[D-G] Conclusion of todays debate

Lucy LeGentilSinge lucy100millionyearsold at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Feb 19 21:04:54 PST 2005

I am just returning from the conference we had one the
other ailse of the Institute. And by the way the
institute has been mapped by coïncidence, even though
it's a building dating from the 18th century, a bit
like DG have described Kafka had set maps for in
Kafka: A Minor Litterature. It has a long corridor
just like in Kafka.

I have been to the list also a little bit. And ejoyed
to see Gondo's interplay, even though it was not an
interplay that was promising of anything.

A few quick words to partners on the list.

James, first: Yes, it reminds me of Nietzsche idea
that an artist had to care for his audience : he is
responsible for creations that pre-existed this
present, sort of present passing. What I am wondering
is yet, despite of the retrospectivist value one can
bring to it if one were to frame the discourse we send
out of the work of us, along the classical Nietzscean
construction , and if we do not consider that
Nietzsches perspectives could easily move our
scientifics team here on their heads here in Zagreb,
like in a bizaroid Kafkaïan Trapeze Geometry, in such
a tiny retrospective limit as it is one we want to
convey to an audience of monkeys more than of humans,
as our experiment's shedduled to start actually next
week, as it has been reported to meet interactivity of
members on the list (the active one and awaiting we
are of new members yet) as we look solely towards
their becomings as they recently involved, as their
becomings, an inscription (referent to cases of
singularities that we could explore in later times
like intercessors, not abstract thinkers of course) in
the GENERAL INDEX of the Lab's, we will give to all of
you at the end of the experiment this non exhaustive
INDEX of behaviours (becomings) who are the reason why
we are Scientists of Art rather than members on the
list so far saying we would be "bad artists" faking to
do "labs" and "monkeys" would like us to akgnowledge
us to be in front of them; rather we speak for them
indeed, than we joke non-sensically, we thus wish we
could say about this idea of Friedrish Nietzsche, that
we do think that  we beleive in Pessah, in the exit
out of Aegypt of the Scientist. We think that it is
all together the reverse: we are not carrying in an
abyss those would or would in a certain degree, and in
the inverse negative degree of interest they would
impress upon the list formation of Sign, and because
it was developped over years of activity as a
PRESUPPOSE for the members activity that they had to
combine under certain ways, to which mixed the degree
of freedom and the Formation of Sign which was each
participant's invention in the wonderful process, we
need to load it a bit, so as to give it immanence, we
thus in reference to what you say, think it is the
reverse than what you have exposed, James: the
experiences, and it is in itself an interesting FACT
to observe, the experience is rather destroyed by the
CENTRAL FIGURE it seems to take upon the List
activity. Which says something on the functionment,
the working well, of the list: It seems that
micro-powers are attributed to certain parts of the
list in reason of the activity of nodes of attraction
of light, (black holes), that is to say, would
Nietzsche disagree that the list uncapacity to develop
equates to the proportion to which its memebers are
attracted by nodes of attraction, and, thus as this
testifyes for the members lack of interest in their
own options in giving sense to the list course, by
exploring, by deconstrcuting the logic of PRESUPPOSE
of the ENDO-order and EXO-order in the Planic REFERENT
which constitutes this list, haunting the list could
say a new Deleuze, which de-creates an environment,
which in turn the artist would want to enrich even by
set in seriality of the nodes of attractions to
lights, of the elements which can enrich it and that
we need each to invent when we speak so that the list
remains a cybernetic list aimed towards it's singular
moments in the Philosopher's ethical behaviours that
we study (because we are oedipian total freaks of
deterritorialisation of the somtimes (an)ethical
behaviours, and the degrees of deterritorialisation
that this implies in each case or act of

In this respect, to Adriano

Adriano: No!, it's not oedipian. By the way we just
encourgae your work of critique because it was done in
a difficult time, the list was under critique by both
attackants, and only an act of desperate courage and
trust in potentiality of your own self could outplay
the forces of micro-nodes of attraction that we had
seen progressing fast in the e-writing of Cyber Liza
Kozner and Cyber Adline Vanlindenbergh Bisoux
NousNours, it is not oedipian.

James again (before we come back to you Adriano): We
need to progress, we need to go in Exile, and create.
We are both right. But we live on the list at the
moment we give and take expressive obssessive currents
under the surface of it. So because we see your
interest: yes, we love you too, so we tell you: the
request for EXILE, is parallel, okay is parallel
parpendicular, but it is something which goes along
wishes for an incarnation of the subjectivity, and a
liberation of a new objectivity . EXILE is necessary,
the critique, and that's what we wanted to tell you,
the critique which is obsessively centered on certain
members becomes so ridiculous that it requires to be
digested conciously. Thus your claim that we do not
care for the reader is not consistent, in this respect
okay? The critique made of the laboratory will to
experiment, which (sorry for this ad hominem furor)
Syd Littlefiled : started, has caused great confusion,
and destroyed some experiments. We instead than
suggesting Syd's and people who prefered other
discussion, actually claimed they prefered the past
discussions. Claiming so they had informed the list
other members that we could easily understand the
lab's experiment as the NEW TOPIC of discussion,
meanwhile they were at the same claiming they WANTED
BACK THE OLD discussions, and this they did, for the
NEW as a transcendental object. I don't have actually
the time to analyse this. It would be fool of me but i
wish I would be able to do it after next time Syd
takes the time to explain it by psychologizing it at
once, instead than anchoring on points of mental
blocks translated in concepts and psychologised
himself, to which the psychologization (of ONESELF)
--I hold many respect and intellectual  freedom
possible to the artist creator of the NEW that SYD
means to his competing rival/friends (environment's
REALITY to we seek to determine objectively by
psychologizing it). The Signification Newtork, of the
de-psychologisation of the mind also calls one to an
other formation of Signs that would allow one to
discover in the encounter with other psychologies of
the conceptualisations as they are met at work on the
contemplative attitude at play in spectators
practicing the list like herbal becomings we talked
about previously (of which we claim to take part as
active researsher, and to which claim other can relate
differently) But whatever the winds claim to be at
play as it strikes the herbs mechanically or as a
magnet shield under which Unconsciousness exists alive
and insists like light on chlorophylyan cells of the
plants we surround ourselves with like said Spinoza to
us Ethically, we ask hereby for the generalisation of
the claim that claiming claim is in itself (may-be) an
event, and also, that it becomes expressive when the
claiming of claim becomes DETACHABLE, that is if it
allow itself to objectivise itself, and thus at will
to connect to something else than to this
generalsisation for which we have but a limited
pleasure in exposing here, as we are formulating at
this present stage of our edifice already other ideas,
quite more detailing than signifying our built ideas
(atheism of VanGogh see WIP? AFFECTPERCEPT
part)(building a sentence is part of the benefice we
have gained from James in letting other go inside the
"syntagmacy" of the generalisation we lay claim
forwardly, in may-be this ending experiment with my

Adriano: Okay, did you read oedipianially all this? No
of course. MMM I was just oedipianising, sorry. Don't
you beleive this: what I did was chaotical, not ugly,
so we cannot understand Liza and you are there not to
worry as you think we would may-be not say this, you
mm I am crazeyyy j,t,j 

Liza (: -- Reterritorialize in a corner each people
say . Do not magnify. If you think about Deleuze and
going letting networks of Signifiance develop outside
of psychology. <-- Concept? Not sure. Hallucination.

Lucy Strawlkhassler

allowed. questions? send them on the LIST. sorry for
mistakes and failure to write without the ZZZZZ i get


ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list