[D-G] malgosia, Virginia, please your turn to speak.

[hwenk]

Hello Liza,

with proud ness I meant the worth that one gives to oneself -
to be a little be more poetic that are the own eyes who
look with joy to oneself (old Spinoza said
beatitude or perfect ness tied to the idea of oneself).
Now as Spinoza also pointed out, the idea of perfect ness
became in time a social one, that are the standards.
A pretty girl has to look like,
a intelligent guy has to know,
a creative thinker has to have unconventional ideas and so on.

These are the common shared values and are mostly upper class, right.

The loneliness you mentioned as
a condition for develop own values
is indeed a old technique from monasteries
and people going to the desert as a hermit.
The normal way of psychic live the is, that you are confronted with
your desire to other people and
the problems unsolved in yourself,
hindering to be your own best friend.

With a very likely good end, you overcome your problems in
managing to become your best friend and look with joyful exes on you,
normally with more strength as you became are a little bit
strange to the normal hectic of live, knowing
by own experience that a lot of things
are not so important as before you had been alone for  while -
as you very importantly described.

In a certain way this is in my eyes not a value as described by Spinoza
above,
but a kind of also bodily friendly feeling for oneself.
This seems to be for me much more important as the backbone
of personal freedom and happiness.


O.k.?



Here starts the digression about dimension and strings
(can be omitted by readers not interested in it)

You already got a right sight on dimensions:
a point has dimension zero, a line has dimension one,
a surface has dimension two, a body has dimension three.

Now as you know from philosophical discussions
being virulent already at the time of Descartes,
the rationalist were always confronted with the question:
Why has space  exactly three dimensions -  deduce from
pure reason!
As you know too, this has not really successful be done.

Now already Descartes gives the construction of coordinate systems,
where the axes x, y, z are rectangular at each other.

How did the mathematicians enlarge this to higher dimensions?

Now rectangular means a right angle, 90 old degrees
or a quarter of pi, the last taken in the length
of the circle as radian measure.
Now the mathematicians in linear algebra,
in vector spaces, the modern analytical form of Euclidean spaces,
made a scalar product measure the angle between two vectors,
that are directed straight lines, by their length and#
the cosine function.
<a,b> = length of a times length of b times the cosine of the angle between
a and b.

The length is measured by the Euclidean metric, which is
the application of the proposition of Phytagoras to the
projections to the coordinate axes x, y, z.
Square root sum of the squares of x_0 , y_0 , z_0 - the coordinates of the
vector.
You can also define an angle between vectors of n or more dimensions:
Two independent vectors define a plane, and from the point zero you can go
with a circle with radius one
from one vector to the other - taking the shorter way. This gives the angle
for arbitrary dimensions in radian measure.

Now in the Euclidean metric and the scalar product
we can add more coordinate axes, we got only more summands under the square
root:
square root square of x_1 square of x_2 ..... square of x_n.

You may find this boring, but it is also used in Deleuze: The Euclidean
space,
a little bit puzzled, being the mathematical represent ant of the state.


In this way it is done in Euclidean spaces.

If you need the topological definition,
broadly speaking the border of a
set of the power of a continuum is one dimension less than the
original set, you can look on a book on topology,
for example Whyburn, Analytical Topology.


Now string theory, a little bit popular by Stephen Hawkings book
on a short history of time:
The ground idea is, that instead of points without any
dimension and extension as in normal as Newtonian mechanics,
one puts a closed curve - the string - as starting point for describing the
movement of particles and bodies.
Sometimes it gives some troubles therefore.
Now, in the development of the formulas
describing the tubes of the movement of the string, the energies and the
velocities
there is one point, where we have an equation which holds
only if the dimension is taken to be ten.
This is then satisfactory from a mathematical point of view,
but physically everyone asks: Where are the left seven dimensions?
As far as I know this question has not be answered in a
sound way - also in regard to experimental data.

I think that maybe enough for now.


Greetings Harald Wenk




-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of Liza
Kozner
Sent: Freitag, 2. Dezember 2005 20:40
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] malgosia, Virginia, please your turn to speak.


it's not a phantasm. if you think by common notion, outside of the
imagination, you can learn to see how it works, not only the ideas that are
anchored by intellectual discourse, but and thus out of anykind of
interpretation, propaganda, you see how it works, how wee have or are being
asked to surrender some part of ourselves for the highest powers of society.
it's really not a phantasm. it's not immediately visible. you could get
hallucination, see subliminal message and want to destroy your clock, your
tv as a mystic. but what is important is to resist, to fight, not only to
love God. it's the way of Abraham, to disobey, to turn the face away from
God as God turns his face the other way. so it's not the discourse of
imagination, of interpretation, of signs, is the discourse of analysis,
instead than being analysed, you give the power to your body, to other
people's body. much interested by artaud at the moment, when speaking  about
stage. in a world of Elie Faure's Indians
 digging
 in a mountain, people have lost, been stolen, either it is by capitalist
war machines either by the state, i am trying to make the analysis, what is
this, what is that, the proportions in the mixture, every elements, so
there's analysis, but yet i (and thus it's virtualities, none less real!)
and i want to work my mind in this direction at the moment.

  for what you say on not being proud. i think it's related because i don't
line up to the vanities of human's celebration, there search for happyness.
i think its part of class. classes who belong to the Image of Thought of the
State or Capitalism, the Upper Classes, or the Upper Men, want to have
standards, and i think, your judgment stems out from that, it's a Upper
Class standard that drives you to tell me I am not proud.
  Pride is actually a matter of solitude, it's alone that you find pride,
you have to invent your own values. It's not that there is no pride, but
it's a virtue, not a moral, social jugment. ok?



hwenk <hwenk at web.de> wrote:
  Hello Liza,

it looks like you are not very proud of yourself.

Sometimes the machinery and the world which is about to
swallow one up or deform one is only a little bit
a phantasm. As in Deleuze there is no phantasms, as far as I know, it may be
a thinking with its affects almost on the whole to the own mind.

Often the world does not know anything about the cruelties she does to
people thinking to be a victim of her.

As my advices do not end, this time I give a
appraisal of self-content happiness.
As we say in mathematics: "The details are left to the reader."

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of Liza
Kozner
Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2005 05:24
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] malgosia, Virginia, please your turn to speak.



Ok, i have just made this decision. Let's keep merry. Let's not debate.
Let's just keep everything as usual.

I am sorry if we have to be resigned, if we have to be little worms. It's
the world, the arrangements who want it. Let'us be dashes of vanishing
non-dimensional point, particles in chaotic fusion. Actualities disappearing
with not awareness of the speed at which they are vanishing.

And the example of mathematics? Well, it's good. Let's keep this aswell.
Part of the sum. We're part of the sum. Living in the imaginating
phantasmatic procession of algebraic numbers.

I am rotten. It's michievous. I at least voice my truth. Not a Maria
Bellen, saying, singing creativity and keeping silent. I am a worm which
speaks. It speaks on a list which is good as an absurdity. We're working for
the memory of a guy who decided there would be a list or lists.

So let's avoid my proposition for a debate. It's absurd as well. This is
absurd aswell. I like the way I am advancing, in the walls. My had crashes
and i go up up up in the realm of vanishing words, words with no meanings.
Like a snake I am growing.


---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org


_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org