[D-G] mona has

[James Depew]

I am not sure that understanding is the goal.  Or that there is a goal
at all, for that matter.  Deleuze and Guattari's background led them
to *express* something in a particular form.  It seems to me that they
tried their best to show how much the form can vary, from artists to
scientists to perverts and philosophers.  Life is there, they all say,
how do we find it?  A field of forces that takes on unlimited forms. 
Absolutely, the writing is extremely difficult.  But the possibility
of connection is there.  Once you start, you can't stop.  Or, more
accurately, you have always been doing it.  I don't know, however, if
conversing about it can work.  You express yourself, I express myself.
 And maybe this is your point.  In order to avoid a kind of confusion
over what is being expressed, one has to take the time to attend,
intensely, to what is being expressed.  And more than that, why it is
being expressed, and how...
That means investing alot of time and energy, just like reading D&G. 
Except, are we really going to do that for each other and for
ourselves.  Are we really going to take that much time to make sense
of what appears to be "the same old string of semicoherent slippages"?


On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:47:16 +0200, Dr. Harald Wenk <hwenk at web.de> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> in my experience, reading Deleuze and Gusattari is more than hard,
> because the needed backround is vast.
> To be honest, such as you are writing in this group, I doubt
> that there is a lot of real understanding - which in my eyes is more due
> to the unneceassarily complicated presentation of D&G, which, as it is
> tested by its seminars,
> Deleuze could do much better, clearer and understandable.
> The main point is in create a very complicated new code, or a lot of
> concepts,
> which are in no obvious relations with the other, also very complicated and
> elaborated concepts in Philosophy - if you are so kind to have a look at
> Husserl
> or Heidegger or original Kasnt or Hegel oe Schelling - even Spinoza is
> original
> not easy to grasp, what had led to a lot of misinterpretations.
> Now, one can ask, is it worthwhile?
> It would be concerning the schizophrenics.
> Physics, as you know, has really become great, as it left with Galilieo and
> Newton everyday experience - which has been code in arestotelian physics.
> The first law of Newton, that a moving body stays moving in a straight line
> with unaltered velocity is noot everdy, this is Aristotle, where is to be
> a mover for keeping the movement, otherwiese it will stop sooner (mostly)
> or later.
> Now Quantum Physics and the the theory of relativity are based on
> experiments and mathematical theories, which are both far away from everday
> experience (the Michelson Morley experiment is not everday, similar with
> Plancks thermodynamical considerations of the radiation of black bodies
> leading to his quantum hypothsis).
> This had led to the for yoe all well known state, that modern physics
> is not understable for non specialist - or did anyone not studied in
> physics
> or mathematics really understand the popular writings of Hawking for
> example - and that is not
> in first regard due to Hawking?
> 
> But, to come back to D&G, in the theories of mind and thinking
> especially philosophers are not to bring about not to
> start from everday thinking - what do I say - speaking or writing
> behaviour of normal people - as for example Heidegger in zthe preface of
> "Time and Being".
> This reminds strongly on Hegels "The way to truth is not to go in
> housegoat".
>  From the viewpoint of exploring the human mind it would be of
> much interest to give sophisticated interpretaion of schizophrenic
> experiences.
> As you all know,
>   Freud has elaborated his theories mainly the experience with neurotics
> (with an overrepresentation of "hysteric" women).
> His tackling of psychosis canot be seriously be spoken of as satisfying.
> This one of the starting points of D&G in "Anti-Oedipus".
> This book is, as the title and the interviews around show,
> more of critical value.
> I think, there a few people who have read this book, who didn't ask
> themselves -
> as a question of character more or less in despair - what the hell
> a "machine of desire" should be.
> This a main thing. If you mention to a professional philosopher or
> psychatrist
> the name of D&G t
> they will mostly show, that they didn't read or understand it.
> So what should a poor psychotic patient do with this?.
> 
> And that doesen't work.
> 
> Things in this area are complicated enough and the tendency to
> bring it back to normal live - "This illnes doesen't really exist" -
> "Ok, sometimes they dont't think at all,
>   sometimes they cannot controll their thoughts,
> sometimes they cannot stop thinking anyway - but do not we all have
> some times, where we have such experiences - so, it is quite normal,
> only the frequency
> is a little bit unusuall."
> 
> D&G broke down almost every bridge to the
> rest of scientific discours and that in  very
> hard to understand way - affording a lot of
> non standard background -
> so that there is no real influence and
> working further on their grounds.
> But the theme of schizophrenia or psychosis
> or non everday experience in the human mind
> as a field of rersearch for philosophy or
> new original psychology is almost blocked by them.
> This is not more than regrettable, this is a catastrophe.
> To speak as a chess player, they have made the worst out of
> this variant of thinking and publishing.
> 
> To calm a little bit down. In "Chaosmose" of Guattari you can find, if you
> are used
> to the slang, a more understable presentation.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Am Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:30:25 +0000 (GMT) schrieb verlainelefou at yahoo.com
> <verlainelefou at yahoo.com>:
> 
> >
> > Dearest Forest in the east is the priestof repression sounds like she
> > got yer number and its like finding the
> >
> > voice in deleuze sans guattari c'est n'est pas possible.
> >
> > Its all a creation and a becomings.
> >
> > Dada
> >
> > So this is the second deleuze-guattari list that I have joined just
> > intime to see it fall apart?  Not enough for a pattern...not yet
> > atleast.  Does anyone have a point?  I have had poems sent to my
> > inbox,which are interesting and could stimulate discussion; I have had
> > someincoherent free-association pass my way, which also could
> > beinteresting; besides that, mostly banter, oh, and someone asking
> > foretexts.  Do I have this straight?  People are criticizing someone
> > forasking for texts?  Under the pretext that it is some sort
> > ofhierarchically driven authority loving captialist request?  What????
> > Am I missing something?  (quite possible since I have only justarrived)
> > Is it: promote creative conceptualisation but let's not readthe books
> > that inspired that idea because they have come to representthe
> > functioning of an overcoding regime?  Those of you criticizing:you have
> > read Deleuze and Guattari, right?  Or did the ideas manifestin your head
> > spontaneously?Now that would be
> >  intersting...foris
> >
> >
> > all  my words are on parole
> > http://fictionsofdeleuzeandguattari.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >  ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> > _______________________________________________
> > List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> > Admin interface:
> > http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/m2/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>