Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 15:13:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Orpheus <cw_duff-AT-alcor.concordia.ca>
Subject: dialectical/destratify




	Unleash:  It would seem you are the one who is misunderstanding
the nature of dialectical materialism. There is no room, no way and no way
to even think the so-called terms of mysticism in dialectical materialism.
Marx would not take this subject seriously -- not even the Marx of 1844.
Nor would Lenin, nor would Sartre who spent many years re-thinking this
subject. The work to read if you have not read it is Search for a Method
and Critique of Dialectical Reason. Both of which have been translated
into English. It is a given that atheism is the base of dialectical
materialism. And if you want to change that that is fine. But then this is
another kind of thought and another sort of thinking. Prob.quite
legitimate and animated by its own logic, and legitimate on its own terms.
But why call upon the resources of the great atheistic thinkers and
tradition to rationalize and justify what is your own experiment. There is
no need .... Measuring differences between pebbles has nothing to do with
the idea of synthesis and certainly nothing to do with the cancellation
and depassement which occurs in the dialectical movement.  In fact
"mysticism" god and the rest of it would be seen as moments in the
dialectical movement of history. I am referring here to dialectical
materialism not the dialectical movements of consciousness as defined and
explained by Hegel. 
> 
> "there are good reasons why D&G dump an analytic of contradiction - and 
> one of those is that it shuts down concepts such as "line of flight" - 
> try and be a little consistent please"
	
	Exactly: the notion of contradiction as defined in the Hegelian
and in the dialectical materialist tradition is exactly why it was
abandoned by Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and others. One cannot even begin
to think about lines of flight if one is bound in by the notion of
contradiction.
	Guttari tells us that there will be irresolvable contradictions
between different groups with different interests. This is exactly why
Sartre and other dialectical materialists stood against. The whole notion
of totality exists to resolve contradiction and discover "truth." -- The
question of matter which deleuze and guattari explore and discuss is not
even touched by Sartre and others like him. They could not even begin to
think about these matters. IT is also quite clear if you invoke
dialectical materialism you must remove the mystical ideas and Castenada
and others. There is no room for the wild which you seek in the dialectic.
That is of course one reason why Kierkegaard was so revolted as well...
	If this is what you mean then you ought not invoke such hot terms
as dialectics as that is precisely what the deleuzo-guattarian project is
not about.
	And it is not a question of aesthetics but fundamental questions
about being and becoming .
> if you're reading the term "contradiction" in an overly Hegelian manner, then
> I understand your objections, but I'm meaning them in the sense of a knot or
> tangle of not-fittings, of heterogeneous tendencies which cannot be summated
> into a unity ; they overflow any one aesthetic or "take" on them ...



	Re: the below: There is no such thing as ideological atheism. I
have never heard of this term before. But to attack the tradition of
enlightement in the name of some vague allegiance to sufis taoists and
others means you dont understand what happened in philosophy in Europe and
how hard and difficult it was to mount  the campaign that let People think
and not just moon around superstitious sillineses. And maybe you are not a
philosopher or a philosphy student and that is fine if that is the case.
But maybe you ought to think twice before putting all thought --
Includingthe Rationalists into one Box. 19 century rationalisms means what
to you? exactly - a lot happend in the 19 century that was important and
valuable.  What can a sufi or taoist offer to one who is a student of
Philosophia - I would say nothing except the vagueness represented by its
own  "mystical" and so-called "intuitive" inferences. But to say or imply
it is better than and offers more insight more understanding more clarity
to us in terms of knowledge that can only be described as ignorance of
what philosophy does. And remember it is Philosophy that is under siege
these days and not the mystics who are everywhere and nowhere. Self-help
groups and socalled new ager thinkers of all sorts package and always have
sold their wares on the market. And let them., that is good, Vive la
Difference. However it has nothing to do with Philosophy .

	These days I am trying to read Deleuze's book Expressionism in
Philosophy and it is hard work. ANyone out there reading it?
 

 Ideological atheism, ideological-- All this ought to be quailfied.
However...
> materialism, ideological antimysticism is still ideological, and any dogma
> gets in the way of free thought. In this day and age, I'd argue it's not the
> dogma of Sufis, Taoists, and Tantriks which are really clouding thought, but
> on the contrary, the dogmas of scientism, 19th century rationalism,etc

	This is strong language : what war what metaphors to resort to..
mystics might be on a line of flight. So what who cares? You think Schizos
give a hoot about this...? I read your posts now off/on for some months
and it is my impression you dont grasp anything about schizophrenia except
some vague idea that you have. What are you Anyhow ? some sort of
cousellor? some gestalist??

	All my schizophrenic freinds suffer terribly, they hate their
condition and 2 have tried to kill themselves. No fun.... speak not of
this suffering lightly. D&G whose name you invoke to perhaps contextualiz
and realize yer own projects knew that schizophrenia -- the ones in the
hospitals were the terrible victims a   process that had gone off the beam
and they were -- esp. Guattair as a analyst -- attempting to find some
answers to the problem. They were not against philosophy and they were not
against thought rational or otherwise.... You speak of schizophrenics so
abstractly it amazes me. I think that what you say on your site about them
being rebels is oversimplified and insensitive.

  Most schizos I know would do almost anything to end their suffering.
Perhaps you ought to read AO and read the ABc summary by Charlie and see
what Deleuze had to say about the schizos. Dont confuse fiction with
reality that is not being on the Outside but it is merely being literary
and don Quixotesque.....


	

 . Again,
> I don't want to start a war here, but if there are lines of flight in
> mysticism then we are absolutely free to appropriate them ... the
> schizophrenic is free to snip any codes and sample them at will ...
>