[D-G] desire - conatus - lacan - spinoza - deleuze

hwenk hwenk at web.de
Mon May 7 09:40:26 PDT 2007

Hello Filip,

I don't what you are doing, but I got the impression you did not really
understood what I meant.

The sentence of the supreme love for god of Spinoza (amor intellectualis
dei)  is also the
goal of th eethics in th efifth book. Th rerationlism of Spiniza meant that
existence as such, which is
the essence of good looked at  with the eyes of eterniy i sthe supreme
pleasur one can achieve.
Therefore the idea of existence has to be one - the ne substance, the one
As the substance as on elays on the ground, as comes from the essence of god
as asunstance, every perception
revives the thinking and idesa of existence and it seternal essence.
If you go back and look at something you come to atoms and the to things
atoms made of and theforces and so on.
Now Spionoza is also the outcome and critic of the old religious tradition
critzing its anthromorphism,o
it is making a person out of thes uniting all experiences you to one idea,
whic ialso the most
perfect being - as ther is no other thing thnaan existence.
At the bginning of the Tratactus to improvement of the ubderstabdinfg of
Spinoza he states
some "Initiatory" sentencesm where he seks for a good that cannot be lost,
as love tpo persons
who cabn die or to things which cab?n be destroyed.
You have in the practices of monastry for female monks often that god is
there lover.
Her Spinoza is the jeir of that mystica, romantical, mixed with
personal love religion, turning it into an ethic of knowledg and
tryinfg tio understand, gving way for the high value of science out of
But of course, to make out of exitenee or nature or God "ONE" idea is
very intersting, it is the real point wher Kant critizes Spinoza and the old
for the existence of God.
This is alittle bit complicte story, but the substance is one, have mor eor
better states. So living beings, first plants,  are mor eperfect than
minerals, having more posibilities to act
and more intensity to feel. A stage firther more conccsios neing like
and man are even more "deteroilized", havin  even more possibilities
to act and reproduce themselves - changing also the mileiue they liv en.
This give sthe theory of strates of D&G.
Now th ereal point of Spinoz ais, that you have to go to the details of the
next cause.
Hi slove to thge one nature is not a ubbiting only in feeling that there is
a feeling that nowadays b yneurobiologist is connected to
a finctioning of the whole brain, giving tjhenaxinum of
firing pof synapsis and as such connected with an overwhelmeing on efeeling
and tzthinking -
all (or a great part)  synapsis are working together.
THs wouzld be an intesity oneness.
Also the synapsi swoul overrifde the inhibitory ones, as little circuits are
As the perception, seeing and gearing ghioes on, ther occur even
hallicanitory experiencres -
like angels or something.
That ismore comon in former times as you may think.
Kanzt and Spinoza tried both to bring the peopke to not to care to much
to such "mystical" experiences  - for example as Hildegard von Bingen,
who had discussions with the angel Gabriel and was "trained" as amedium from
the age of 5.

The reference of the Anti_Oedipe is Chapter I subchatper 5: The machines.
I advise strongly to read the Anti-Oedipe from the start and to think over
every sentence.
>From Neurobiology there is useful the Hebb rule, stating that a synapsis
runs mor easily as
more often it is used. The second is the divison of electrical and
circuits of nerve cells and "The production of production", the second
concept, which states that a connection of synapsis is bound to
determine which neurotrenmitter will be produce in the new connectd cell -
an inhibitory or a activating.
Also the chemistry of feeling an the "association" with "meaning" or
thinking or ideas,
as i tried to explain with the sign, is to looked at as  a neural network.
 On the one hand there are Networks, also functioning at the same time
without disturbing another
and there are feelings and conents of thinking - mostly neurotramsmitter and
ormon influenced.
Her the "thing" or "object" is constructive, it is
produce as a sign by the brain - but ist is als perception driven.
I mean the category of an "object" or the art if it.

