[D-G] mona has

Sylvie Ruelle sylvieruelle at earthlink.net
Tue Jan 18 23:14:30 PST 2005

this limit is interesting.
the schizophrenic reaches a limit and must jump beyond it
the break down comes when the schizo has not the resources and cannot  
CREATE the resources to mutate it's originary world
it's world of impulses
the impulses overwhelm itself
this is where the schizo (like artaud) goes to find a certain milieux  
where it can expand this limit
but artaud was not a paranoiac
so he folded (good)

On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Chapman wrote:

> Maybe you're having some dinner or walking your goat, Harald,
> Let me give you the lines I'm thinking abt:
> "What transforms the breakthrough into a breakdown? It is the  
> constrained
> arrest of the process, or its continuation in the void, or the way in  
> which
> it is forced to take itself as a goal. We have seen in this sense how  
> social
> production produced the sick schizo: constructed on decoded flows that
> constitute its profound tendency or its absolute limit, capitalism is
> constantly conteracting this tendency exorcising this limit by  
> substituting
> internal relative limits for it that it can reproduce on an ever  
> expanding
> scale, or an axiomatic of flows that subjects this tendency to the  
> harshest
> forms of despotism and repression."
> (362, Anti-Oo, 1998)
> There is a beautifully ambivalent reception to capitalism in Anti-O, as
> though it were the avatar of the socius, fighting the repression of  
> social
> codes that constrain. This ambivalence begins in the first chapter.
> Chris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org
> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-driftline.org-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On
> Behalf Of Harald Wenk
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:04 PM
> To: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] mona has
> Hello,
> you dont seem to realize, that the experiences
> of schizophrenics led G&D to deny the autonmy
> of the "I"s, expressing themselves, as they have nothing other to do.
> This relates to philosophy in struggling of unity of the world,
> which is all in all very clouded and obscur, but a constant stream
> in thinking of east and west.
> In this regard, which is hardly not to be seen as very interesting
> for thinking people, pathological, especially schizophrenic experiences
> could give more solid empirical ground.
> And there is the danger to kill high forms of minds in the way as they  
> are
> treated now - which is really severe.
> That are some worthwile goals.
> Greetings
> Dr. Harald Wenk (Mathematician)
> Am Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:21:52 +0100 schrieb James Depew  
> <spatium at gmail.com>:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Admin interface:  
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Ms. Sylvie Ruelle
rw_artette_lc at yahoo.com

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list