[D-G] "Rousseauistic"?

Dr. Harald Wenk hwenk at web.de
Wed Feb 23 09:59:04 PST 2005


Deleuze and Guattari are neo-anarchistits.
The commom justification for goverment in any form is, that
people don't manage to do themselves.
The anthropolic variant is to say they are to violent, greedy,
egoistic anfd espially to lazy  for learning the complicated things of  
division of work on free will, as a "conditio humana", that means
written in the essence of commeon mankind, so unchangeable.
This is the line of argumentation for the justific<aation of institutions,
in germany most prominent developped by Atnold Gehlen - in his case  
with the idea of man being insufficent and so there was a need to develop
techniology (from stoneage on)  as compensation.
The anarchistic view is the other way round:
Take away the goverment, and people and things will flourish.
Peolple, especially in the near as neighbours, know one another very well
and have all abilities - grounded on a rousseauistic unconconisness - to  
solve their probelems - which doesnt't get to complicated
if not always tied to the problems of the other 6 Billion people living at  
on our earth, but stay for the most local.
The second line of argumentation for state or goverments is:
there are too much people, masses - this aspect was strongly discussed
till the 1930, prominet by Ortega y Gasset - so there arise problems
of regulations that are only solveable by states and bureaucraties in an  
emphatic sense - an aspect emphasized by Max Weber.
If you look at history, before the 19Th century the role of the
state or nation in everday life was not great.
This changed indeed with the growth of population - with Malthus
struggle of nurishing following as a fix idea for the century, reaching  
until now.

It may astonish you, but Nietzesche himself was very antianarchistic and  
antidemocratic, looking at masses at something "Growing by itself" and not  
really worthwhile.
He was dreaming of the war for the rule of the world - which was tried  
 from the ground of germany two times.

But being psychological very sensitiv and original and against dumb  
economy and bureaucraty, he
was taken up by a lot of sensitiv people, especially in arts.

Indeed he was an ideologe of the conseratives, this was tried to be  
pointed out
by Lukacs.

And, you can reread the Ant-Oedipus, the unconsciousness is rousseauistic.

This also tested by posing the problemof "the firing squad":
How can soldiers shoot at the sanme time without being commanded by a  
general (or sergant or someone).

Hope you got a glimps

Dr. Harald Wenk

Am Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:15:12 -0500 schrieb Jeremy Livingston  
<jeremy.livingston at gmail.com>:

> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:08:19 +0200, Dr Harald Wenk said:
>> Deleuz and Guattari thought the unconciousness as "rousseauistic" (in
>> Anti-Oedipus),
>> a healthy natural state. Thre only unhealthy desire is that of  
>> suppressing
>> somebody, especially your nearest.
> Whoah, I don't know about that. Rousseauistic? The schizophrenic
> experience, or the experience of the sorcerer/lycanthrope, is anything
> but gentle meek or mild. Their use of Nietzsche is not a pose: the
> unconscious is rough, cruel, transgressive, alien, freak, bestial,
> cybernetic, sidereal.... This is what they think of as the "healthy
> natural state". Not necessarily hateful or violent, not necessarily
> sadistic, but definitely Sadean, not Rousseauvian.
> They affirm that, and celebrate it. Can we? (This is not just their
> challenge, but the one they've inherited from Nietzsche....)
> Jeremy
> _______________________________________________
> 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