[D-G] Jeepers, more Violence

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Mon Sep 18 13:43:21 PDT 2006

Hello Mr. Martini,

as I am in a very peaceful mood,
the short answer to you remarks in terms of Deleuze and Guattari
is aparallel evolution - I mean the pink panther and the sting
and the flower. This means  that things like Newtons invention, who himself
as far as i know
his biography was very fond of money, becoming the mint master of England in
his late years
and sought the philosophers stone in an old fashioned alchimistic way.
With his development fo Newtonian Mechniics he opened the door for the
scientfic revolution,
combining mathematics, geometry, physics and astronomy in a very
way. As Whithehead pointed out in his "Scinece and the modern world"
this was so perplexing and fruitful that it swept away in the long run
not only the old feudal structures, but also devolped so much wealth
that the real, material freedom combined with good education and learning
is shared by almost all members of western world.

As the discussion of oriental despotism already showed, this was not the
in foreign, including  eastern countries, so that the industrial and
progress was induced by western world in brute form of colonialism.
The good consience was brought about by superior technolgy and the
liberating forces of it.
The racial discours, which was also vcame up and was analyzed by Foucault,
was indeed such a crude think regaarding thsi, that the word of DEleuze:
"We subjectiate with very ancient morals compared to technological
development" in my eyes
root the real problem, indicated already by Whitehead.
This includes a very old type of thinking in friend and enemy as
a prejudice, independent of the thinking of acting the object of enemity -
or ideo9logical friendschip without any knowledge and espwerience.
This is als from the esssay of Deleuze "The folding or the interior of
Thinking (Subjectivation)"in his book on Foucault,
further treated  below.

Now as freddom goes by steps, the raise of western scientfic thought
has broken the monopol of morals, also tied to structures of

The irony is, that power, as Foucault showed with letting little
doubts, that most of power is micro power, used by from you so called slaves
over the so called slaves.
This is necessary because of numbers and time.
There are so few rulers compared to slaves, that the rtime spent with the
to rule the is very little.
And as the essay shows, the outer world wanderes into the inner world by
foldings and stratifications, the folds giving the subjects.
And the more cruel and raw the outer world comes in, the more cruel and hard
the subjects are.

And for the rule of the slaves over the salves superstition
and very crude interpretations of the bible played a great role.

I think what you mean is that Spinoza was against independt priests

and favoured some kind of state religion he himself would not believe in,
bit in oreder to unite the state mentally.

The idea "As lead by one spirit" and uniting the weak powers of reason
in times where people died very often very fast and a lot
catastrophes were usual, leadinfg to superstion and a hardening in direction
cruelty of the souls.

You have the daming of the riot of peasants even by Luther.

So a little bit anxity of the beast which habits in the common peopl taking
as masses
was very deep rooted among intellectuals.
Erasmus from Rotterdam critized the chrch, bur he was against protestantism
and worke dtogether with the catholic curch.

Youz have to have people who thimk somethin that works for liberation.

To be more clear, things must work under very bed an unfavourable in and
outer conditions,
always about to be disturebd - at the times ago.

And here it is like a wonder that science and technology found practial way
outs and help.

This, to take th great line of "universal history", has lead to a more
wider and generous thinking, folds and strata,  allowing science and
education to grow, involving
development of the personality for a lot of people.

And for the development of personality, cooperation and freedom, rational
thinking is very helpful,
to be more precise, it is an absolute necessary condition.

Very formal rationlity is something like selffirmation of thinking,
selfreflected and tested
by success or explanation of failure against outer world.

