thinking, and these feelings is a connection to be made.
Her Neurobiology tells us, that synapsis connections with to much
inhibitory synapsis will stop.
Ther will be sadness, if a circuit is splitted or stopped,
the electrical end neurotrasnmitter flux then are diminished.
This is the real reason for joy and sadness.
Perhapps it is good to ask your two neurobiologist you are living with about
that point.
And really, the reading of the Anti-Oerdipe is very enlightening in this
Also you are an expert in learning, a reading of the Anti-Oedipe in ordere
only to understand
what is written there having Neurobiology in mind
will be very helpful - also concerning the questions of Filip, who wrote no
more emails after his questions
have been tackeld two times.

The connection to images and perceptions to the external world
by sigificant chains is very is very complicated to some part, especially


I think thge very analytical and philosphical  groundconstruction
of the philosphy of Deleuze and Guattari and also Foucault
makes it easy to misunderstand the relation to joy and sadnesss.
Also in matheamtics onloy very trained poeple
overlook what conseuqences the choice
of the axioms and basic defintions and cionstructions have.
Tjhii is the already poited at technical character of science, also
whic makes it also more able to control and to act in reality.

The general approoach is like Nietzsche, that as long you are live,
the desire of lifvin g oand being haoppy is much stringer and works
in much more deatils through your body mind than your
conscuous judge of joy/sadness may sayy.
But, also in general, this judgement does not differ to much.
As long as you live by chice (special cases like torture without any
possible acting maybe discarded),
 joy superseeds sadness.


To clear up the a little bit outstanding difference concerning the Iraq war,
I have to tell you that I was in 1978 a supporter of
the Iranain revolution, seeing, as common in Germany at that time,
the Shah
Reza Pahlevi as only in power by the military force of the USA.
I was also strongly impressed by the millions of people
contributing to that revolution and there
were some iranain medical doctors in the support comitee,
who were very, very enthuasiastic about this revolution.
Now, after Bani Sadre has to leave the country (that was a short liberal
the Iranian medical doctors including a Iranin economic professor here in
Germany became
  very sceptoical
about the revolution - which, as you will know,
was not to stop anymore at that time.
The fate of supporting Iranian revolution and being disappointed about the
following development was shared by Foucault.
Now in 19991 I was against the first Iraq war, but
more because of the people I was living with at that time,
i must confess that I did not find it allright, also a strong enemy of any
to invade into the Kuwait with its few habitants.
The 1 million dead people from Iran Iraq war through 8 years are also still
in my mind.
This war was cleary started by Saddam Hussein - enabeling also the Iranian
goverment to set more rigid structures
than maybe possible without the war.
Also in my eyes, to be against despotism and dictators was
one of the sources of being political, indeed human rights were
the minimum, I expected that everyone knows, are necessary if something like
be happy should be in concrete reach for the people living in the country.
I also read some history of the arabian world and the iraqqian sociolgist
AlWardi, a book from 1971, a time when he was a member of
the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein was not very important.
There I got the impression that Saddam Hussein was nothing else
than a kind of military dictator, getting in power by
more or less  brutal tricks and actions.
As we know from Germany in the1930ies and from Stalin at that time,
such people are hard to get rid off, for the
use the power of the state without any scrupel
to  suppress any possibilty of some effecient resistence.
The reaction of more intellectual and also very moralistic people
is to protest, but in my eyes
the feeling for such a simple and brute force without any
moral reasoning or barriers is often lacking.
"That he cannot do!"
"Of course he does."

This somewhat Nietzsche  had called  "to get into the impractical" of more
intellectual people.
The other argument is: What have we to do with Iraq, we cannot save the
whole world.
The details of that thinking maybe left to you.
So, a to quick and to much abolishing of morals is quite dangerous.
You know that Guattari in his last book "Chaosmose"
spokes at some lenght of the liberation necessary in China,
being impressed by the attempt of collective subjectivation
through the events at the Tian place in Peking in 1989 - and its brute

To solve your problem about joy/sadness the
double feature of neurobioklogy and going inside will help.
First we have to see, that to act means for Spinoza a action which is
done by your body. You are the full and only cause of the action.
Now, these actions, wher you are the full cause may be accompanied wit joy
and sadness,
as it is indicatated by the definition: joy or lust is the change to a state
of more
perecption or being. Reciprocal: Unlust or sadness  is the change to a state
of less
perection or being.
Now, we have inhibitory and activing neurons - carrieng owsl to santa fe.
I  ther ies a chang, a, becoming, ter is something alike a littele it stable
circuit in thebrain, otherwise the inhibitory synapsis would stop the
This is the joy, whic is the condition, that the circuit runs.
This view is expressed in a cite from Lacan in the Anti-Oedipe:

"-...  a exclusion coming fom this signs as such (i.e. as signs H.W) cn only
placed as a condition of consistence in a chain to be constituted; let us
addd, that the dimesnion in which these condition are read, build up alone
alone the transference to which this chain is able to. Let us stay for still
for a moment
to the lottery - to see, that the elementsa, which are mixed by chance, in
the ordinal, which let us draw the lots in the act of the outcome of the
elemets  .."
Lacan, "Remarque sur le rapport de Daniel Lagache", Ecrits, Ed. de Seuil,p.
658. cited after Anti-Oedipe,  This is my Transaltion tto english from the
translation to German o fthe original french. As you know, Lacan writes
very, very symbolic, using the metaphorical and assocative properties of
words very much.

