hwenk at web.de
Fri May 5 01:40:16 PDT 2006
I cannot see what you expect to gain or get from philosophy.
Concerning Whitehead the best reference is that also praised by Deleuze
"science and the modern world" ("This is really very good").
It is much more easier to understand than "Process and reality".
But you have to have in mind that his conception grew in a time
when the theory of relativity and quantum theory where
new and he tried to make philosophy out of it.
He also tried to incorporate the subjective philosophy
of ideas, especially from English empirism by Locke (and Hume)
in a kind of new ontology.
But it is really complicated and hard to see.
One that is really interesting is his opinion of the
Mistake of to early congregation".
He thought in my eyes very rightly that old ideas and circumstances
are very durable. This is because almost all details
of the actual concrete life, also concerning the reading and writing of
books is formed by a accommodation of more or
less already accepted ideas.
So if there is something new, and even right in the sense of
expressing a intellectual superior sight of things.
The expectations and concepts are related to a lot of things
which are formed by the ruking or already established ones.
Of course this a struggloe for all creative ideas.
But this is present in a time emphasizing creativity.
To be short, creativty has to be mad solid by developping the details and
relations to the rest of the world. This is often omitteted ot
taken to superficial.
As Whitehead comes from the natural science he empahsizes that
only the tremendeous and overwhelmimg concrerte success in form of
of mathematical physics, based on very simple principles,
had maed it possible to sweep out th old circumstances and churchian based
a lot of omissions.
The religios question as such, which of course was very important at that
was answered from the new thinkers for the most people in an concrete very
There were no eternel paradise anymore or its existence is very doubtful.
So the priest asked "What about your soul after death".
And did Locke, Hume and the others really had a good answer?
And could they really demonstrate in a clear and undoubtful manner that
there is no hell and paradise?
But a lot of feelings, thinking, social and moral codes , institutions
the the government and the church and the everday life argumentts are
were build on this question at that time.
Now the succesful argument was the Theodicee:
Why should a good god make such a world were we sufffer.
And why, if is so easy, has he hidden
the konowledge of the technology and medicin that makes the life on earth
for such a long time?
And his self claimed representants on earth even work against the
enlargement of this knowledge.
I think this maybe have been decesicve for the urn to "immancee", that is to
look at life on earth.
Whitehead stays a bit theological in
claiming some philosophical deity.
Maybe he is right insofar as the question about what happens to the soul
before and after dreath
has not been settled until now.
Not from religion, not from science and not from philosophy.
So philosphy has beeen driven in an alternative: Either a good life on earth
with a defginit end without survival
or a kind of nebolous intellectual eternal paradise for the soul
where you get the fruits of your mainly free willed suffering -
especially the hard intellectual work.
This alternative itself, also historical mighty, is far from being
scientific or philosophical.
There are to less reflected and tied to the rest of the world experiences.
The fate of the ideas of science and especially of Deleuze and Guattari
the mind, the actions and beliefs and groups and the productivity of some
sorts of so nowadays treated as mental illenesses lacks also from to eyarly
and fst concretation.
In my eyes Deleuze and Guattaris thoughts are better taken up and related
to existential processes of the soul, crises, eveday repetion forming,
everday life adapting
with different strates - which is a very fruitful formal ontological sight
In my eyes this had to be carried out by Guattari much more than he did.
But the connection to existential, in high end even related to maystical or
religious experiences as in other cultures -
- where so called schizophrenics often talk about in lacking other
intellectual frames - would be very important.
As far as I knoew this line of thought has not
been inaugurated until now.
Maybe to think in this direction, with high degrtees of interspectation,
would be of more philosophical or and personal advantage
and even better for the growing of the gratest happiness of the greates
There is much less appplication of good ideas than the lack of new ones.
greetings Harald Wenk
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of Dr
Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Mai 2006 19:04
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] observations
Well, for want of appearing to retire into silence after having
critiqued NZ's volubility, I'd like to ask some questions that, maybe,
the list can help me navigate...
Like I mentioned, I've been out of some 'serious' philosophical study
for a while & am a bit unsure of where some D+G-related thinking is
going. My references to Bachelard & Wordsworth were somewhat ironic, on
reflection, as I've been feeling philosophical prison doors closing
around me too, over recent years. I've been wrapping myself in
familiar, 'proper' D+Gish thinkers: Spinoza, DeLanda, Cioran,
Nietzsche, Bataille, Stengers, blahblahblah; or novelists Vonnegut,
Hasek...; but need something new. An old friend & colleague (also a D+G
head) has been getting into A.N.Whitehead, with whose work I'm
completely unfamiliar; can anyone give me any pointers?
Dr Jamie Brassett FRSA
Programme Leader, Contextual Studies for
BA (Hons.) Product Design
Central Saint Martins College of Art & Design
tel. +44 (0)20 7514 7102
University of the Arts, London
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari