[D-G] reterriolization, nihilism, new thruth seeking

Dylan Kerrigan rumagin at aol.com
Wed Nov 2 06:51:43 PST 2005

Is it that - authentic transgression engenders freedom from power 
(ideological interpellation/recognition and state apparatuses, as well 
as everyday life/culture) but it must then, and will be, reterritolized 
again. there is no constant escape from the structure only momentary 
life in a vacuum before the thing freed must touch down/be placed once 
more on territory - is this where the power to change world lies? Agency 
lies in the reterritorialization. the power arrives in becoming which 
ultimately is being again and so the machine continues onward. human 
power to change things is in not in the transgression but rather the 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:    Re: [D-G] reterriolization, nihilism, new thruth seeking
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2005 16:35:47 +0200
From:   hwenk <hwenk at web.de>
Reply-To:   deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
To:     <deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org>


as a promoted differential geometer I am happy to tell you that the
"victory of the royal euclidean space" over the manifolds by the isometric
embedding theorem of Nash
(The mathematician of Spielberg's "A beautifull mind") has overcome by
stratified manifolds, which are pieced together of manifolds of different
dimensions and with differnt metrics, making an isometric embedding in a
single eucledean space impossible.
This is not surprising, in general you can expect that in mathematics a
definition will
have some kind of generalizition, overcoming the limits somebody may think
to have detected.

Now to the question of the difference between deterroialization and
To make a simple start, there is freedom from something - that is
deterriolization -
and then, the new freedom has to be used for something new or old - that is
Now it happens, that things freed from a territoire are bound to an old
believe or something.
To take the for us most important case of thinking, we have, as Nitzsche put
it, Nihilisim, that is people
dont believe in anything anymore. That is deterriolation from believes and
ideologies, maybe religion
- this was Nitsches main problem - or politics with marxim or liberalism or
So thinking and belief is freed.
Now, as Nitsche talked about in the Zarathustra,
the great danger is that of decadence:
"Every thing has been already", eventually everything is boring, not
worhwhile fighting or working for it.
Already Hegel pondered about Pilatus' "everything is vain".
One possibibilty is to revive old believes, new synthesis and interest in
religion or metaphysics or philosphy
or the body or social welfare or arts or personal relationships or .....
But there is a deep rooted  kind of scepticism, not to believe or to show to
believe, for that is
washed out by modern intellectual critcal critizism (this has also been used
by Marx) - "ridicoulus" "childish" "naiv" "Unprofessional"
"from yesterday" "behind the moon" "out of the province" "not to take
serious" ...
The philosophical most serious root  and expression is Nietzsches
requirement of upright honesty.
Now the solution of Deleuze, in his book on cinema is:
"Healthy groups have illusions".
So, to do something, to be healty, to develop your abilities, to help one
onether to be happy,
a orientation in the last things is necessary, otherwise sceptcism may
always creep in,
 making you believe to believe in illusions. That orientation need not to be
But it seems, all believes are critized, did not withstand.
As a experienced intelllectual, I think I have to tell you that this is not
the case.
Critizism for being succersfull has to make strong ontological and other
suppsotions, not available by its own critizism or so crude,
that they are critiziable themselves.
To be a a little more direct, they promised things they do not hold.
So, in my eyes, by bringingf together the whole experience, personally,
scientifically, by arts by religion and by mental illness, it may
be possible to piece together what has been proved to be true already - as
mathematics for example -
and to get
new truth, especially in the realm imn the fileds covered by religion
and metaphysics by now. So the questions are open and not decided in a
negative, unsolvable way.
  This is also in the name of upright honesty, among others
- e.g. the  greatest happiness of the greates number.

With greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of Liza
Sent: Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2005 17:16
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] metaphors

deterritorialisation is caused by the will to power and the successive non
chess hurricane movement, it is an ethico esthetic whereas humans concerned
to map the movement of deterritorialisation,
it is coordination of neurons cells instead of competition in autopoetic

reterritorialisation is the depotentialisation of the will to power
NZ <pretzelworld at gmail.com> wrote:
Question: what is the difference between deterritorialisation and


Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org

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