From: "saphi.regnauld" <saphi.regnauld-AT-wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: gravitas..-
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:59:29 +0200



 Bonjour a tous et toutes

 Very interesting message Linking deleuze and Gravitation!
Gravitation is a very rigid set of equations. the planets cannot move
outside of it. Though, no body , today , knows how this force actually
works.

 In Anti Oedipus (french book, page 329 chapitre "intro à la schizo A" ) D+G
write " Et un type ou pole schizo-revolutionaire, qui suit les lignes de
fuites du désir, passe le mure et fait passer des fluxs.."  and "mais le
révolutionaire sait que la fuite est révolutionaire.."... "a condition de
faire fuir un bout du systéme".

I do not think gravity is a deleuzian must. I 'd rather think D+G do not
appreciate that kind of "naturel law". remember Newton  when he writes "la
puissance par laquelle les corps mettent en mouvement les perceptions des
choses "(De la gravitation, french book by Gallimard, page 139). Gravitation
is a mysterious thing that is not based, linked, to any material known
object..... and that is true anyway. (i am sorry to quote Newton in french,
but I guess that on a list that quotes Deleuze in english, it is not too
great a problem)

 Gravitation is not  quite clearly what D+G like to think of desire.... Too
Spinoza like probably. desire is not something that should be compared to
any sort of physical forcing. (Physical as : derived from  linear equations)
desire is more probably linked to a physical approach of interfingering
human beings (Physical as : derived from body inclinations). I think D+G use
gravitation as an image, not as a scientific reference.
 I do not know. Do they?
 amicalement
hervé

----- Original Message -----
From: "avuydanbqrth gdhmndg" <hasardous_CUNT-AT-dashnet.zzn.com>
To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:40 PM
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.
>