To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:22:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [D-G] Mystic, psychosis, ,


Hello,

As Ruth has worked with Yoga in the former French
colonized  part of India in Pondicherry, Auroville,
founded by the former professor and poltical
independent fighter Aurobindo, a
somapsychic approach and explanation
as yoga itself seems more approbiate
than only a "talking cure" additional to the horrible "chemistry cure",
which are regrettable the therapeutic praxis of the
phaenomenological school.

The claimed "fineness" of this school thus results,
jusr as broken, in a very coarse chemical sledge hammer.
Fine, as symbolic can be, this is
something like to loose innocence.
Fortunately for it, as a old school the school has a lot of moral
clever thinking to make itself so drunken with, not to feel it anymore.

Notice, that the non specialist common sense citoyen
complementary increases his mistrust against the talkings of tallking heads 
in general.

This is not so good, because due to the tendency to make things coarser in 
everday life, the child is thrown out with the bath and the intellectuals 
are not taken serious even if they try to defend the rest of a minimality of 
human treatment in any issue.


As I spoke of the mirror in Nishida and Guattari in the last Email,
I suspect mirrors able to be used to "moral" self reflection  are general 
absent in psychiatrists homes.


I explained the somapsychic "ansatz"  in the "law of heart" email.

The key for Ruth were to take the last half of Aurobindos name as
the direction which chakra has to be make active or opended in a
very stable functioning, namely bindu.



greetings Harald







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wouter Kusters" <wku-AT-ziggo.nl>
To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: [D-G] Mystic, psychosis, ,"Normopaths" (from Guattaris de la 
borde)


> Hi Ruth and all fellow companies,
>
>> The question of clarity is an interesting one-clear in relation
>> to what? According to the DSM, psychosis is manifest as
>> disordered thinking in so far as it is not ordered by the order
>> words of the DSM!
>
> DSM sucks..
>
>> Te clarity described by different kinds of yogic traditions is
>> the clarity achieved when order words break down. Yet most also
>> describe a disciplined and focused method precisely to avoid the
>> chaotic immeersion in psychotic experience.
>
> Indeed, but how to distinguish the two, in practice?
>
>> You both seem to know
>> your way around the literature and proabably know more than I
>> about this but I would want to draw a line between a disciplned
>> mediational technique and the states of consciousness that can be
>> achieved and the seeming randomness of florid psychosis-this may
>> be constrolled mediationally-indeed I have worked quite hard at
>> doing this but meditatation is still an apparatus of capture.
>
> Is it?
>
>> As I understand lacan, psychosis is what occurs when the father's
>> law is not internalised or if it breaks down. One of the things I
>> have observed in my own episodes and the episodes of colleagues
>> is the construction of new linguistic rules in th episodes. These
>> are quite often paranoic rules-being persecuted by various
>> agencies, for example, is one that inflates the importance of the
>> person experiencing this and shores up primary narcisism.
>
> Well, is it primary narcissism? Or is it the consequence of a thoroughly
> consequent mature kind of idealism & solipsism. There is one clear 
> dividing
> line between at the one hand Lacan & Deleuze-Guattari and at the other 
> hand
> phenomenologists like Louis Sass, but also the older german school, which
> is, that in the end the lacanians and deleuzians consider psychosis as a
> step back towards a father-less or law-less stage, while in fine-grained
> psychiatric phenomenology (as clear inn Sass' Madness and Modernism)
> psychosis is a more advanced serene state of consciousness which takes all
> those cerebral intellectual stances like absolute idealism and solipsism
> seriously. My bet is on the phenomenologists!
>
>> Experiencing myself as  a spaceship, alternatively, was a
>> transient way of constructing my own big Other at the fringes of
>> this logic-and also narcissitic (but very necessary at the time).
>> So I'm not so into romanticizing what happens in psychosis as
>> revolutionary-some of it is ultra paranoic. For example,
>> delusions are like religion in so far as they only attend to the
>> evidence that supports them-This sets up the production of closed
>> repetitions at another level of embodiment. Because this evidence
>> is experienced through the senses, it is
>>   real for the expereincer. The ontological status of this real
>> is highly ambiguous. It is not real ( as in not actual) for
>> everyone else in the room. So for these people, the reality is
>> unextended and virtual. For the experiencer, the reality is
>> actual and extended. This embodied ambiguity occupies a space
>> that confounds the father's law. If Lacan's 'real' is
>> discursively founded on lack than the reality of the person who
>> expereince psychosis cannot 'be'-yet it undoubtedly is for many
>> people that I know.
>
> In Lacanian terms it remains quite unclear whether psychosis is a mature
> state of the morror stage - endlessly experiencing reflections of 
> oneself -
> or meeting the Real (which is the more romantic reading).
>
> This is enough for me to support a conception
>> of the real based on plenitude. But I would still not link
>> psychosis with clarity (despite the oceanic moments where it
>> feels like all is clear). Rather, I would suggest this perception
>> is the ultimate in the grandiose self deception-encountering
>> being as a clamour, alternately, is more like an unclarity that
>> deafens-I don't really have words for it and as stated earlier,
>> one could not live there for long.
>
> Some of us live there for long, although from the outside it it looks not
> like a very pleasant 'place' :-)
>
>> The advice about saving
>>   a bit of land is very sound in this respect and, in my view,
>> psychotic delusions are much more about the fictive construction
>> of land than the deterriorialiation of land as such. Maybe,
>> making new territories (David Wood talks about time shelter) is
>> what the de and resubjectifications of psychosis are about.
>> However, I can only speak for the lands I have made and
>> abandoned. They are of little interest to anyone but myself.
>
> I dont think so. In all psychosis similar themes seem to flourish: like 
> the
> thing with rays, the flip-flop of paranoia and megalomania, and 
> experiences
> of complete union.
>
>> It
>> would be interesting to hear from another pathway through
>> expereinces of psychosis.
>
> I would say...read my book "Pure Waanzin". Unfortunately however, it is 
> only
> in Dutch.
>
> Have a good time!
>
> Wouter Kusters
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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