It is something like a first glimpse of affective selfaffiramtion,
also with cooperation and tested against or with outer world.
That is the "dance", the creativity, the intensities,
the fruitful subjectivations including the bodies and so on - "life par

Therefore "thinking is the arrow par excellence" - in the book
of Deleuze on Foucault, Article:"The folding or the interior of Thinking
near footnote 47 (german issue), in regard to Heideggers essay "What does
thinking mean?".
It ends up with a vision of "living par excellance".(The article of Deleuze)

This is also in short my sight  of things - a little bit tied to the brain
and techniques of
 the body like - (very unexpected) Yoga.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of
.+oot7AM martini
Sent: Montag, 18. September 2006 19:15
To: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Subject: [D-G] Jeepers, more Violence

> > to give the bible to
> > philological critics, as Spinoza had done by largely accepted historical
> > opinion,
> > is to destroy the believe in holy books in the middle in long run.
 ...that would be "one" way to look at it, but one can also see this
biblical pot-latch as a contrived means of binding science to the rock
of faith, just like Newton's gravity, which is born from apocrophal
inspriation (Re: parental narratives vs reason). In such a case we do
not escape these narratives. This is typical of
N's transvaluation of knowledge where the flipping  between forward
and backwards flows can create impossible eddies of ethical delusion
for the person who is foolish enough to wade through the mire. As
philologist he
works against philosophy. Even Deleuze's work on Spinoza maintains a strong
Nietzschian slant, precisely to show the reader how vulnerable Spinoza
is to his dangerous philology. If we wonder where subversion comes
from, we see it in un-intended interpretation. This opens up a vast
realm of ignorance, something which locke wishes to fill, but it is N
with his false language of "types."

> >
> > So not settling the question of parapsyhology has become part of the
> > shiboleth regarding holy books and foreign cultures itself.
> > That is even political very intersting, as the struggle on ideas
> > is thrown back totally to the religious sphere - with christianism on
> > western side.
> > But this has not been the case for science in the start at the times of
> > Spinoza.

there is a faint line to trace between spinoza and trinidad, but a
common point of intersection would be granada, 1492, no? Furthermore,
I think looking at concepts of property/territory in those days would
reveal much of that faint tracing which has been covered over by that
transvaluation process which is psychically imprinted on modern
western notion of territory... and territory still manages to be "the"
 topic of the day even if it hides behind religion.
So what I was talking about before was the territory of languages, and
now I have brought up Spinoza, and I must say that linking "identity to
reason", as Spinoza has done, has had a profound impact on the rapid
extinction of languages among the "un-reasonable". Am I clarifying
this idea of "ethics of ignorance" at all for you? Can you see how the
deligation of "what is reasonable" merely maintains the same
power structures for the masters' own shibboleth, but at once it expedites
their control of the slaves in terms of their social identity (Re:
lockes' tabla rasa). To me it acts as divine-violence, or like one
that is like divine but stems from the creation of a mega-machine
which treats civilians as parts of that machine.  The slaves remain
ignorant because of a particular shibboleth(as you say) they cannot
percieve the legal contracts imposed upon them, unless, of course they
convert (Re:going from 2-to-3) which is a negatio of spinoza's
imaginary reason and a return to simple oedipal narratives. So I
really dont see the point of this line other then its rhetorical
value, but again, the rhetoric is lost inside the broadcast system of
the mega-machine.

> > Western scientific community makes culturasl studies, trying to be
> > like neutral.
> > But there is nor real scientific explanation on the ground of the
> > but implicitly refusing for example parapsycholgy
> > and making normal neurology  out of mysticism.  At least the last point
> > strongly tried.

I don't get where you are going with parapsychology, but I suppose any
un-named flow, whether its real or not or merely illegal, becomes
flattened by the philology of a shibboleth. Once they are flattened
then it is extremely difficult to untangle truely illegal flows from
those generations of imaginary virtuals that work to compound
ignorance. So it allows aristotle to imagine an "equatorial
slovenliness" or  for us some strangeness like "the equatorial love
for children." But this is an imaginary territory and any effort to
de-territorialize it is a detentional ambition because it does nothing
to address the actual territorialized plane which I only see as
relating to identity and property, and this makes perfect sense for me
so I can't understand why this line wouldn't be followed.
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