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

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Wed Jun 21 04:46:21 PDT 2006


I cannot believe that you don't know
that this quote from your Email:

I don't think the human mind is designed for metaphysical
speculations or even for self-reflection, that is beyond a linguistic
assessment of possible mental processes. Evolution has designed us to be
reactive/receptive to the environment in order to survive. Science becomes
specialised as we realise the enormity of the task facing human
understanding. The earth is 7 billion years old, sciences as we know them,
have existed for a few thousand years. We are still at the tip of an

is nothing else but pure self-reflective metaphysical speculation -
based on current scientific knowledge.
Or what picture of self-reflective metaphysical thinking do you have?

Sometimes it is little puzzling if someone talks of
the freedom of society and that has nothing to do with the
behaviour or thinking people he actually knows - for society seems to be
being everywhere, especially in newspapers or television, but not in his
everyday life.

In mathematics for example triangles are often specialized to
triangles with one right angle - in elementary  school mathematics and in
higher mathematics also.
But triangles with right angles are still triangles.
Also the normal addition, multiplication and  division are still there in
higher mathematics and are extensively used.

So in science the metaphysical presumptions, coming from everyday experience
or corrected after
scientific criticism, are still hold and largely used with consciousness.
So general knowledge, as metaphysics or logic,
is still valid or not in the specialized science.
You have to know what language and understanding  are to say something about
lingiuisttics and mental processes.
and there you are in metaphysical self-reflection.

Maybe like a lot of people you have the impresssion that after starting so
metaphysical self-refelective arguing nothing of your life orienting
will hold, because the specialist in this fields will argue your belief
  Then it is better to say or think it is impossiple to
know something very general or self-reflective.
Bit so you are cut off to come top something like an identification with
your pwersonal and the interpersonal thinking.
You don't trust yourself anymore in the last questions. If you say you trust
but you don't wont to argue you don't really trust.
This maybe by the right intuition that it is far away from being something
like a last word.
But the "last word" ios something like the society in general and your

But, it is really so, every positive result of science, even the theory of
evolution, has metaphysical presumptions.
In accepting science you accept a oot of metaphysical thinking, probably not
yours, without knowing it.
And thes splits you more, for if you stzart thinking you will very soon
crash at the metaphysical assumptions in a very detailed
form in a science.

In a scientfic practical wax you have something like strates or a pyramid of

If there is an empirical data is not as you expected, you first look if your
computations were right.
After ruling that out, you look which formula has to be change, you try to
add a term or change a parameter
or try another method of merasurement.
And only if more and more fails you go to the fundamental concepts of the
theory, like mass or velocity abd try to change them.
Thuis Einstein said after the Michelson-Morley experiment we have to change
our fundamental concepts of space and time.
This is until today rerally not well undderstood, that it becaus even
Einstein himslef was then very
pragmatic and didn't describe the process of schrinking time at relativ high
speed - which is
empirical validated by letiing aeroplanes fly with and aagainst the rotaion
of the earth
given a differnece in in time measaurement of almost equal quarz clocks.

And therfoeee Stephen Hawking and othe rtry in popular
physical-philosophical writings to make some kind
of philosophical reflection what it could be what they are doing.
Now the theory of relativity is at the heart of physics, things in quantum
theory look similar.
So it is puzzling to say huma is not made to think m,etaphysical and
selfreflective as acrually he does.
It is so if you woul d say the human body is not made for walking, becaus
cars are much motre comfortable.

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: Dienstag, 20. Juni 2006 23:13
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi

One should not be too critical of science that ignores impossible
metaphysical questions. As I doctor I know of many who have sacrificed to
save the lives of others or improve their health. Some such doctors design
vaccines against viruses that kill millions of children worldwide each year.
Much of human history has been one of suffering and science and technology
if it is used to address the causes of suffering can aleviate some of the
pain of existence.
 I don't think the human mind is designed for metaphysical
specualtion or even for self-reflection, that is beyond a linguistic
assesment of possible mental processes. Evolution has designed us to be
reactive/receptive to the environment in order to survive. Scince becomes
specialised as we realise the enormity of the task facing human
understanding. The earth is 7 billion years old, sciences as we know them,
have existed for a few thousand years. We are still at the tip of an

I'm not sure what D+G and Nietzche really have to offer on the
point of knowledge/understanding or anything else, though I agree with their
rejection of monotheism and think Nietzche's Genealogy of Morals is
important in understanding the historical/polltical foundation of "beliefs".

As for yoga, I'm not sure I want to "calm" my mind, rather I would much
prefer living at a elevated intensity.


>From: "hwenk" <hwenk at web.de>
>Reply-To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>To: <deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org>
>Subject: Re: [D-G] a close words to Nz and Jussi
>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:20:46 +0200
>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 -
>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
>in the feeling
>that all is to less intensive, you are in a cage, every day the same
>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
>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
>Archives: www.driftline.org
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org

The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!

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