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

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Mon Jun 19 07:20:46 PDT 2006


you are right, the email answer was in my mind adressed as a reply to that
of Nicholas Lavini
as he is named in my outlook - sorry, but it was a kind of reply and reply
to reply.

In my eyes people look at books and narratives in order to
express themselves because they simply think that mankind is living for a
million years
and the situation as it is now is in modo grosso as a employment industrial
and post-industrial society scince
at least 20 years.
And things, the own psyche, that of the others and the combination of them
are often
almost incomprehensible. Therefore  the hope is, that the famous and
technical advanced,
surviving elaborated criticism authors have something to say which is

To make little academic picture. There was a quote from a philosophy
professor who said:
If a PH. D. student comes whom I don't want to become a doctor a set him
without any guidance and advice to comment the "Phenomology of spirit" oh
Hegel. The chance he will not succeed is very high. So you may feel if you
try to live without any reading or letting telling you something.

No in life things are very often that you see there are a lot of hidden
doors and walls you do not know. And as Deleuze and Guitarri say: "There
have been lost so many people in the battle for luck". And some seem only
have to be won by chance - without knowing what they are doing and by lucky
circumstances - not always to be adaptable or to reproducable.

That makes people a little bit prudent. It seems things are not so easy - to
understand and to make. Lots of people are not happy even if formal
everything is alright.
And in my eyes it is a little the task of the older experienced people to
tell the others
valuable experiences.

And there, if you want to achieve peace of mind and more stability and
concentration and so on yoga is much better and effective, especially
kundalini and kriya
yoga, that it is known.

Often you learn very complicated theories and you may ask yourself what is
gained by this tremendous - if it are the first ones - efforts.

And a lot of the fascinating sides of Nietzsche or Deleuze and Guattari lies
in the feeling
that all is to less intensive, you are in a cage, every day the same without
any real development - and they seem to make a little promise to show some
kind of way out.

Nowadays you are confronted with so much informations, people and
circumstances, that are for sure some kind of alert in some chambers of your
consciousness or your other realms of
your soul or brain.

And this is the reason for seeking safe orientation.

Of course Deleuze and Guattari are very scientific, most of the cites are
from science or history of science and if you look closer, the frame of
as set by Bourbaki (mathematics), Saussure, Lacan, Levi-Strauus is made a
little more
flexible, the theory of strates is a frame of mind which is general, broad
and specific enough to unite the different sciences. Often some presupposed
entities, like the "I" are in a indirect way critized as not metaphysical
validated. There is also done in sociology, where a special social "I"
function for purpose of the theory without going to deep in
defining some real entity like an "I" is used.
And every thinking man knows that as from nothing comes nothing there are
always some
metaphysical assumptions in sciences which have some kind of positive
And psychology, sociology, linguistics, mathematics, physics and so on have
positive results. So a science without metaphysics don't know what she is
doing and therefore the line of
radical metaphysical scepticism cannot be the last scientific word.
Scientific is to look what metaphysics, prudently as little as possible, is
really needed and there.
And this is one thing Deleuze and Guattri do.

And - from the viewpoint of attitudes - one wants to know - and not to ay
there is no possibility of knowledge.
For that purpose thousands of scientist are not needed - also not needed to
be educated or to be paid.
They are accepted only for results and benefits.

As you know Deleuze and Guattari where against drugs and for more intensive
This is very good and yoga is a kings way (one yoga is called "Kings yoga"
raja -yoga (Patanjali) as in maharadscha).

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: Samstag, 17. Juni 2006 00:09
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi

i think your advice is very correct, the oxygen is important, but also
dont forget the sugars and salts (this is brain food and it can be
found in things like candybars, soda and prosessed carboydrates... yes
"junk" food is pure brain food of a basic order which is why it can be
so addictive to people, especially twinkies) but remember brain food
is not body food.

I am imagining that when you say "help" this is refering to someone
particular but I do not know who you are pointing at. I could think
that you are pointing at me but then I should let you know that I am
not asking for help. I am a very satisfied person (just returned from
a wonderful tour of the agean sea) and so the confusing words that I
write are not a symptom of my own inner problem but rather I am
re-iterating a confusion that I percieve outside myself in the
body-philosophy. do you understand also? I am a "doctor" also... in
this way I can see your discussion on "help" more of a third person
statement, the way two doctors can together talk about the way they
help (as opposed to one doctor helping the other, yet as a discussion
this will occur also b/c we are intelligently talking)
I feel strange about the rats that are jumping ship, I think they are
affraid of the violence of language. they are unable to talk, they
just grumble and disapear. I would like to say that they have "checked
out" - I wish I could bill them and fund a second summer vacation.
this fear of language I believe really stems from an inate social
domestication that teaches regular people to reject their "own voice"
and instead look outside for a voice that they can honastly adopt
(like a pet philosophy t-shirt slogan) - it makes it hard to really
talk when I am put into a position of broadcasting all the time. why
do you think people are allways looking for a readable narrative to
follow all the time (this is for politics not intelligent discussion).
I think people like jamie and harris perhaps suffer from "browsing
syndrome" where they expect to just browse through a situation, this
is a very common attitude in nyc where the social sphere is often
reduced to "browsing the aisles of a supermarket"... I certainly hope
that more of the intellctual spectrum does not get reterritorialized
by this kind of mentality...

also you talk much about meditation and DyG, but I do not see any such
talk in DyG. I also am straining to see what you see when you say DyG
are developing a "scientific approach", from what I can tell there is
no scientific approach to DyG's writing (also why SHOULD there be one,
why do you see one?), but I admit that I make little effort to believe
in their psychology, it seems almost secondary, so I just try to
forget about this aspect, I would like to know what I am missing.
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