sylvieruelle at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 23 12:33:50 PST 2005
For some reason, when I try to think of Nietszche (whom requires a lot
of authority, in my opinion, to speak about), I always look to Wagner
as an example of what Nietszche avoided later in life. I think
Nietszche IS much more subtle and humble than this type of man of
"power"... Wagner being the paranoiac and Nietszche being the
Schizophrenic or perhaps a sort of psychotic. I think they use
different types of memories and Nietszche is much more sober, much more
joyful. I have thought of the tears Nietszche would shed and in what
spirit he would smile and say, "Thus is life..."
On Feb 23, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Aaron Bradford wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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>:
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> and have all abilities - grounded on a rousseauistic unconconisness -
>> 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
>> 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,
>> until now.
>> It may astonish you, but Nietzesche himself was very antianarchistic
>> 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
>> 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"
>>>> a healthy natural state. Thre only unhealthy desire is that of
>>>> somebody, especially your nearest.
>>> Whoah, I don't know about that. Rousseauistic? The schizophrenic
>>> experience, or the experience of the sorcerer/lycanthrope, is
>>> 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....)
>>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>>> Archives: www.driftline.org
>> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul:
>> 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