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

NZ pretzelworld at gmail.com
Thu Nov 3 02:53:27 PST 2005

in a chessgame of rules, all we can confront is the narrative of our opponant.
this was Bismark's attitude (circa 1860s), and when there was no
narrative, it was Bismark who imposed his paranoid narrative upon
situtations that would otherwise reveal raw data.
what is the difference between confronting raw data and that data
specifically born of narrative? I think this is an issue for me,
especially if I am expected to assume that narrative-creation is a
most basic principle of the mind.

Many mouse neuro-biologists have this basic belief that there are two
componants to thinking: first, the spacial organization of "landmark"
data within the connected neurons in the brain, and second, that
unique temporal narrative that this data is orchestrated against (as
in the phenomena of split-second dreaming). I do not want to disagree
with this assumption, it seems correct to me. But to take this
assumption seriously would require bestowing a gravity towards
intelligence based on internal "narrative-creation" as that is the
crux.  The subset of all data presented by an external narrative can
only serve to limit the intelligence of my own internal
narrative-creation. That is why all data is seen as raw rather than
narrative-based. That is why "scooter" Libby went to jail. To those
who are able to recognize  some narrative of an external data set, we
are given a unique option to choose either submit to that narrative,
copitulation (ie, adopt that narrative and the entire data set which
it contains, folding in upon our own narrative and sup-planting it,
this is the purpose of Virilio's prostylization) or we must choose
re-territorialization, a difficult intellectual process of recognizing
various strata of data and re-organizing them in a self-confident
manner. This amounts to pure calorie-burning labor and all free
thinking individuals are guilty of this hard work. We might as well be
digging holes. I say guilty, because most of this labor is recognized
only within the "recording surface" of de-territorialized information.
In this way what is thought to be re-territorialization is often just
de-territorialization because it lacks its own context for providing
tempo control in the game. Defeat is necessary because the opponant is
too stupid to stop playing the "endgame".

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list