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

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Fri Nov 4 00:58:27 PST 2005


in a certain way the way of imagelessness,
wordlessnmesss and thinglessness is a very
ambitious and high way.
But this is possible with keeping narratives and science intact.
I nevetrr had thge feeling of language to be an obstacle ans scince is going
too fast
even for the scientiest. A l
ot of science mentioned  D&D has been furthe develeoped
or is overcome.
And the best narratives are love storys - from the ages.

Greetings Harald wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. November 2005 11:16
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] reterriolization, nihilism, new thruth seeking

I see D+G's work as very un-territoralizationsist, they are far too
poetical  - ready to resort to poetics instead of meaning and I
imagine that they wish to situate themselves away from any
territorialization process. The "new truth seeking process" that I see
coming from D+G is outside of academics and science. Science is far
too slow a process for D+G. They do not deny meaning that is outside
of logos, in fact they help define that meaning within a poetical
logos that is thankfully outside of logic and science (actual rhizomes
on plants are actually analogies to non-scientific processes that have
truth yet they are non-logos-centric... they are poetic.... like the
physisist's expanding universe described as a "bowl of raison
pudding.") Popper's rule for the sciences is quite relevant: that
faliblity is inherent within arguement. This is a grammar issue that
D+G avoid because they do not pretend that philosophy is science
(strickly connected to logos, it is unique because it can
contextualize logos). Without a grammar that includes falliblity, then
all we have to concider is that which is outside of logos, and that is
very important. To the sciences, that pov is all irrelavant, but to a
history of "meaning" it is completely relevant. The issue is to expand
meaning beyond the logos without re-territoralization. How is that
possible? They start by creating a context for logos, and then fill in
the rest with poetic meaning that resonates with specific
identity-creation.... just like Jay-z or any other rockstar who
capitalizes upon tempo to draw the audience into the narrative of
limited logos. The difference that i see is that D+Y create a
narrative that encapsulates logos, which is good, but it is still
restricted by the boundaries of a limited narrative. In this day and
age I believe that  the narrative element can be done away with and we
can begin looking at all the raw data that this narrative has called
attention to.
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