Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:11:58 +0800
From: Paul Bains <P.Bains-AT-murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: Deleuze's suicide


Dear son of genet,
I can empathize with much of what you write but to set up St. Jacques
Derrida this way is truly absurd. His 'work' is a minor but time consuming
detour. Peirce, (or the post-Percian John Deely) for all his stutterings
and 'steps' did more than Jacques could dream of. Wake up and smell the
coffee mate. And what the fuck is a 'sufi'?  
Happy New Year.
paul.
How can you kill yourself?


At 07:09 31/12/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>        writing machines reveals to us the weak links in the Deleuze
>machines. BWO finally is not a real thing, not a literal thing, but a
>madman's fantasm ie. Artaud. So Derrida was right in that last interview
>and so it is. Be well and be of good cheer. Deleuze was a Christian and did
>not even know it himself.        This could also be the result of the work
>with Guattari which only weakened the Deleuzian project for itself, and
>made him a star that was not a real star-- I mean one that endures --but
>just a satellite a flash in the philosophical pan. His suicide undermines
>all of his work, just as Heidegger's later Nazi ideas makes for questions
>about the value and ulitmate meaning of even his great early work.... On
>the other hand one can see everywhere the greatness of Derrida by the
>results of his work, by the sheer qauntity and weight of the discourse of
>it, the presence of it; of course the quality of work born of Derrida'S
>work... All of this has been so relieving to realize and to see how wrong
>and how much of a failure, esp. the so called co-productions with Guattari
>are. Tha t is where Deleuze sadly went off the rails. That was the Big
>Error, the schizo analyst is what watered the Deleuzian project down.And
>everyone who looks in their heart of hearts and examines all of this will
>see this is what happened to Deleuze. Look at the solo work of Guattari:
>from a critical and theoretica! l perspective it has produced nothing but a
>mass of incomprehensible jargon and the concrete achievements have left
>nothing but more jibberish to be unmasked. Poor sad Deleuze drawn into all
>of this nonsense because of his what? His illness, his alcoholism, his
>whatever, his denial of responsibility for his weaknesses before his own
>generation of philosophers.   All of this is part of the essay to be
>published next year.
>-------------------------------------------------------  >I am reading
>Henry Corbin, Man of Light in Iranian Sufism, and I sense a  >deep
>resonance with much that I have read in Deleuze. Can any one here  >point
>me to where Deleuze may have deal with such mystic, gnostic, or 
>>theophanic topics as I address below?  >   
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
>