Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 16:23:34 -0800
From: John Young <jya-AT-pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Deleuze's suicide


There is a time for Peirce, when fearful dour reigns the mind,
and a time for Derrida, when playful irony unreins the mind.

Peirce pondering war, the real thing of widespread carnage, 
not playful scenographic terrorism ("they did it, we wanted it,"
Baudrillard marketed a fast-think idea), Peirce saw no firm 
ground for philosophy which is nothing if not playfully liberating 
of the need for firmness, rigidity of faith, Derrida would taunt,
as Sartre, sucking Peirce through Husserl's straw, posited
neant as the premise of post-idealism philosophy without
comforting precedent no matter how desperately desired,
now matter what prayers were sent to state, church, family
for protection.

The firmness faithful were appalled at Sartre's nothingness
rather than somethingness as the ur. And they still are.

But they have never known loss of faith, or hide that terrifying
possibility with earnest affirmation that there must be something
before there is nothing. Silly Sallies, they are.

Deleuze's suicide, if it was suicide and not murder which I
doubt, is most appealing to the faithful who ever exculpate
themselves of homicide of disbelievers. Peirce certainly
doubted his courage to face nothingness, and for that is 
admirable in a humorous way.






At 09:46 AM 12/31/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Yes, because Peirce said "experience begins when our frameworks break down."
>Not when we infintely play out their ironic possibilities as in Jacques.
>enjoy walter davis
>At 08:11 PM 12/31/01 +0800, you wrote:
>>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.
>>> 
>>
>>
>>
>