From: "Juha Rainio" <Jrainio-AT-Sato.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:32:02 +0200
Subject: Re: Some lingering points on Deleuze & mysticism


On 12 Jan 99 at 18:15, Michael Rooney wrote:

> And whatever mysticism could be buggered forth
> from Deleuze would, I imagine, bear much the
> resemblance to the mystical tradition as, say,
> Nick Land's atheology bears to theology.  (And,
> at a further remove, be to new age mysticism
> what Land is to American fundamentalism.)

What is "the" mystical tradition you are refering to?

Mysticism "buggered forth from Deleuze"
is similar to the "mysticism" in certain traditions
of Zen, Dzog Chen, Mahamudra (Tilopa, Naropa et al),
Carlos Castaneda. All of these traditions, or at
least some of their originators, are typically against
all kinds of mystification (and new age didn't even
exist during their time). In these traditions mystical 
experiences are derived from "killing the Buddha", not 
thinking (anything!), _not_ trying to transcend the immanent 
(especially in Mahamudra and Dzog chen). Some yogic 
practises are ascetic only because people are doing serious 
experiments with their bodies (since they don't 
want to end up like Nietzsche-the-god-of-deleuzian-scholars), 
not (_always_) because of religious beliefs. Some 
Zen-masters could get further from mystifying  
than few western scholars I've come across, or 
daddy-Deleuze for that matter.

Thus I'd say some mysticism is mystifying and some is, 
for purely experimental reasons, amystifying. 

Juha

ps. It would be rather arrogant to think that in no
other culture in no other time has anyone been able to 
understand mystification than we, just now, in the west.

pss. As implied, I'm not fond of mystification not new 
age.


 --

  Juha Rainio 
  email jrainio-AT-sato.helsinki.fi

 ---