[D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi
hwenk at web.de
Tue Jul 11 13:43:16 PDT 2006
It is not so important, that the quote is really from Nietzsche and not from
What puzzled me more is tha you deny the correctness of my citation of a
cite of Nietzsche - without an argument and any need.
The discussion of the wooden iron cite is some time ago.
In my eyes things have a simple explanations as the aphorism in the joyios
after NUmber 356 _We ferless, wher is the cite -
is followed by the Aphorism number 357 -Whatis german wher a long discussion
Leibniz, Hegel and Schopenhauers opinion about Hegel - which indeed was not
very favourablew for Hegel toookj place.
Taking in account that the arriving time of the email is 23p.m - Idon't know
when it was ent , a little bit
unconcentration mixed up with wishfull thinking, maybe unconciuos - and we
have the false claim.
But this is only pure speculation - which would settle things so harmelss,
that Mr. NZ could give this expalnation by himself.
The other Email of the neurological basis of bad conciuos and the parnaoid
machine of the anti-oedipus maybe real interseting.
greetings Harld Wenk
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Montag, 10. Juli 2006 23:58
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi
I want to move forward now...
if this "wooden iron" is indeed supposed to illuminate upon benjamin's
notion of pure-violence I think then there is something to be learned.
so I can see this "wooden iron' as a joke made by one philosopher
about another... not you or I, but it seems like schopenhauer was
making fun of Hegel's metaphysics wherein such a fantasy of "wooden
iron" could exist. Neitzsche summons a simmilar use of this word as a
joke-response to notion of "free society", obviously Nietzsche (like
Rousseau and his "contract" of compromize) cannot take such a concept
seriously so why should we be looking to this poet for a philosophical
answer? (and I must ask this question rhetorically b/c I am not very
interested in what Neitzsche has to say about pure-violence.) But I do
see the lesson here and that is the violence of ignorance. perhaps
ignorance is not a pure-violence but it is certainly divine (it can
strike at any moment). I had brought this up earlier in order to
compare the absolute width of spinoza's divine-wisdom to a corrillary
divine-igorance.... and to show how this leads to unfortunate
solipistic attitudes. (re: sophic paradox vs sphinx) A pataphysics of
ethics is a terrible and violent ethics. Like another poster had
noted, the violence gets harnessed by sovereignty, it is not
sovereignty itself. (RE: What is Philosophy?) and It takes a
philosophy to harness the two pieces together, a philosophy of
divine-ignorance (re: Mills). I will have to expore this retarded
nature of modern philosophy a bit more as I can see that it is very
difficult for even the most well read philosophy buffs to take it
seriously.(re: loss of vocabulary)
skinner's pigeon's clicking at the button, trying to follow the F ratio is
but the psychological effects of the V ratio are tremendous. It makes
me think o f the poetry of the computer mouse, why a "mouse"? clicking
like skinner's subjects, running through virtual mazes. it is so very
literal and the loss of vocabulary prevents even a philosopher from
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari