From: simonini-AT-HomeNet.com.br (Eduardo Simonini Lopes)
Subject: Re:  destratify; cancer, schizophrenia, aids, osho
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:55:15 -0200


Jeanraiso said:
>
>I am aware that all of that is extremely simplistic ; but I am happy to
share
>it; and would be interested by feedbacks or continuations and to know if
some
>of what I tried to express is  related to some already well known
philosophy
>of langage stuff, and which one.
>
>Jean r.

Your e-mail remember me a lot about what Krishnamurti said about life and
transformation...

I was always facinated with relations between Krishnamurti and Deleuze and
Guattari..., And i agree with you... at the moment we, to be human beings,
need to live in social systems, we filter the reality using the social
references... This references are our prision but at the same time our
liberty, because this references give us the tools to make ourselves human
beings (as Vygotsky point)...

Eduardo - Brazil
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Jeanraiso-AT-aol.com <Jeanraiso-AT-aol.com>
Para: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Data: Domingo, 3 de Janeiro de 1999 10:26
Assunto: Re : Re: Re : Re: destratify; cancer, schizophrenia, aids, osho


>Unleesh wrote:
><< ...one of the interesting diagnostic characteristics of Schizophrenics
is
> their "Inability [or unwillingness] to Filter" ; they lose their filters
...
>>>
>
>yes and... in this state of no-filtering aren't you still filtering
something?
>namely the ability for distanciation and noticing similarities and creating
>words that honor that discoveries;
>and the feeling of community that come with it;
>
> I imagine that scene in paleolithical times:
>one day , at the beginning of langage, one people looking at her recently
dead
>fellow, instead of staying in the here and now flow (like  the chimpanzees
do)
>suddenly takes distance with her attention,  notices some
>similarities/differences   between the dead body and her own , between this
>encounter and a past encounter with a dead fellow, starts imagining her own
>'death', feels excited and anxious from that realisation, and creates  a
new
>vocal to celebrate that anxiety-excitment-awe; something like: "she is
dead!";
>the other people are attracted by this new vocal creation; they come close
and
>start noticing a similarity between their own experience in front of the
dead
>fellow and what the new vocal triggers in them; and they start to be
>fascinated by that and to sing and dance together "she is dead";  and that
>increases the feeling of community-anxiety-nostalgia for the here and now:
>that is the first mourning; and then it becomes unbeareable, they have to
>plunge again in the here and now: they invent the  first feast;
>but soon they name it a "feast" and  all the symbolic-dramatic-complex-
>evolutionary circus is on track...
>
>and it seems impossible to come out of the circus; if you think your are
not
>filtering, by saying it (like osho,  or a schizophren) you create
attraction
>or repulsion, and fascination, and thus filtering...
>and you could only find new ways or more healthy ways to play it; to
relearn
>to plunge in the here and now  and weaving new threads between extatic
>attention-time and social attention-community-time. Even if the social
becomes
>extatic (like in Osho's ahsram at its best or in a groupe of a few friends
>starting to be very free with each other) your are still confronted to what
>relationship you have with the non-extatic social and its tremendous
inertia;
>(its interesting to notice that in the fascist Oregon period of Osho the
>neareast city outside was considered as an ennemy)
>
>I am aware that all of that is extremely simplistic ; but I am happy to
share
>it; and would be interested by feedbacks or continuations and to know if
some
>of what I tried to express is  related to some already well known
philosophy
>of langage stuff, and which one.
>
>Jean r.