Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 15:56:42 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Guillaume Ollendorff <ollendor-AT-grolier.fr>
Subject: Re: time (slipping through objectivity thread)



dear vadim

At 13:21 22/12/96 +0200, you wrote:


>15 MAY 97
>Dear Guillaume ,
>
>> >
>> >
>> 


>Liano's initial objection to my posts have been that i propound a "true"
>D/Ganism. The trouble is however primarily not mine. It's far from being
>clear what schiz.anal. is: a description of how "IT"/ID functions or a
>prescription how it should? 

this a response to your long post that ithank you to have sent. i cut it due
to the respect i have for the list members :)

Ok. i still do not agree with you vadim perhap's because i stay fresh about
that and i do not know anything about PoMo (it took me at least 10 times to
get what mean this). i don't think you can classify people like this.
Deleuze as foucault hated schools ("ecoles de pensee"), because they felt as
individuals human being.the i=only thing is that you have to accept that
what you write depends partly from the time, civilisation, country, culture,
economic system you live in. But i don't think you can reduce deleueze as a
post modernist, just because this doesn't mean a lot of things.

coming back to objectivity i will say that it reminds me the kelsen debate
you learn at law school.
kelsen is considered as a positiviste because he refuse to consider justice
(in the sens as the law as it should be, the general purpose of law). kelsen
say, just consider the text/jurisprudence you have in front of you. this
guys tells you it's not a question of devoir etre, but a question of etre.

so he attacks the naturalist who analyse the law in comparing it with the
justice purpose : hey guys you can not analyse something you do not have
right under your hand. the purpose is different for any individuals, you
loose all objectivity.
but at the end kelsen is more naturalist than the other. 
one of the major law principle is that a text is valid when a higher text
validate it. that's how nazism is valid in a pure jurical reflexion.
but...end with his thought kelsen tell us that the constitution his
validated by a fondamental law : wich is : you have to abey to what's
decided. the only way to make it works.
this is not description anymore, this is prescription. and kelsen invent a
fondamental law that is as much a fiction as 'l'etat de nature' is.
result : kelsen was anti nazi also, which was a hole in his thought. he was
more or less a naturalist.
worst he was a naturalist who was not admitting it. 

so what you have, l'etre is also a devoir etre. can not separate one from
the other, because, you human, read/see/live with it.
you can not classify in schools... 
this is the same for D&G reading. their description of the world is a
prescription, and their prescription can not have any objective reading TMO.
because as said before it's related to intimacy and intensity, it's related
to the border and the inbetween the line. that's why a 'poetic' reading of
it (i find also than chaos theory is poetry, that's certainly because i do
not know anything to physics) is an average reading of it. i don't think
that i plant a knife in the back of deleuze/guattari theory. the only
objectivity is the words that are written, this is like black sabath record,
you can suicide yourself after a night listening to it as american tennagers
did. because you have your own reception of it. and ozzy really sings like
the demon is in you...
it's the same for something as straight as a law text. you have the
interpretation that you want to have, even if you have a minimum, a common
interpretation that you can not get out. this text say "do not kill
anybody". yes, there's an objective view of this. but, case/case this is
different (self defense, war, euthanasia ). the only reading that exist is a
case by case one. 





Obviously this question begs evry system,
>and the history of science is a history of its avoidance. You prefer to
>treat D/G work as "poetry", and in so doing avoid again the problem
>which should be addressedat long last. Your option, forgive my saying
>so! is an instance of PoMo basic strategy which as its practitioners
>assure us, is a potent weapon against truth/objectivity claims peculiar
>of the Western tradition. 

i do not get it exactly. go on further. 


>>
>
>-- Well, all i can say that on the mundane /practical level, as a
>subject of the practice of everyday life i wholeheartedly share your
>sympathies (zappatism etc). But, sure, you do not suggest that we should
>abandon intellectual labour? that would be luddism of sorts.

of course not ! 
but are you telling me than your intellectual labour can be differnet of
your intimate/day to day convictions ? that what you live is in
contradiction whith what you think ? then you live in a "devoir etre" no ??
you really make a differnece between practical and theory ? the BwO od
deleuze comes from his practice of theory. no ?


i'm just saying : i read D&G because i find a higher level of discours for
the action i do or intend to do, a sort of global line (un cadre) around my
conviction.
but as isaid i pick up, and forget what i do not get. and this is probably
the source of misunderstandings i surely do.

then comes your major argument : D&G uses the desire concept and they do not
change it, move it towards something new, they keep all that oedipian
reflexion in their arsenal concept. and all the repression that comes from it.
i do not get it. cos' what i read was exactly the inverse ! 
they say : desire is not this but that. if you follow my postulat, then you
will act like this this -> BwO, nomadism, becomings....
so where is the problem ? are you saying that their conceptual arsenal is
finally the same one and that they can't break barriers with that ?
tell me more !!



>> this leads us far from the time subject !
>-- towards the "shit/res.to theory" problematics - a subject of my
>exchange with Liano to whom i'd like to offer this post as a preliminary
>answer to his questions.
>
>
>by the way thanx to stephane caille for  his suggestion about michel serres.
i bought it but i still did not read it .

merci beaucoup !


hugs to you vadim and to all the other that had the courrage to read it
until there.

yours.
guillaume.

>
>> 
>> hugs !
>> 
>> guillaume.
>> 
>> by the way :  i fuck j chirac on a regular basis...woooooo<
>that's my attitude towards ben natanijahu!
>vadim
>
>
>:)
>