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

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Thu Jun 15 04:05:39 PDT 2006

As I wrote already sveral times in this list, Deleuze and Guattari are
very difficult to read, even for well informed and sophisticated
intellectuals and academics.
Indeed I believe most of the readers did not understand all, this is because
a lot of sciences, especially natural sciences and a lot hidden things like
the quite
ununderstandable without guidance Lacan and more seldom read academic
literature are used.
In my eyes they try a lot - to make a scientific theory combinig psychology,
social sciences and natural sciences.
To make a ethic according to the 68movement combining Freud and Marx.
There are a lot more, but they are much more theoretic than I would have
expected, as Guattari was
a clinical psychatrist trained in the school of Lacan.

The second problem, which concerns your actual situation more is, that they
give very few hints what to do
if someone is really ill or schizophrenic.

And there I can tell you that beside any other things you do Yoga,
especially pranayama, that are
breathing techniquesis are very helpful without doing any harm.
This is because the very high intensities and the hallucinations in
schzophrenics are
produced by the projecting  - also the sense assimilating - parts of the
Probably this part is feed more from other parts od the brain
like the cerebellum, who are more concerned with body sensations, than
Maybe there is also tried to make new associations in the brain to function
, which disturbs normal functioning like
building or reparing a street disturbs the normal traffic.

As the brain needs a lot of oxygen, good breathing, like it is teached by
Yoga with pranayama
helps to make the brain function very quick much better, giving a more free
feeling in the head, dimishing pains
by makijg thinking much more generous and make it more active, as the brain
is more active,
Actaully a quater of the oxygen consumed by a man is used by the brain. This
is without any or
beside the drugs you take and helps you to get better.
The best is you do a lot of pranayama and other yoga techniques to calm down
and become more healthy.
The effects are not suddeely, so continue as long as possible with
controlled breathing.
Also it is good to have as less social and other stimulies as possible, like
in nature.
Outdoors in the sun is a good place - also moving is good for getting a
better contact to your body and the normal reality and to exhaust a little.
To say it once more, schizophreny is from the brain and pranayama and yoga
makes the brain more healthy and better functioning without any drugs.
This  is to be taken very, very seroiusly and can't  be overestimated.
I hope, I helped you.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of
nicholas lalvani
Sent: Montag, 5. Juni 2006 20:01
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org; bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm;
deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org; spatium at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi

Your writings are very interesting,

I (or that group of meolecules that conspires to call itself a "me") was
drawn to D-G by struggles working in psychiatry and fighting often
insurmountable problems of social alienation. I beacme interested in
Guattari's writings on creating different forms of subjectivity. It seems to
me that my consciousness/sprit/soul is riddled by adherences to a norm of
subjectivity and by a stubborn adherence to habit. Habits condense through
my whole being. Perhaps is it something to do with the ontology of forces
that certain types of forces which conspire to create subjectivity,
neccessarily interact in a repetitive fashion. The result of this is that I
feel much more an "effect" of some transcendent or organising principles
(perhaps the computational quality of the mind??) than open to immanence
(which is what I would like to feel, vibrating at a differnet intensity). I
feel a dangerous warning in my brief encounters with Wittgenstein that
language has evolved for social interaction and has more to do with
communicating human and social investments than obtaining objectivity on
nature and life. He may read much of Deleuze and Guattari as a delusional
attempt to fracture human subjectivity, which has coagulated after 6 billion
years of evolution on planet earth and is thus full of force we have little
hope of understanding. Now the hope of altered forms of subjectivity from
drugs has largely lead to dependence and apathy, where next to go? What are
D-G really trying to do? Escape from the cruelty of existence or even affirm
it? I don't think I understand or feel them. Where are they trying to go?


>From: "adline vanlindenbergh" <bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm>
>Reply-To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>To: "adline vanlindenbergh"
><bisouxnoursfast at fastmail.fm>,deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftlin
e.org,deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org,"james"
><spatium at gmail.com>
>CC: deleuze-guattari-driftline.org at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi
>Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 06:29:26 -0700
>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
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org

Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list