Maybe a lot of people say this is all known and associative psychology.
But her we got the freedom of the neural nerves mechansim and the thinking.
The question is how a "superego" can be explained on a neural level - also
in order to avoid its
ubcintrolled  activity, ssplitting the neural nerworks and the person.
Freuds explanation is Oedipus. Freud was originally a neurobiolgist - but
indeed influence by
#the concept of "energy". The unification to one "energy" with different
forms as thermal, electrical or mechenical
was done at his early time.

What I wrote on Narcism is Feuds contribution to psychosois: The connection
of superego, reality and
I is very, very disturbed.

Now this is also a lot, I hope it helps you.
I didn't found it anywhere.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip
Sent: Montag, 7. Mai 2007 16:50
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] desire - conatus - lacan - spinoza - deleuze

hello hwenk,

waauw, thanks a lot.

1)it is indeed so that spinoza is a more cognitive approch of affects.
you have to have a certain
knowledge about the affect. (i had forgotten it).
2) well i don't really get the sentence :

Now, as Spinozas ultima object of love will be god or nature, the thinking
that the untity of the making one "object" of it or a building a person, is
to have an object for supreme love - there maybe a lot of disappointemnet of
experience with love to people in it.

3)could you give me the chapter and subchapter, cause i have the english
edition. AO is one of the hardest things to read. but i'm gonna dive into

so are you trying to say, that we have a certain feeling, and it needs an
object to attach itself to ? or that it is just because we feel something:
why we don't know, and at the same time we see a cat : we just associate the
feeling with the vision ?

4)indeed freud had two definitions of lust:
a)the technical one: he used and is influenced by thermodynamics: lust as
the absence of unlust, and the striving for "low energy systems."
b)the daily used one: he aknowledged the fact that people in every day life
used it also for the pleasure they get from objects, like eating sugar, but
he didn't go through with this thought. (dominated by a scientific approch
of psychoanalysis that was influenced by thermodynamics).

i don't understand everything, so i will stop here, and wait for your kindly
reply in stead of starting to guess what you could mean. i will start
reading spinoza practical philosophy

