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

NZ pretzelworld at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 02:48:05 PST 2005

No, haven't read of Gendlin, but as I am slowly reading Grammatology
by Derrida and find in his writing a similar point to the one you make
about postmodern language also.

I dont mean to beat on a dead horse, cuz i think hwenk has already
perfectly outlined the issue of re-territorialization for me, but I
want to shed light on a couple more points that fascinate me. I think
Nash's Equilibrium (1950) for game theory is such a great place to
situate the discussion because it calls attention to coordinated
strategy (ie agreement of narrative). I wonder a lot about narratives
that disagree. Nash basically provided the logistical narrative for
cold-war profiteering to take place. Those billions of folks who were
not privy to that particular narrative (or the profits), find
themselves in a situation similar to Derrida's (very 70's "me"
generation) attitude towards text.... that it is open to all the
virtuals of one's personal narrative creation (grammatology,
capitalism vs communism, blah-blah, and the pursuit of happiness
through rockstardom and drinking pepsi).

The negativity of de-territorilaization has already been brought up
and I think the impulse to actively de-terr. (w/o intention to
re-terr.) is partially tied to a positive personal need for
identification of self outside of logos. With so-called Nihilism, the
idea of re-attaching it to the old logos or even re-terr'izing it with
something new and fantastical like "grammatology" merely reminds the
non-schizophrenic nihilist that this will also include destruction of
the self which is already defined against that logos territory... so
like you said, re-terr. doesn't nned to occur for the nihilist.  Such
non-schizophrenic behavior can be healthy too; but only if identity is
related to more than just an attitude towards logos territory, and
there is much more than just logos. So then why is this an issue? 
(... there is the cult of Zarathustra, and before him there was
Nefrititi and her fantasy city of the rhebus) But as Maholy-Nagy
pointed out, it is often yoo difficult to see beyond the amazing logos
which connects all the variety of specialized p.o.v. which ultimately
allows our complex world to function(!?!) in a practical day-to-day
sense. Not a lot of people will confront such a risk at loss of self,
and I think that is why pepsi-drinking highschool drop-outs are the
ones being recruited to kill incomeless iraqi goat-herders who, in
turn, are paid by CIA terrorist organizers (like Osama who has not
fallibly ever stopped working for the CIA) to fight for their right to
profit from the game of coordinated strategy. With Iraq, there are a
multiple coordinated games being played, that all feed into each other
in a very particular way. I won't pretend to understand all that grand
design, but surely, some of it is about maintaining US people's need
for a specialized identity that's based on the connectivity power of
the "pepsi" logos. The $ in iraq is nothing compared to the $ in the
U.S. For me, it is extremely easy to accept the Marxist narrative that
shows the fundamental need for "identification of self" actually comes
from the alienation which capitalism provides... and then proceeds to
profit from (and it is on this issue of alienation that D+G talk of

BTW, Did anybody else notice the article in this weeks NYTimes about
the fabrication of evidence that triggered the Vietnam war? (they
mis-translated the word "comrade")
Tonkin Gulf episode exposed:

The subposition of narrative-data over raw-data is such fundamental
aspect to the Psy-Ops thinktank.

There is the german rock band who takes their name from the
'pataphysics of Jarry: "einsturzende neubauten" (roughly "demolishing
old buildings in order to build new ones") I think it is really
interesting to consider this hundred year-old quote in terms of 
re-territorialization, and how the character who spoke it, Ubu Roi,
was voicing what was perceived, in that day, as a laughably violent
and unhealthy attitude toward everything in the world. It seems like
over time we have already experienced some gradual
re-territorialization of the concept of re-territorialization....   
whatever that means?

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list