[D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi

adline vanlindenbergh bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm
Sat Jun 3 06:29:26 PDT 2006

as the andriod lesbian was trying to say...
the mind/body problem that general yoga tries to satisfy  is the root
of the existence of this god... ie if you have not resolved the
difference between your neurological mind and your body, the
difference between 0 and 1, then god will fill that difference with
equivocal meaning. so between lunch and dinner it is possible to see
god an infinite number of times.

this mystic tradition (which really ended w/ zpinoza who converted it)
goes back to the jexus phenomena started by virgil, the first chistian
(before christ), who forced the jewish mystics to contextualize "the
self". This self, is not just any self, it is the self as teh stoics
are able to see it, it is cultivated from that tiime as a
"philosophical  self" which tries to answer the stoic paradox. once
the self can ask this question it begins to re-territorialize itself
allong the lines of this narrow mystic definition (ie
trans-evaluation). the "other" is born, as that other which marx takes
the trouble to answer w/ "the jewish question".
once the principles are esablished, they can begin to be use as a
"lifestyle" to guide our lives to that single narrow realm of
mono-god, just like the nomological model points our direction into
the storm when all the while there is good weather the left and right.
for virgil's romans that mono-god was venus who had a sex change and
25 years later became jesus who preaches "love". kirkagaard liked to
hide this backstory behind his equivocatable "philosophy" of

hi NZ PretzelBagel

I donot see far in the divide between neurological and body what you say
in 1 and 0 could you phrase 
it in a slow version? 

what would be interesting, is to talk like spinoza and demonstrate the
god which we're all talking about
is it the Open? that which is never closed. if it is, we can say shut up
to God without triggering its wrath. this was not
the case when i had not the neuroleptics. in the dreams i made at this
time, every uncertainty, every blank dots scurriing of the
faith was punished by a destruction of my essence. it is like a closed
circuit in which i was downcasted.
it seems unclear what happened to trigger such a perfectly knit closed

years before, when Deleuze was still alive, 
it was intense remedy for me
when reading Spinoza freed me from fear of death. but this idea of
Harald Leibniz having god
to pass from one monad to the next, and spinoza
my experience is that i never got to the idea of god. as soon i was
within this percept, i could not
get clearely that it was the idea of god such as Spinoza tried to
demonstrate it.

by the way Spinoza left a note in his Treaty of Understanding on the
possibility to make 
immanence with a multiplicity of modes, with no need of a God, no need
of a unity.
but it is very difficult he seemed to suggest.

it seems i failed, i need to take back the road. but mysticism seems not
the good road.
you say different characters by different roads like intensities on the
map, you seem
to have succeeded.



Jussi. yes in a sense Spinoza did invent on a new ground, but i wonder
how to understand the evolution
say from Maimonides who i know not at the moment, but who had talked
about common notions, 
and the way it was important for Deleuze that he discovered something
with them. Do you see why, 
if Deleuze had understood how the network of problematicisation was to
Spinoza in two phases, separating before the discovery of the importance
of common notions?

Is Spinoza God not an impossibility of thought? how to think though,
Deleuze proved it was possible,
by such notions as the Open Whole. but why need God? and how to protect
oneself if we're surrounded
by people who are psychotized by Religion, and turn out Mystical?
  adline vanlindenbergh
  bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm

http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list