Date:         Thu, 21 Jul 94 13:55:38 CDT
From: mer <MER1911-AT-tamvm1.tamu.edu>
Subject:      Re: deleuze & guattari


Erik:

I empathize with your touchiness, and by making that distinction between
your "aims" and mine I do not in any way mean to dismiss or to marginalize
buddhism as a discourse capable of offering much to problematize western
assumptions of both mind and culture.  I have my own touchiness with regards
to this issue, and wish to distance myself from any such identification,
including and especially Deleuze and Guattari.  I have been resisting, with
little success so far, becoming swallowed by their prolific generation
of frames of reference (take my essay on trope theory, transgression/complicity
theory and physics tropes in Freud and D&G, for example), so in some way to
avoid explaining and applying their thoughts from within it, as it were,
--perhaps an impossible task. What can I say, I'm just a self-conscious kinda
guy.

As far as models of stochastic processes are concerned, they are always
superimpositions, never revealed.  That they are assumed to be revealed
indicates the extent to which the global construct (BWO) "forgets" its
fictional status when it assumes operational control.

Fractal geometry is to turbulence what calculus is to cannon balls what
cinema is to human action what music stave is to pitch and duration: the
spatialization of time.  I write on the classic topoi as geometrical superimpos
itions onto a human event, and about contingency and geometry in the modeling
or simulations of thought in hypertext, especially how humans priviledge
the geometry; as many Deleuzeans know, it was Bergson who said The human mind
tends ever toward the condition of geometry.  I believe that this constitutes
the fuctioning of the body without organs.  Not necessarily a bad thing mind
you.....;-)

I'd love a copy of the Shaw essay.  Might you post it?

Thanks again for your response......mer


     ------------------