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

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Wed Nov 2 09:36:37 PST 2005


the problem with the retorrialization is, in my eyes expressed by Deleuze
that normally the freedom is used to get in some old rigid structure, as you
in your response. Now, the rigidity of the structure maybe due not to bad
will, as to exploit people or
to suppress them, but these structes - institutions and social roles -
are much more rigid than in former days on the ground of the large number of
people and the long history
and also the short term membership of a lot of people to them.
There is little social continuity, which makes things much more rigid and
gives a drift in only looking for fast formal results.
If you come new anywhere, maybe to the university or a new job, everything
is new and you are inclined to change things, for you have thought
a lot and worked and wish to be apply and enlarge your abilities there.
But the othere people maybe in another mood, maybe they aere there since a
longer time, or they know they will
be awy in a few month or a year.
This is a kind of social indivdulization of processes of subjectivation,
which gives no good results, for most people are a little bit dissapointed.
Now in my eyes Deleuze and Guattari tried to pick up those
chances of collective subjectivation, where is happening more.
Paradigmatily this is the may 68, but there are a lot of little
groups an tendencies in modern sopcieties, especially durong education
which would allow
subjectivation on the group level.
But this seems more to fit for young people.
What is a little bit sad, is that there seems not to
be a integrating intellectual process
of subjectivation for professional intellectuals,
which I think lies on the ground of Nietzsches
diagnosis of Nihilism.
And this is what I think maybe induced by a new
truth seeking process, which will
probably go beyond Deleuze Guattari and integrate
natural science, humanitiies, technology, economics,
psychology, morals and metaphysics .......
So, in a good philosophical and materlistic way,
as being for conciesness, maybe a little bit
selfanalysis legt us find back
to the intellectual virtues.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of Dylan
Sent: Mittwoch, 2. November 2005 16:52
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] reterriolization, nihilism, new thruth seeking

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

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