[D-G] Re: "Rousseauistic"?

[Dr. Harald Wenk]

Hello,

to make it short: is anyone there who has any expierence with the
threatfull unconcious beast? So what you are talking about?

The term "rousseauistic unconciousness" is a quote from Anti-Oedipus, not  
a interpretation!

Here Nietzsche on masses:

Über die Massen müssen wir so rücksichtslos denken wie die Natur:
sie erhalten die Art.
                                                                                 [760]
[Friedrich Nietzsche: Werke und Briefe: [4], S. 2. Digitale
Bibliothek Band 31: Nietzsche, S. 8690 (vgl. Nietzsche-W Bd. 3, S.
421) (c) C. Hanser Verlag]

This transalates to:

About the masses we have to think as reckless as nature:
they maintain the species.


Look also
Beyond good and bad 228,

where you find:


Keins von allen diesen schwerfälligen, im Gewissen beunruhigten  
Herdentieren (die die Sache des Egoismus als Sache der allgemeinen  
Wohlfahrt zu führen unternehmen -) will etwas davon wissen und riechen,  
daß die »allgemeine Wohlfahrt« kein Ideal, kein Ziel, kein irgendwie  
faßbarer Begriff, sondern nur ein Brechmittel ist - daß, was dem einen  
billig ist, durchaus noch nicht dem andern billig sein kann, daß die  
Forderung  einer Moral für alle die Beeinträchtigung gerade der höheren  
Menschen ist, kurz, daß es eine Rangordnung zwischen Mensch und Mensch,  
folglich auch zwischen Moral und Moral gibt.
[Friedrich Nietzsche: Werke und Briefe: Siebentes Hauptstück. Unsere  
Tugenden, S. 22. Digitale Bibliothek Band 31: Nietzsche, S. 7033 (vgl.  
Nietzsche-W Bd. 2, S. 692-693) (c) C. Hanser Verlag


.. the general welfare is no ideal, no target, nor an in anyway  
comprhensible concept,
but a emetic.


If you like a greater piece, you can read again:
David Strauss as a write and as a confessor in
Four unseasonable meditations.


Good night


Dr. Harald Wenk




Am Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:11:58 -0800 schrieb Sylvie Ruelle  
<sylvieruelle at earthlink.net>:

> "maybe the unconscious can be seen as a child and playful and it is only  
> beastial and viewed as mean because it is repressed in today's world..."
> just my i don't know what i am talking about idea too
> :)
>
> On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Jeremy Livingston wrote:
>
>> Aaron has very nicely said what had to be said about Nietzsche. (What
>> he hated were "the anarchists", nihilistic bomb-heaving utopian
>> socialists. Did he hate democracy? What he hated was herd
>> collectivism, and the idea of inherent human entitlement -- is that
>> our only idea of what democracy can be?)
>>
>> But I still want to remark about the unconscious in Anti-Oedipus. Yes,
>> Deleuze and Guattari are anarchists, after their own fashion. Yes,
>> they believe that everything would still get done, and better, in the
>> absence of a state. This has nothing to do with their conception of
>> the unconscious. Yes, they believe that the unconscious is not
>> inherently destructive of all social bonds -- nobody ever believed it
>> was.
>>
>> If you invoke Rousseau, you are suggesting a view of human nature that
>> is gentle, kind, naturally giving and altruistic, moderate, temperate,
>> given to gambolling through the fields holding hands, etc. I'm not
>> exaggerating by much here, am I? But what is "human nature" in A-O &
>> MP? The unconscious is not a humanist; the unconscious is a machine, a
>> factory, a beast (actually many beasts, whole packs of wolves, whole
>> nests of rats); it is animal, cybernetic, sidereal. They talk about
>> drugs, mania, perverse sexuality.... No one who positively cites HP
>> Lovecraft in the course of developing their understanding of human
>> nature could possibly deserve the filthy label of "Rousseauistic".
>>
>> Throughout the works of Deleuze, the figure of the demon or devil pops
>> up from time to time. Usually very innocuously, with deceptive lack of
>> ostentation; but always positively. I consider that telling. The
>> politics of desire is about unleashing the unconscious: D&G knew
>> perfectly well why so many people are afraid of that idea, and
>> revelled in their discomfort.
>>
>> If you want to make 18th century comparisons, D&G have much, much more
>> in common with William Blake (whom I don't think either of them ever
>> read, more's the pity; especially "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell")
>> than they ever did with Rousseau.
>>
>> Heck, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not going to
>> persist in a back-and-forth. Just wanted to offer something to think
>> about.
>>
>> Jeremy
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>> Info:  
>> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
>>
>>
> Ms. Sylvie Ruelle
> http://home.earthlink.net/~sylvieruelle
> rw_artette_lc at 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/