Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:50:25 +0000
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: to destratify


Michael Rooney wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Daniel Haines wrote:
> 
> >
> > my question is - on what do you base your claim here that D&G "have
> > no interest" in mysticism?
>
> In chronological order:
> the implicitly approving discussion of Hume's
> Natural History of Religion (in ch. 4 of ES),
> which denounces all religion and mysticism;
> 
> ch.4 of NPh, where religion and bad conscience
> are said to be essentially linked and the ascetic
> ideal is identified as its highest form;
> 
> the criticism of negative theology (a staple
> of the mystical tradition) in SPE, chs. 3 & 11;
> 
> the affirmation of Lucretian naturalism and
> its denunciation of "all theologico-erotic-
> oneiric myths" in the 2d appendix of LS;
> 
> the criticism of religious transcendence and
> its figure, as opposed to philosophy and the
> concept in ch. 4 of QPh.
> 
> The letter to Phil Goodman in which he refuses
> "spiritualism" (GD and the Question of Philosophy).
>

 M - these are all fair enough --- but I don't think they relate to what
I would call "mysticism"  which is not synonymous with, mystification,
religion, theology, spiritualism or transcendence and negation!!! 
possibly I'm using the term in an unhelpfully singular way, but it's one
of those areas where there isn't a very flexible vocabulary to use... 

> In general, I would say that the importance of
> affirmation and immanence in Deleuze's thought
> denotes a general incompatibility with mysticism,
> which usually goes for negation and transcendence.

but I would say that it is precisely "the importance of affirmation and
immanence in Deleuze's thought" that connects to mysticism!!

> > don't know much about Lucretius or Spinoza - although nothing I do know
> > suggests an especially "anti-mysticism" aspect in them
> 
> Nothing personal, but this comment suggests that
> you know very little about them. 

ow! -  I cannot deny it's true.

 Spinoza in
> particular is a notorious enemy of religion and
> its mystical aspects.

hmmn -  but religion has no "mystical aspects" in terms of what I mean
mysticism.

> > ...and yes, I DO
> > know they were both "materialists"; but if you think there is some sort
> > of a dichotomy between mysticism and materialism then  --- then I would
> > like you to explain it to me.
> 
> Well, to simplify it enormously, let's say
> this: materialism says that what you see is
> what you get.  Mysticism looks for something
> more, something hidden and inaccessible.

no - mysticism develops and uses techniques that deal with potentials,
virtualities, becomings.  it is not a question at all of faith, belief
or any of that "look no hands" religious stuff - mysticism does not
involve invisible gods, or anything hidden or inaccessible. it is more
to do with uncovering what is suppressed, developing what is not
developed, accessing what we are "taught" not to access.  mysticism as I
understand it involves  self-development, self-transformative
techniques. yes, I am aware that "mystics" are associated with religion,
god etc... but my own view is that these are just the ways people have
(mis)understood or been able to express/give meaning to particular kinds
of experience  - for want of a better word, a "mystical experience" -
which does not mean some kind of vague fantasy or anything that is
transcendent or negative/anti-life.

as for materialism - well, yes, materialism kinda says what you see is
what you get (I know what you mean so I will not be pedantic about
it,);  which is both its positive power (-to say "this is it, this,
now...") but also its "problem" on two counts: firstly because it seems
to have convinced many people that "what you see is what you get" also
entails "and if I haven't seen it it doesn't exist"; secondly because,
as materialists, we are suddenly absolutely and unconditionally without
any foundation on which to base our actions. (actually, come to think of
it, it's also a problem because we know hardly anything about what's
going on and to say "what you see is what you get" usually begs the
question - however...)

 while I cannot understand the angst many people seem to feel about
being "free", this is a problematic situation. the universe is not an
ethical parable for us to base our actions and thought upon.  it's not a
story about anything, or an argument for or against anything, and
there's nowhere else to view it from.  no one's watching us, looking
after us, looking out for us.... this is materialism... but there's more
to it than that --- not in the sense of something hidden  or
inaccessible, but in the sense of YOU! you are actually part of the
universe.... and you're alive, and everything in the universe is made of
energy in motion, a flux of heterogenous matter... which I think is
pretty amazing; it's so amazing, in fact, that when I want to express it
the only words that have the right kind of force are words like "sacred"
"spirit" and "god" --- not words I like to use, being an atheist, but
who cares? who's checking? And of course, they could be taken as
negative words, words that put the universe a step away, hidden, but
that's not how I mean them -- what I mean, on the contrary, is that the
universe grounds itself, is it's own point.  

are you sure you're a materialist? to me, materialism=mysticism! why?
because mysticism is based on these ideas: 
1.that the object/subject division is illusory and can be broken down; 
2.that the ego self is not so important as it thinks it is and can be
side-stepped temporarily by inducing non-ego states; 
3.that language cannot "represent" reality and is of limited usefulness;
4.that "you" are a sedimentation of the culture that has produced you.
			
			---- sound familiar?? a little bit??
			
I'm a long way maybe from d&g, but it is their approach to matter as
flux that gets me here.  the universe is a flat multipicity in which
everything is material and everything flows. if we consider things on
this level then there is no inside/outside dichotomy - -- no
subject/object... this to me is the most important single idea...a
profoundly mystical yet also materialist idea... because if there's no
boundary but only a threshold between me and this keyboard I'm typing
with now -- if there's no subject/object distinction but only
thresholds, intensities, gradients, pressures and forces -- then 

			then
					then

there is ultimately an identity between what is generally called outside
me and inside me... and inside me is life, unconscious flows of desire
-- what mystics like to call the Godhead, but which i prefer to call a
desiring machine...and it is matter...MATTER!

(I'm sorry but I don't know how to SPEAK CLEARLY about this...)

if there is no outside/inside no subject/object

then   MATTER=GOD

			and
			
		MATTER=SPIRIT
		

in the sense that everything that's ever been attributed to god and the
spirit are actually MATTER, which is immanent, actual, real... the
opposite of God but also the same as it.

ever experienced yourself dying? all the structures of your conditioned
self slowly slipping away, everything that keeps your reality together
slowly breaking down

			down
			
				down
				
					down...
					
					you know what happens then?
					
					after "you" die?
					
		lots of people say you meet god... is that the dumbest 
		thing you ever heard?

				what would you think if I told you that you meet the 	
				outside? the inside is the outside and it is MATTER?
							

(ah, fuck it. )
	
	well, i tried.	
			
more will follow re: your other points...

dan h.
-- 
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/     
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/

Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.

We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.