[D-G] Conclusion of todays debate

Dr. Harald Wenk hwenk at web.de
Sun Feb 20 14:15:46 PST 2005


Can anyone tell me what is going on here?

Dr. Harald Wenk

Am Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:04:54 +0000 (GMT) schrieb Lucy LeGentilSinge  
<lucy100millionyearsold at yahoo.co.uk>:

> 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
> speech-cyberwriting).
> 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
> mind.
> 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.
> Bye
> Lucy Strawlkhassler
> allowed. questions? send them on the LIST. sorry for
> mistakes and failure to write without the ZZZZZ i get
> out!!
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info:  
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org

Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/m2/

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list