Now, right away, sadness would be a split, a destroying of working together
of the brain circuits or a stopping of a circuit.
Now to cut or to stop, you have a lot of inhibitory synapses working against
active synapsis,
which give sad feelings.  This is in my eyes the neurological the
backgrounfd of teh combination acticty - joy  and
passivity - sadness.
The cutting or exclusion ot stopping nmaybe functional, thi si th
eneurological intepeuration - making sense perception sharp, thi sis the
reason for inhibitory synapsis.  So, in this view, sense perception would be
pleasureful, if it  not necessary to let to much
inhibitory synapses work, to avoid pain an d destruction of nerves or other
cells. So, in masochsitic hard practices, where the pain is overrun, you
have the danger of destroying by burning for exaample as quoted in Mille
plateaeux: How ro fabricate a BWO.  The reason given By D&G ist to fabricate
a BWO, whic in my eyes means to let function brain circuits more, increasing
the overall activitiy of the brain as a whole - the BWO, produced as the
whole "beneath the parts".  Here D&G deny that it is pleasur or lust what is
sought - the masochist i sindeed not active but passive, he let do it by
others - which brings him into the realm of power, dominance and servitude -
to be forced, to be like an animal which is brougth in, trained. In
classical termoolgy, the animal part of the soul
is vital, connected to the action and thinking of the whole person. That are
the more connections - to the animal part, the subconcious, the vegetative
nervous system.But it is projected, not done by ?yourself - like in Yoga,
where your  vegetative sytem, your breath and your heart is trained by
yourself, by your consciousnesss. The conciousness plays an important role
in Yoga. The<y try to make everythink conscious - even sellep and dreram.
Also medtiation is bound to make conscious all hidden thoughts and conflicts
by making the consciousness calm and open for it.
The water should be no to hot and not to cold for example.

Now, in the discussion wothg you neurobiologist collegues, the barin gives
states, weher
feeling of unsliust comes interanl, klike fear for example.
As far as I know, there are some T4 dopamin receptors whicghh are thought
to be responsible for the feeling of sdaness.

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
.+oot8am wakeup
Sent: Freitag, 4. Mai 2007 21:51
Subject: Re: [D-G] The Anti-Ordipe is so to say "Neurobiology" pur

I am not a neurobiologist but I live with 2 columbian neurobiologiests
who's casual theories help me run my audio-therapy clinic. This clinic
was set up to provide high-speed learning for people but for now it is
only working for dead mice clones. When I'm not travelling the globe,
helping stray dogs live peacefully w/o their masters, I help design
"bat-man" themeparks and my work in hollywood with cgi animation has
provided most of my capital. We certainly share a lot of interests but
there are many areas where we often disagree, mostly along parallel
horizons and between those horizons is a vast & exciting arena.

I am intrigued by what you discover on the inside of the body, and
inside the window eyes of the child, but for the most part I am
interested in what is happening from the outside. One of the most
profound things I have ever read in my life is your sentence which I
will paraphrase as "people have a right to know how to be happy." here
is an example of a parallel horizon we share.

Most importantly there is filip's question, and this crosses my mind
very directly where I have been stuck dealing with it now for several
months. (I am still upset that pinhas has removed those lurid comments
that spawned this issue for me!!) That is,  I cannot find a reason to
accept that differentiation along the sadness/joy axis that is
particular to spinoza's ethics. I read it as rhetoric, yet I have
tried to see it differently. Even when i read Deleuze I am only seeing
his descriptions as an attempt to reveal it as rhetoric. To explain:
it seems clear to me that both sadness/joy are responses to external
bodies. Here is where the hierarchy in question is setup. To choose
joy from those responses does nothing but support that hierarchy;
furthermore the joyous anemnesis locks the individual into that very
hegemony regardless of the illusionary power gained, the joyous are
bound by their own "false consciousness" (re: tripple illusion). To
say there is only "action" from joy, seems polemical. This is the
prescriptive/projective version of psychiatry that can only see in a
pre-al-hazan fashion (ie it is inverted vision). I cannot ignore the
supreme movement of "ubergrief", an emotional response which is in
direct opposition to those external bodies who impose their hierachy
via this horizon.

When I read lacan or zizak, they fall flat, right here at this
location. it is marked by an "x", dying like a jesus from
non-mobility. this is a flat axis w/o fiat, composed of
one-dimensional points, correlating precisely to the marxist axis of
power, (vertical hierarchy)
* (horizontal hegemony). To speak of "eternal return" is to affirm
this axis of imaginary perspective.  the lines meet only in the
imagination as representations of lines that extend in parallel.

List address:

List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005