friendly greetings

hwenk schreef:
> Hello Filip,
> There is no need to mind bad english or misprints, if somezthing is not
> understood
> there maybe a question. This is an open and free discussion
group -encourage
> thim?nking.
> What say D&G in Rhizome - "an impass - so what" lets seek another way.
> I just read in the of  the Anti-oedipe something that maybe useful for yor
> "chose".
> In Spinoza, you have to have  an idea of a "chose", of a thing to have an
> affect.
> If you love, you need something or an object to love, also with hate and
> other affects.
> Now, as Spinozas ultima object of love will be god or nature, the thinking
> that the untity of
> the making one "object" of it or a building a person, is to have an object
> for supreme love -
> there maybe a lot of disappointemnet of experience with love to people in
> it.
> So there we have an "obsession" seeking an object.
> Looking at the behavior and feelings of religios love, obsession is a true
> word some times.
> Now there is a quote of Lacan in the Anti-odepie on siginficant chains,
> where he states in the interpreatation of D&G (in the german edition on
> 50), that we have in the brain,
> on the play of inhibitory and acticvating neurotransmitters something like
> making a s"sign" off a perception, you see something, but it is also a bad
> sing, like in superstition,
> if a black cat crosses. So, there a alot of signs, which are a kind of
> "prechoses",
> for what sign is it for, what is its object, what is signified - bad
> luck -that is very
> neboulus. So here we have the "thing", or the  conection to a real thing,
> cat, and a new thing,
> bad luck, pursued further maybe the devil,  is signed.
> It is an affect like anxiety for example which is signed in a  way,
> an object, taking bad luck.
> Also the category of bad signs is inauguarted.
> On the other hand we see that there is something like neurotransmitters
> giving
> "free" feeling, the raw stuff of an affect - looked at analytically
> object.
> Happiness and tristesse.
> That is also what Freuf considered for sexuality, that man is to a certein
> drgree free  to chose
> the object for sexual desire (homosexuality, fewtischm), as in his
> "Three essays concerinig sexual theory".
> What you say, for Freud the tension of the desire is felt unpleasant and
> seeks relaxation, as giving
> in ecjaculation or orgsasm. This was strongly empahsized by Reich.
> Also hunger is unpleasant. But, in spite of that, sugar staste good
> and ois often consumed for good thaste, there are some "Happiness" hormons
> or neurotransmitters,endomorphins.
> I hope, thja helps yoe,
> I think really, the Anti-oedipe is a very, very valuable lecture - also
> nearer to today and maybe your feeling of life and actual state of
> greetings and good luck
> Harald Wenk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip
> Sent: Montag, 7. Mai 2007 01:05
> To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: Re: [D-G] desire - conatus - lacan - spinoza - deleuze
> hello hwenk,
> i'm gonna try to reply to you, i have seen that there is already quite
> some reaction on it.
> so maybe i'm gonna say things which will be repeted in the other mails
> or maybe say something else. anyway; this is a way to get into it furter.
> 1)the 1959 seminair of Lacan is quite hard and the notion of "la chose"
> isn't simple.
> i'll give it a small try. ps: forgive me for my poor english
> A person can be ATTACHED to something which is out of proportion to that
> case. So other people don't see that case so importantly in relation to
> the rest of things (and live). The more a person is attached to a
> something , the more it can weight on its consiousness and his actions.
> this person doesn't have to be aware (consioussly) that he is attached
> to the case. as long as circumstances do not threaten his identification
> he will not be aware of the fact that there is an attachement and "what"
> they could be.
> When a person has to loose its bound with the object/case to which
> he/she identifies, then the person feels a repression/displasure form
> that object/case.  for example divorce, separation.... : don't think
> that you know necessairly what it is that puts a force on you, or that
> it would remain the same during your whole life. and we don't chose what
> is really important for us, no it choses us. it is like a lover: you are
> attracted but why ? you can never explain, and the more reason you can
> give, the more it gets replaceble. so true reasons can not be given.
> Well : lacan tries to say with "la chose" : it refers to the
> power(hindrance, reaction, counterwork) a person feels (in confuse
> signals) when his attachement is under strain.
> >from this counterwork a person hears the echo of duty-obligations which
> are more important than those of the "people in general" or those which
> leads life in good ways. So it is not the voice of the uber-ich, no it
> is something which goes beyond it. and it is not that these signals are
> clear, not at all, but on the other side they are not completely
> incomprehensible. What he experience is THAT he should do something, but
> not WHAT he should do. So above the uber ich, there is an uber uber ich,
> which is much more powerfull.
> so when you experience somthing that is important, la chose or this
> power steps forward and shows it to you in a mediated way (in every day
> life: something of no importance becomes almost sacred). And that is
> what it is: ordinary things which incarnate something without limits. So
> this "thing" has so much importance that it can brake the laws of a
> community, but also the moral law. it is radically, it is demanding
