From: "avuydanbqrth gdhmndg" <hasardous_CUNT-AT-dashnet.zzn.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:40:54 +0200
Subject: gravitas..-


hi mark. phallakus, and others, HELLOO!labas??

i am sorry if i feel to you too familliar. i have been to Marocco, 
this week, one week. it was crazy. i disconnected a lot of things. 
took drugs. met people. another universe. outside the occident, the 
west. how i tripped! very literally funny. it depends how you travel. 
i did it nice. now in madrid since lunes, feeling like going back to 
northen lights. i lost my previous personnality. not the first time, 
but this time it went so quick. everything so different. i need to 
talk a bit about things such as deleuze (:)ontology.

yes, the clinamen, democritus. well, some of that is lyin remanent in 
my thoughts, a swamp. i was like you, watching very seriously the 
moon, and wondering.


phallakus says its a force between two masses. ok.

einstein, micho kaku and superstring i have lots of interest in it.
so i know, i am not that totally that much ass like a fool it can 
seem to you dears, asking about gravitation and such simple old 
things here, but in the name of the nomadic war machine, all this 
serious science could be challenged by outsiders , others in this 
marginal position i want, i beleive.

i know also about the things said in ATP, thanks though. the sense of 
the question is, or could be translated as the following thing:
given all that, can you understand that an interpretation of 
gravitation (the field of gravitation explained by einstein), can be 
understood, NOT by Science, but by Philosophy, and if possible, the 
much talked about dynamical ontology. if the problems of very 
contamporaneous science can be solved by a nomadic war machine. mochi 
mochi.if it can of course, but i am trying to do it, may be for fun, 
or for artistic reaso. i am here trying to see with people, on the 
list here, if its possible to see what can this give to our 
understandings. maybe "just" for creative reasons, the only 
solutions. but it can be interesting no?
okay, thanks, if you agree with this propositions. its some kind of 
construction, it needs time. and i am probably not very far. here i 
propose some thoughts, i have had. and i was blocked, i wanted to 
find people with whom to talk about it . like here on dg list. 
choukran.(

so this is my experience. i was thinking: any mass, like the Sun, the 
Earth, is attracting other mass, and these are matters.

What interests me, is to think, precisely, gravitation, the affects 
of forces towards forces, OUTSIDE the Earth gravitation field.!!yeah!
Philosophers of the outside rim.
To my thinking, forces have always been there, they are the 
multiplicities, but they relate each differently with an other, and 
in time. the only way to understand their forces, is to struggle. 
they meet each other, and give and affect each other, compose, 
divide,, thus. this is basic spinozico-deleuzism, isn, it? no, tell 
me?¿

So the questions which is blocking me is this one: is gravitation, 
which seems to me a real issue, NOT pertaining to the state apparatus 
of capture, because if you walk on the Moon, the gravitation is 
different, in certain special condition, you can relate to the 
gravitation field, on Earth, differently (absolute 
deterritorialisation). the question is : which i already asked 
yesterday: what causes gravitation (like said inna, prognostically, 
or critically, , clinically, can we modify the field of gravitation 
of the Earth? can we see gravitation as an event, in process, a 
happening in space, which needs to be modified, technologically also!)
how so??? by which arrangement. is it too early?

What is philosophically, thus, the nature of this question of break 
between the world of particules, and the world of gravitation.



I understand more or less, Mark Crosby, from your quibbles such 
question could easily be answered, probably if its working out after 
we need , by the notion of synthetising the forces, and in-betweenums.

the work of Dg, etc, are so exhausting, we need to make 
prolongations, to go further. we shouldnt explain, we should be 
less "cultivated", which is a form of nationalism. we need 
creativity, not intellectualism, or culture of past philosophy. 
philosophy is a practical thing, it doesnt have to talk about itself 
anymore, i beleive. its a becoming everybody which is needed for the 
philosopher.

okay. its nice to talk here. thanks EVERYBODY for the conversations 
very edible everything is so strange. lots of love. bye!, sorry,)


















Get a free e-mail address at http://dashnet.zzn.com
____________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE Web and POP E-mail Service in 14 languages at http://www.zzn.com.