[D-G] grammar of the Last Men's Tree of Science

[Gondo -Minnie]

Mark, thank you for sending here. Its just I am also wanting to create a little cave wherin the lion can breathe the spider smelling armpits. so its why i shall not read. i think its important to create something else than just our narrative. we are living important times, everything is so exciting once you go to a certain disposition. what is important says Spinoza is to stay affected by the most possible thing, to increase our capacity to be affected, to increase our self and wherin we can do different things. NZ and Pretzel is obviously busy too much with the classical way of relating together in Accademia and Intelligentsia. I think Intelligentsia such as this list has testified forth was in need to turn against itself, not for the prestige of such a braverous act, but to satisfy the suprahuman quest for liberty.
 
the rhizome versus tree thing is part of this.
 
what is tree, can alsways return to movement, to connectible rhizome. and by connectible i call forth people who can learn how to do these connection. a people which lacks. . .
 
and so its where there is confusion if language is not there to helpto construct this people, but stutterings. not litteral stutterings, but a language that is not yet existant and which is not grammaticised yet. which is not, not, dominated by any pre-order supposed things. we need to construct the language while building the possibility to rhizome the tree. and no word is there to help us here, even the words rhizomes and tree, as supposedly always bringing the eb and flow of past dominant signifiant nodal (branches and trees) back into a larger scale adventure.
 
we yet need to stop being aggressive here . Pretzel is stubborned by his self centered Brain. as if only what he has understood matters enough to decide what good and whats wrong. that is Judging, and we re sick of it!!! enough!! ok.?
 
so i will read what you say next day because the world wait for me to have a lion smelling spider armpits.
let carry on the fight of the people which is not yet there. and litteraly not yet existant.
 
bye.
 
An.

Mark Crosby <Crosby_M at rocketmail.com> wrote:
--- Gondo -Minnie wrote:
> dear Mark Crosby and others,
> to better point the animal in danger, ie. negative
> dialectic, lets see today this part I have excerpted
> from TP of Foucault:
> "Everything straight lies," murmured the dwarf
> disdainfully. "All truth is crooked, time itself is
> a circle."
> "Spirit of Gravity," I said angrily, "you do treat
> this too lightly."

Camel is burdened, lost in the desert storm; crouching
behind oils well.. A child drifts by and camel becomes
a lion pouncing, devouring the child. But, bounding
off to slake thirst, lion becomes child with poisoned
thorn in paw ("these glorious days were not
trouble-free" - Deleuze, introduction to PUF's 1965
NIETZSCHE, in _Pure Immanence_, translated by Anne
Boyman, 53-55 ;) 

Private & public are incompatible, and between them
child blooms new passions. But illness is not required
here - Evil is unnecessary - only desire and
challenge, a "secret intersubjectivity" or "shift in
perspective" (58). Illness, then, paints grimacing
masks, leading to "death-like rigidity" (59), the
triumph of tropes. "Among the girls of the desert",
fantasms mock, mirages beckon! At last, all the masks
are blown away. And what is left are desert sands,
whirling into fundamentalist dervishes or collapsed
into apathy! The lesson of this fable, Deleuze tells
us, is that "The secret of philosophy, because it was
lost at the start, remains to be discovered in the
future" (68)?

_PSYCHOMEDIA: The Journal of European Psychoanalysis_
(JEP 1996-1997)
http://www.psychomedia.it/jep/number3-4/contpern.htm
has a 3-page conversation about Mario Perniola's _The
Sex Appeal of the Inorganic_ w/Sergio Contardi. 

Still as confused (after reading Steve Shaviro's
recent review of the English translation of
Perniola's book - see
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=440#comments) but very
intrigued by what Perniola says regarding positive
rather than negative 'logic' and how he dismisses
Contardi's insistence on sublimation, where "all human
sexuality is inevitably intellectual" and symbolic. 

Symbols, supposedly what are most free to play, are,
ironically, automatisms (laws, habits, signifiers).
Icons are affective & indexes are perceptive, while
symbols are surface concepts. 

Perniola says: "I have never liked the notion of
'sublimation': it is connected to negative thought,
lack, Catharism, and to the world seen as Evil. If,
when you talk about the intellectual character of
sexuality, you mean its 'spiritual' character, I do
not agree with you at all. Organic sexuality has
always been marked by the Spirit or by Life: does
sublimation show this movement between Life and
Spirit?" 

Mark, about to click (which is what amounts to
movement these days ;)
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org

		
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos