[D-G] "Rousseauistic"?

Aaron Bradford abra076 at ec.auckland.ac.nz
Wed Feb 23 10:44:29 PST 2005

To restrict Nietzsche to a conservative ideology is to cut off half of his body.
While undoubtedly anti-democratic (Zarathustra and other texts are fueled by
this), Nietzsche was far too subtle and far too explosive to be either
conservative or liberal; he was beyond this. His embracing of the Dionysian
runs counter to conservative valuing (as his forays into the Apollonian run
counter to liberalism). He used what he needed (what made him powerful at a
given time--and thus was good) according to the situation.

The revaluing of all values is both conservative and anti-conservative. Anti in
that it destroys all previous values; conservative in that its aim is the 
creation values, often times, for Nietzsche, ancient values. But even this is
an over-simplification. It may be necessary to cease thinking in these

Deleuze has always affirmed a Dionysian Nietzsche, which, it seems, toward the
end of Nietzsche's thought and life was Nietzsche. Deleuze's Nietzsche may be
the best portrait of Nietzsche we have.


Quoting "Dr. Harald Wenk" <hwenk at web.de>:

> Hallo,
> 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
> combined
> 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
> present
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list