[D-G] more capitalist than the capitalists, more socialist than the socialists
sylvieruelle at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 21 14:37:59 PST 2005
i found it, thanks: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2084
On Feb 21, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Chris Chapman wrote:
> Nice, please check out 'The Way of All Flesh'. Butler brings the
> vision into direct focus as he aligns the force of the earth with the
> of choice and interpretation. The story is about five or six
> generations of
> a pastoral English family, beginning in the 15C through to early 20C.
> elder male's name is always Ernest Pontifex. 'The Pontifex' as it
> comes to
> be called, reflects on itself and the unchanging path of its
> life, in spite of the history of genetic and environmental factors.
> you shouldn't read it. It's kinda' repetitive...)
> I think Harald asked me about Culture and why I think it's dangerous to
> appoint 'all' to its dicta? This is a short answer and in some manner
> includes my idea about technology over which we may or may not agree.
> "It is widely felt that these words of psychiatry and psycho-analysis
> somehow fail to express what one 'really means'. But it is a form of
> self-deception to suppose that one can say one thing and think another.
> It will be convenient, therefore, to start by looking at some of
> words in use. The thought is the language, as Wittgenstein has put it.
> technical vocabulary is merely a language within a language. A
> of this technical vocabulary will be at the same time an attempt to
> the reality which the words disclose or conceal." (19 'The Divided
> R.D. Laing)
> Sincerity of utterance isn't compromised by gizmos, which is what I
> you mean, Harald, by 'technology'. When I think of technology it's in
> perhaps a special sense - I think of the machine which is a model for
> organization, lovingly parodied by Kafka. In short technology is the
> neither organic in the sense that it proceeds by continuity or
> mechanical in
> its contiguity, but the heterodyning of each such that a binary system
> be produced but no single agent is essential to its procedure. In a
> bureaucracy there is no boss, her office is 'as much at the end of the
> as it is on the top of the ladder'.
> A gizmo's ecstasy is produced by the how it effects to produce
> instantaneity, 'it does not partake of phenomenality', is how I think
> Clark puts it, he may have been quoting de Man. This ecstasy of the
> can only mimic the effect of a group-decision which disembodies
> empties it into an apparatus of signs. Gizmos certainly do help affect
> tyranny of bureau-technology, 'the psychiatrist rebelled when I pulled
> out a
> tape-recorder for our session.'
> Speaking of mimicry, has anyone read about Povinelli's experiments with
> apes? Apparently the same bundle of neurons that fire when an object is
> recognized also fire when that object is desired. Apparently s/r chains
> doesn't fracture into modes.
> When we make Culture the miracle from which reality flows we lose the
> language for the words, metaphors for signs. No one is denying that
> are becoming immaterial, it's metaphors that have body.
> Stopping for my tea,
> Chris .
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org
> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org] On
> Behalf Of Sylvie Ruelle
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:33 AM
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] Things said and things unsaid
> When I see people being for example "anti-bush" i say ok, he stands for
> something they do not like... but what do they like?
> the mass media is exhausted and one is no longer to get any ideas from
> it anymore. (excuse me if i am wrong in any way in what i am trying to
> say, being "american")
> so one does a "corretage" (sp?) and goes to the archives and books...
> thus one might read deleuze and guattari (economic thinking...
> capitalism and schizophrenia).
> what you say here reminds me very much of a book i read a long time ago
> called "Erewhon" by Samuel Butler... where the machines take over in
> the future.
> What is scary is all these people not being ever able to catch up in
> anyway financially (Kafka images). I am originally from Los Angeles
> and it is very clear there that more and more and more people are going
> into poverty because of many complicated factors. There simply are
> exhausted physically, the wages do not pay the bills, the city is
> terribly overcrowded, and the jobs are not enough, and to top it off
> everyone "migrates" there... so from your ideas I sort of see a race
> going on with different areas of the world competing for the upper hand
> financially and the key being in technology... But what kind of
> technology? and i think it was said a higher technology... better
> It is scary to think of the world as forces, regardless of human
> beings. For the earth does not know what it is, i think someone said
> (D+G?)... for it is alive.
> On Feb 21, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Dr. Harald Wenk wrote:
>> I think that is a very good objection.
>> The main thing that has changed, thatr it is no longer crucial to be
>> "anti". The generation of 68 wasinst the establishment and suppression
>> in any form.
>> My generation, which is more that of 78, tried a little to build up
>> some alternative ways of living, substituting families by communities,
>> non autorative education and non-hirarchical organisation of work.
