[D-G] observations

[hwenk]

Hello,

in your email before your last email you asked what the crisis (regarding
Nietzsche and Wittgenstein as physicians of philosophy), and in
this email what is the task or benefit of philosophy.

Now I think philosophy was in ancient time almost identical
with any kind of explaining thinking or feeling.
Explaining means giving some understandable - from the viewpoint of the
terms and the picture and logic - reason
in regard of experience - also not sharply distinct between inner and outer
ones.

Now thinking and societies and man itself get more complicated and
specialized and we have a lot
special sciences.

On the hand philosophy becomes a little bit superfluous for some themes.
On the other hand there a things left.
An integration of all known knowledge in a comprehensive
sight, because maybe the views adopted in to specialized sciences are not
very
compatible - as humanities and physics for example.

On the other hand there a very fundamental concepts and ideas going in in
every kind of thinking and acting
which can be looked at as sometimes some kind of fixed ideas, grown in a
situation with less
knowledge and practical abilities.

Third there is the orientaion of what way of acting and thinking promsises
some
success to happiness.    This is a great theme of Nietzsche and religion.

There is also some kind of general trust or feeling safe in the world which
is
required from philosophy at least at last.


The theme of a frame of thinking being to narrow seems something you also
try to overcome, as usual mostly in a critical, to be polite, way.

But, as experience and narratives show, new habits are the more sure
dead of old ones, for if ther is no better alternative the pold one will
remain if the need is still there.

And her Deleuze  and Guattari are fortunately
thinking wide enough to try to look at psychic and psychatric
experiences for looking at the theory of minds, overecoming the dogma of the
monadic structure of
conciousness.

Everday life itself, the evolving of characters and their healing are much
to less
clear. And there are the ways of social adapting and building milieus surely
very important.
But the inner expierence done by the brain chenical proceesses itself -
Deleuze
speaks of about the brain as a rhizome as the most complex organ known - is
little seen.

In my eyes science goes the way from the obivious, which are social
consequences down to the microstructure.
But probably the innner muilieu of the brainis is much more important
for the feelings of the people as social rules.
This can be seen, as the easy way of stimulatting the brain by drugs
is very often chosen.

And here my appraisal of yoga, especially kriya yoga, comes one more in, as
there is a possibilty to
improve mental health and the inner brain milieu giving much more happiness,
stabilty and contentment then any
other known technique, including sports.
In my eyes it is very regretable that Deleuze and Guattari
obiviously knew wery little about it.

Then cooperation, even in discussiing and arguing scientifcly may become
more common.
For struggling and fighting is a not very high evolution of thinking and
acting.
But to overcome needs cooperation, which is very easy destroyed - almost
from everyone
at everytime if he likes or is not able do do in another way.

And the  feeling for arguing cooperative dimishes the pleasure of
getting an intellectual identity by critizing
or fighting intellectual against somebody else.
Sometimes it is unavoidable for having something like solid intellectual
common ground.
Intellectual cooperation is at best confirmed and checked by two way channel
communication -in philosophical terms dialogic with
als refelcted and known intentions .


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: Dienstag, 16. Mai 2006 22:56
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] observations


"Those who
list the human weaknesses
are looked at as divine."

for charlie parker's trumpet logos there it can be seen as
mistake-after-mistake. the "faux accident" that defines 20th cent
jazz-man has a performative aspect which is beautiful and divine.
(re:adorno's essay) so like readers of this list who feel that their
space is being re-territorialized from the outside, it is familiar
feeling when the "zone" is invaded - like delueze sees neitszhe
walking around in the philosophical zone... or the feeling one gets
when they are repeatedly asked to concider neitzsche seriously.

at least in the 'jazz-zone" or more generally the artistic-zone, there
is a certain amount of tolerated performance. and indeed when
trans-valuation occurs after the "crisis" at least we can be certain
that this performance is limited to just that zone (although for many
detentional whites it "opened their eyes" to a principle that they had
no previous reason to follow). it is a "safe" place where certain
indescretions are allowed because "we" all already know each other and
interpersonal relationships are positive, communication is possible
because the absolute is commonly understood. (remember that the main
reason "Logic-logos" is needed consistantly across the board, is
because THAT is the only way communicaton is concievable to the system
of the mega-machine, ie code)

with the external presence asking for inclusion, the zone must open
up, not everyone is happy except those lazy-bums who have just arrived
and want to be included. they are the capitalists who would rather not
"comprehend" and instead they expect trans-valuation. It used to be
plain old territorialization, but now to get to such a point, a
crisis-crititia is met, often that crisis is false and will involve
the creation of false-narratives. the false-narratives are what gets
"played out" - they are the performance principles that replace
philosophy as a communication principle. (re: the difference between
"acting with a principle" and "acting for a principle.")

other then the success of jazz(and adorno would ask "has jazz even
succeeded?") we have today the disappointing success of the
u.s./europe in iraq, where instead of freeing the population from
saddam's military, the military is set free and allowed to terrorize
the population... and now the crisis must have it's "philosophical
fix". so in principle "fighting terror" is completely nomologically
correct but only after the fact of making "terror" the ideographic
corner "we need to turn." these are the tactics used by sovereign
intellectuals to enforce their "ethos" over "logos". we have seen it
again and again.... like there is the "crisis" of motherhood which
entails the detentional-female power in "witholding the name of the
father." and the other surprizing false-narratives of the sufferage
movement in the u.s. during ww1, where women were given a right to
vote only if they would stop protesting the war and let the men die in
battle. (I don't mean to just talk about these feminist struggles, but
the point is to see how compromized they are and how the terms of
settlement are negotiated only after faux-crisis.)

I think the real issue has to do with the "paradox of philosophy", the
sophic paradox, which asks the question "how do you know what you need
to know?" for me THIS is the great bend in the road(word) that creates
"the faux crisis of knowledge" and all the detentional codes that
follow.
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org