> everything from you. that's why it is dangerous;
> well i hope this helps a bit, there is tons more of material, but i have
> a hard time getting it into a nice text.
> 2)oke, i will read first the spinoza book, i had started with it, will
> continue.
> 3) indeed the conatus is the power to keep on living, and that means
> also : expression, to become more. to change;
> so it is indeed the power to a)sustain encounters and b)to be affected
> by them.
> (i'm just summarizing and writing this down, so be shure that i am not
> wrong in my concepts of spinoza and deleuze)
> to come to the poin of neurotransmitters and freud
> 4)yes i do think that a more physicalistic aproch to deleuze is usefull,
> since subjectphilosophy is not his type of philosophy,
> I think Isabelle stengers is more on this side.
> BUT something about freud: the lust principle of freud is actual a
> negative one: it is the absent of unlust. so that doesn't make
> up for deleuze. what spinoza would say about this is: i don't know, but
> i think that because of expression and conatus
> it is much more positive, like deleuze. it is desire that tries to open
> itself in the world, and uses objects to do so. For freud
> the drive is object orientated. in the object the desire is fulfilled
> and the subject goes to rest (for a while). While
> for deleuze in real desire, the object isn't important anymore, it is
> the action. continuing with the action.
> for spinoza the brain or body is the same expressions, although there is
> no causal interaction.
> yes i know the obsession thing in spinoza. he talks about it refring to
> drugs if i remember quite well.
> so that you are adicted to the stuff. it cuts you off from your powers,
> or from reality. so that's not
> good for the conatus. it is clear that there is a "pleasure machine"
> inside you which start to dominate
> and get the balance out of the system.
> this is a part which is not that difficult. But then i ask myself (i
> will try to find an aswer in the following days)
> 1)did spinoza not see the problems of "la chose". that there is in
> everyones live something which is so important, although he doesn't know
> what, and that is shows itself in something ordinary ?
> 2)how does la chose relate to obsession ?
> thanx so much whenk.
> i'm gonna try to answer the other mails
> greetings filip
> hwenk schreef:
>> Hello filip,
>> unfortunately I didn't read Lacan's seminar on ethics until now,
>> but I am very interested in it. So I would also be pleased, if you would
>> tell us a little
>> about your reading.
>> The most easiest way to start understanding Deleuze on  Spinoza and
> Spinoza
>> himself
>> is the little book of Deleuze "Spinoza, practical philosophy".
>> There is a glossary with the main notions of Spinoza, also conatus.
>> It is very wise to read that completely first, before going ahead with
>> further reading on Spinoza - also there are
>> of  course different readings of
>> Spinoza, but you will get more acquainted with both - Spinoza and
>> To your question about Spinoza and desire, you must know that Spinoza
>> defines
>> human soul by the desire with the consciousness of that desire.
>> The desire is tied to its survival, to stay in existence as much as
>> possible - that s the conatus - the wish to "be" as much as possible and
> the
>> power to do so.
>> Therefore it is ontology, the science of being.
>> Thus the desire is also the power to stay or increase in existence or
> being
>> and the pleasure one has.
>> Pleasure come if you get more "being" or better "being" - the synapses or
>> in the brain are more working together or there are
>> pleasureful neurotransmitters in the brain.
>> This is also Freud's principle of lust and unlust.
>>   At best these pleasures are produced by the brain or the body itself,
> like
>> understandings or moving the body or
>> by uniting, aslo emotional,  with other appropriate people.
>> By definition there cannot be any desire within the human soul which
> desires
>> to destroy
>> the existence of the individual. There can be desire in the soul of a
>> of the soul which
>> has the effects of destroying, as  I will explain.
>> Now, the thing with obsessions is that of disturbing the
>>  harmony of the soul or its acting together as a whole or a unit.
>> As the human soul is made of a lot, Deleuze, going to subatomic areas,
>> liked to speak of an infinity,
>> of parts, a complex of complex of ideas, mainly the synapses of the
>> Spinoza and the other philosophers of the 17th century
>> knew that already.
>> Now the theory  by an obsession is, that one part of these complexes got
> so
>> much pleasure,
>> that its desire, the parts have also a tendency to get their specific
>> conatus as a part pleasure pleasure, increases as their pleasure as
>> So, if you eat sweets, an addiction to sweets can occur, for the pleasure
> of
>> the part of the brain,
>> receptors in the brain which consume the sugar in the sweets is and
> becomes
>> so great, that it overruns the
>> tiny part which tries to keep the teeth healthy or not to get to thick.
>> So, the pleasure of one part of the soul acts like "fan the dog with the
>> tail", that is the sweet addicted part
>> of the soul dominates the whole thinking and behaviour of the soul,
>> neglected or dimishing the desires
>> of the other parts of the soul. This is the justification for the power
>> the parents over the child's. "If you would let them act
>> alone, they would eat so much chocolate that they die or get sick."
>> This addiction, sugar is only an trivial and harmless example,  may
>> in decreasing the "sense" for reality and neglecting vital desires so
> much,
>> that situations may occur, also illness, which result in destroying the
>> body.
>> There is then an overrun of "red warning lamps", the desire which wants
>> keep in life,
>> like a red lamp "there is no fuel in  the motor" are overrun.
>> This overrun of warnings from the sensory of the body and the soul maybe
>> something
>> like the source of madness, a division from reality, to get into a "false
>> reality" from the point
>> of ones own vital interests. Reality is substituted by phantasy - also
> going
>> to the framework of interpretation.
>> If this process goes very far, no real communication
>> or contact with "reality", especially the common inter subjective
>> interpretation of
>> it is possible. People would need a lot of time and information to get
>> idea that someone has overrun the red
>> lamps of no fuel so consequently for such a long time.
>>  He didn't talk and react in the way. And the car becomes slower, for the
>> motor will be more and more really destroyed.
>> So he will run very slow, people will ask automatically themselves: Why
> does
>> he not drive faster in this situation?
>> This is dramatically expressed in Descartes'' madness picture: "to think
> to
>> be a king and in reality being a poor man".
>> For the part of the soul which is able to something like a king, your
>> narcissm, is driven to phantasy, where
>> it becomes very great without any real possibility of acting and
>> satisfaction bound to real adequate activity - on the contrary,
>>  the  ability of acting gets smaller.
>> A common solution is to identify with something successful great in
> reality,
>> like nations, soccer teams .. but that is  a complicated own story.
>> And there is the great realm of seeking "private" solutions for heroism
>> great tasks or something like that.
>> This must not be wrong.
>> This is also the start of Lacan's analysis of madness, starting from
>> Descartes picture in his
>> article about psychical causality, which goes back to his dissertation on
>> paranoid psychosis
>> There maybe also another process, that by evolving your abilities and
>> feeling for red lamps, conflicts our something dangerous so high,
>> that the "red lamp" only flickers one time and you already stop and try
>> repair the car, which is very difficult but healthy.
>> This is also very unusual and gives some trouble with common reality.
>> "You are very anxious, there is nothing, go ahead."
>> " - But I saw tee flickering of the red lamps. -"
>>  "Be quiet,
>> if we would act on every flickering, we had a lot to do. We have a lot to
> do
>> already,
>> for there are burning a lot of red lamps for some longer time.
>> There is also often flickering without any real danger. "
>> That would still be within common communication
>> " I saw no flickering of a lamp - to be honest, I doubt if there had been
>> some flickering".  This is already slight division.
>> "There cannot have been any flickering - only you imagine flickering -
>> are flickering" This is hard division.
>> "I saw only the flickering of another orange lamp" - that something like
>> "shifting". Which is also very important.
>> So far for today.
>> I hope, I could help you a little.
>> greetings Harald Wenk
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
>> [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of filip
>> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Mai 2007 02:17
>> To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>> Subject: [D-G] desire - conatus - lacan - spinoza - deleuze
>> hello everybody,
>> i'm a student philosophy trying to get into the thinking of deleuze,
>> which is quite hard.
>> but anyway here is my little question.
>> i'm trying to find out if i can find something like a lacanian "la
>> chose" in spinoza and deleuze.
>> i mean: for lacan there can be something in our lives which become so
>> important without actually knowing why, that we would do anything to
>> achieve it. Lacan speaks of this in his 7th seminair: the ethics of
>> psychoanalysis.
>> I wonder if spinoza has seen this? : could the conatus of a person
>> express itself boundlessly such that the person itself becomes disolved ?
>> i know that spinoza nor deleuze are not subject philosophy's so that
>> there cannot be really a subject, but i think that is less important for
>> the
>> question. Can desire become so big that the subject dies ? something
>> like an obsession or something. Within spinoza the conatus can never
>> gets in
>> the way of the individual, well that's what i mostly read. i know that
>> spinoza writes that we tend to desire repression in a social system.
>> but actually it isn't desire that is repressed, because desire itself
>> has to be mediated ? is it not that desire is invested in the social
>> system and thus
>> has to come to expression in this system ? or is there really a
>> diminishing of the conatus ?
>> and why would we want a social system: is it because in this system we
>> can expres ourself more ? is it like a small sacrifice to get much more
>> afterwards ? (if it is a sacrifice) and how do we know such thing in
>> advance ? or do we just revolt if it ends up bad ?
>> anyway lot's of questions
>> thanks in advance
>> greetings
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>> Info:
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>> Info:
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>> Archives: www.driftline.org
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info:
> Archives: www.driftline.org
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info:
> Archives: www.driftline.org

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