>> This has led to a own left wing scene, with the obstacle that it was
>> from the majority of normal people. Thes people were also interested
>> in overcoming the difficulties of family life and hirarchic work.
>> But as the left liked to critize the things in such a way that only a
>> change of system, e.g. the destroying of capitalism, is able to bring
>> the communication, in a emphazic sense, broke down.
>> Especially the attitude of making the majority feling guilty as their
>> was said to relay on the explotation of the third and fourth world,
>> has been
>> deseastrous in this respect.
>> If you look, the main profit in the western countries
>> is earned with indusrtrial and postindustrial (media, software) goods.
>> So think this economically utterly nonsense, the wealth is a effect
>> of higher
>> productitvity based on higher technology.
>> If anyone remembers, the original critic of Marx goes, that capitalism
>> is a bondage for productivity. This is indeed the case, but the critic
>> often, that the development of technology goes too fast.
>> I dont if you imagine what kind of freedom, first of work,
>> automatization brings.
>> I my eyes, and also in the eyes of the economy, a lot of paid work
>> today is more or less
>> superflous. Now as people need income, we got a problem of
>> unemployment, which is a expression of wealth.
>> Now this wealth goes in zthe totally wrong direction,
>> as it sharpens the concurrence among the people, who want to be
>> This is also thge case for very educated people.
>> It is a effect of technological pprogress, that more and more
>> qulified work becomes superflous.
>> Another effect of the high productivity is that human work is
>> exorbitant expensive compared with industrial produced goods.
>> So there is a strong urge to avoid it as a cost factor.
>> In short, the economical "empire of freedom" has grown,
>> but most people do not participate adequately.
>> In this situation it is in my eyes necessary to develop
>> a economical thinking, especially concerning the distribution
>> of money, which on one hand encourages technological
>> develpopment and on the other hand let a lot of people profit of
>> the spare time gained by the higher productivity of the machines.
>> Thats economics.
>> On the other hand i don't see what cultural interest
>> are for the majority, to suppress something cultural worhwhile.
>> The poorness of mass media is mainly due to the exhaustion of the
>> having no real time and habit to think about things and develop goood
>> In short, thinking in suppression is not the main thing anymore,
>> perhaps it is time again
>> to think of solutions for the majority, incliding oneselft, of people.
>> Concerning the undevelopped countrys, it is necessary, as tghe
>> industroal take off got a new phase,
>> to do this with high tech, by mas production not so expensive, which
>> is ecological effectiv.
>> Harald Wenk
>> Am Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:08:39 -0800 schrieb sid littlefield
>> <falsedeity at lycos.com>:
>>> To clear some confusion and ask another question:
>>> My original post, that started a bit action, was not a condemnation
>>> of all poetry or creative posts to this list, nor was it an attempt
>>> to maintain the "original identity" of this list. It was a particular
>>> reaction to "bad poetry." The fact that it has gotten such a response
>>> from certain members (some even calling for my removal) strikes me as
>>> strange since I did not mention a specific entity that should
>>> question their own posts. This unconscious reaction seems to me to
>>> verify my original post. So now that that is cleared up, I have this
>>> For a poilitics of the left to not only continue to exist (which it
>>> seems to barely be doing at this point) but became viable once again
>>> it seems that we should re-think the conditions that we find
>>> ourselves within today, and how these conditions differ significantly
>>> from the time of the 60's, a time when most of the philosophers that
>>> we are drawn to are writing and/or beginning to formulate a thought,
>>> or series of thoughts. Is idenity, the signifying language system,
>>> and so one, truly what (to use a sort of out of fashion term)
>>> oppresses us and, more importantly, the third-, forth- world? I am
>>> thinking of this in terms of D & G's use of and understanding of
>>> Marx. Can we not understand Capital today, at the beginning of the
>>> 21st century, as already opperating on a level of
>>> non-identity/a-signification? Yes, capital must always
>>> reterritorialize (the revolution of the means of production feeds the
>>> desire that capitalism has promised to fulfill) but what if it no
>>> longer opperates under the signs of identity?
>>> So this is my question:
>>> What has changed since the May '68 in terms of our conditions for
>>> political thought and action?
>>> "Speed is the elegance of thought, which mocks stupidity, heavy and
>>> slow. Intellegence thinks and says the unexpected; it moves with the
>>> fly. A fool is defined by predictability." Michel Serres
>> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul:
>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
> Ms. Sylvie Ruelle
> rw_artette_lc at yahoo.com
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
Ms. Sylvie Ruelle
rw_artette_lc at yahoo.com
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari