[D-G] Re: Deleuze Impossibility to THINK
gondominnie at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Aug 24 10:24:31 PDT 2005
your writings makes me wonder about the confrontation of views.
the way the people start thinking according to a certain paradigm
likely they cease to be capable of offering themselves. they offer their vision,
their shaterred self or minimized eyesight into the vision, and conflicts can impede the development of certain visions once this minimal pattern has been reached.
Lucy Strawkhassler studies of Gondo are based on the notion developped previously by Virilio that the dromosphere is enacting the "minimal eyesight" attribute in each polygonal set with variagation constrained by the event horizon of an ABSOLUTE ACCIDENT, wherin we can understand we are led by the control and decision maker of this List.
if the latter are integrating the will to offer oneself, not as victim mind that, but as propagator of PHILO FOLIE, PHILO MADNESS, we enter into the doom, the shadow of ourself, and its dangerous then not to recognize the possibility in our vision to expend from minimal variagation to optimal status level with Lucy theorytic studies.
NZ <pretzelworld at gmail.com> wrote:
I returned from Berlin last week and everybody seemed to be doing
well, with their wireless internet and "Golden Girls" on TV. The idea
that europe will be flung into dangerous chaos by France's "no" seems
unlikely. Just like their vote last may, this vote just does not seem
imperative at this moment in history. (I am thinking of other
problems, like an economy formed by China and India teaming up with
bella Russia! it could easily swallow the dollar, the pound, and the
euro, combined.) So, France chooses not to downgrade their power by
voting out the '82 Commission and voting in the new constitution, what
does this have to do with Foucault, I would like to know.
I also need some help to see this mythic curve tracing "Nietszche and
Lou to Nin and Smith, finally betrayed by Foucault." I am much more
conscious of another mythic curve coming from Stirner and piercing
both Nietsche & wagner then going passed them through Duchamp &
mussilini, dispersing it into the american art world for a number of
decades, before hitting Foucault specifically at his anti-fascist
heart. I see parallels in these two tragectories but most often they
are contradictions of each other that are difficult to resolve. At
least at the end they both return to Foucault, who returns to Marx,
which is not so good for Nin's camp, but is really very revealing for
This all happened in the decadent period of late 1920's Paris. Nin has
Miller leaving NYC coming to Paris, signaling a huge new chapter in
american avant-garde consumerism (And-I). The court battles that
allowed Miller's work to be published in the US trod on some very
fundemental paradigms that were eventually shifted... but meanwhile,
Duchamp slowly leaves Paris for NYC, he has given up avant-garde art
for chess - basically because he believed chess to be immune to the
rampant commercialization that he was witnessing in the art world
(Nor-I). Later, after the war, people like Cage and Beckett devised a
frankenstein version of the pre-WW2 avant-garde that includes bits and
pieces of Duchamp's fractured legacy. Their significance is also tied
to the fact that they demanded paradigm shifts to be experienced.
They are like Wilde's Salome, the virgin who kisses the head after
decapitation. Then there is the other salome, Lou, the one who threw
nietszche into the abyss of Stirner's '"creative nothing", she is like
the pre-Dionysian goddess Cybele, asking for castration, but Nietsche
was unable to let it go, unable to see beyond Apollo and Dionysis, and
it was the contradictions in his German Ideology as Marx saw it. If
perhaps he could have been less german, or less male, like Wilde was,
perhaps he could find identity (And-I) with his maddening absolute.
But Stirner makes an insightful distinction that ultimately brings
this all back to Foucault. Stirner would never agree with that
fundamental post-structuralist idea, that as a product of systems, the
"self" is undermined. For Stirner, the self cannot be a mere product
of systems. True, but Marx wrote over 200 pages showing that this
german ideology was lacking significant depth.
So what of this EU? yes or no? At least in germany the Stirner-ists
are perfectly content with their "self" watching the latest
(10-years-old) american shows like "Friends" and "Home Improvement" on
cable TV. The day I left Berlin, the Jackson family announced that
Berlin is where they will be moving the Neverland ranch... "home
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari