[Deleuze-Guattari] Vedanta interpretated, Theory of Lacking

[hwenk]

Dear Mr. Wouster,


You don't have to be an academic to dislike
the change of the theme of a discussion every email.


INTERPRETATION OF MY VEDANTA STORY

you may not believe it,
but the story of the snake and the rope
was written by me,
legendary in Vedanta is only
the introduction: To see a
rope as a snake.



In interpretating my little Vedanta story:

The snake is Maya, an  illusion,
to be more precise, you have only a thin long thing
(in Indian philiosphy this is then real kundalini,
very firece and hot, in the Anti-Oedipe it is the
connection to the middle of the earth, to the daemons,
there are not much
people who know that).

Now, the snake is something to fear from theouter world,
as I wrote, you have a notion, an image
from your experience of it.
The rope is something manmade,
from divison of work of mankind.
It is also soemthing useful.
This is the connection to the fruits of action . Karma theory.

Now the nexr step:
You are uncertain, you cannot tell between
illusion and reality.
Fear drives you to action:
The assumption of Maya,
the sanke, drives to step on the floor,
so, accepting Maya a little,
drives you at once into Maya
because you disturb your neighbour,
to bed more precise with rthe Maya of your neughbour.
To sep on the floor is karma, real action.
You are changing the real worl of the status of the rope.
Maybe you destroy te rope a little -changing your karma or real actions.
If you have worked with ropes very often the
recognzing of the ropewill be mor eprobale,
even if you are doubting, you are doubting less.
That is fruit of action,experience, learning,
real karma, less fear, less illusion.

You are confronted with the result of your little acceptance of Maya,
a little in it:
"Do you have snakes in your flat"
Maya becomes social,
it is a social fact, that you discuss
about the snake, the Maya, with
your the Maya of your neighboure - his fear oprojected to that of  snakes.
So Maya becomes thicker, stable,
has more "reality".

The fear of snake is real felt,
it is the reason of Maya -
and it is Maya, the fear itself.

So, Vedanta is only for the very
courageos ones, the affirmative ones -it is said.

The next step:
In order to overcome May you respond: It is a rope,
denying Maya.
But
speaking silently to yousrelf:
 you are not sure.
Offical Maya is banned, but
you are cut of social,
being in the position to
overrun your doubts alone
and convince your neighbour too.

You talk about wioth him on his
fear (of snakes).

That si alittle bit thew situation
of the followers of a philosphy like Deleuze and Guattari:
Okay, they are right: No Lack, oversupply. But in social reality??
A morereal other worl tha social accepted -- clearly out of fear.
But???

TSo, to come out of Maya is not so easy.

The snake is the projection of the rope out of fear.


THE THEORY OF LACKING (MANQUE; MANGEL)

Indeed, my professor Bormann,  who tauhgt me
the Anti-Oedipe in the 1980ies declared as
one of the main points of it:
"You have to think outof
the full, the oversupply,
not from lack."

In the Anti-Oedipe, there is
a discussion, starting from the neurolgical level,
that you got lost, if your desire goes to
an object which can lack, bound to
lacking.

Now, the nervous system connected to the body
has the problem to
get rid of things, milk,
sperma, urin, blood of menstruation.

Freuds Nirvana principle: To reduce tension.

Also for synposis activty, teh have to
reduce tebsilmn,mostl yby projection and thinking and feeling.
Thinking and feeling is always actvuty, feeling longing
is an activity.
"To be blocked,it is not als an intesity (Rhizome)"

In peoms you have alot of creativity concerning longing for the beloved.
Beautiful poems.

It is not lack, but something to get rid off.
Therofore, the desire has never
lack, only if the situation for getting rid of this
is bound to something, like in
fetishsim it is said that
ejacuklation is not possible without the fetisch.
Then you have lack to the fetisch.
Thats the neurolkgical level.
On a social level indeed,
in economy the is artifical lack.
Wehav an oversupply withh food in
the EG.
Miost markest are full.
But, peole have a lot of fear of existence,#
lacking an opirtunity of income,
wage. RThat is artifical lack.
Maybe for example one is lacking  someone who is buying your arts
or reading books one writes.
Therea are already a lot of arts and boks on almost every theme.

This neurological affirmation of fluxes,
 the nervous systen is closed in a way,
it has abilities, up to hallucinsations and creations.

So, in my eyes,theis economic lack,
coming from the tendecy of faling rate sof profits,
whic in turnis nothingelse
than the value theoretic and money expression
of technological improvement
of productitvity.
This is also the analogy,
more productivity, more  creativty
of the production,
but the need to infuse
lack and existential fear.


greetings and Good night






-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of Wouter
Kusters
Sent: Donnerstag, 6. September 2007 20:54
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [Deleuze-Guattari] sabotage may be stopped


> Dear Dr. Wenk,
>
> "What interests us are the circumstances."
> D&G, ATP

Merci beaucoup, Del&G.

> Why are artists drawn to D&G?
> And why to academics dislike artistic
> intervention in their discours?
> Nomos vs. logos, open vs. closed.

Probably, - as a writer - you may invent names. You may invent: Characters,
persons, and nearly-living stories. Inside those stories, a certain history
is told.
However, as a person, who reads, you are both open to a book, to consume its
content, but - in another way - also closed to a book, since it is only a
book. For instance, either a fiction book, a history book, or a
philosophical book.

Perhaps, non-writing artists are interested in commentaries on their work.
These non-writing artists - may be - sense that their creative products are
a combination of both "Writing & Reading". However, to get assistance by
letting their artistic energies flow or fly, they ask written advice. Help
theM!

> When the rhizome grows a knot,
> sever it and let it regenerate. This
> list has been reincarnated, wiped
> clean, and now awaits new growth.

> The problem with the past is that
> artistic intervention has always been
> negatively motivated. D&G are not
> about destruction.

In D&G I see a resemblance with what Peter Sloterdijk's criticism is, on
what he calls: "Mangeldenken." In English this may be translated as
"thinking-from-out-of-your-mind,
motivated-by-an-experienced-lack-somewhere." A lack, or a black hole, that
seemingly creates something, but which by way of ressentiment, or jealousy
towards those (french feminine phenomenologists, for instance) who do
create - like Hannah Arendt or Adorno - turns into a bitter undertone. I
feel sorry when I see people in a state of bitterness. (But, perhaps, that
may just only be one out of four tastes, would David Hume say).

> "The modus operandi of nomad thought
> is affirmation, even when its apparent object
> is negative. Force is not to be confused with
> power. Force arrives from outside to break
> constraints and open new vistas. Power builds
> walls." D&G, ATP
>
> ... some thoughts.

WK, hasta la vista



_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org