[Deleuze-Guattari] waffling, again...

[james]

If I might write clumsily to some of these posts one at a time:

Martin,

I see your point, and agree that it is important to recognize we read
D&G in manners befitting our our "type".  And yes, the list does seem
to have many posters who extend the line by way of zigs and zags, and
even breaks.  I think that it is these points where the line breaks
that makes it somewhat challenging for "the second type" to get a word
in edgewise.  I wonder if we might theorize a third type, the first
becoming the second and vice-versa, in a kind of diagonal?  This, at
least, might open doors to a wider variety of "commentary".

cb,

I hope I didn't come across as complaining, but merely responding to a
sense of tension that I was picking up, and have picked up on numerous
previous occasions.  What I was trying to point to in my reference to
the use of "according to..." is the implication that rests within such
use of language, that any one of us might "accord" with D&G without so
much as stating why this is the case.  And yes, for myself, I do
expect (trust?) that list members will adhere to a standard of sorts,
if only in the form of a commitment to make an effort to communicate,
which is to say, to take that extra step beyond mere expression.  This
is perhaps where the list necessarily fails to hold to a Deleuzian
ethic, in the same way as much of academia must fail.  And if I write
"should", forgive me, perhaps "could" would fit the bill?  Finally,
instead of looking towards "multiple kinds of dialog", might a
dialogic multiplicity make our common (?) efforts here a little more
streamlined.  How might such a not-one/not-many manifest given the
limitations we face?

Wouter,

Yes, thanks you for pointing that out, if I need a translation I can
always ask for one.  Sometimes, however, as I think you might be
implying, it can be difficult to know how to find a connection to what
often appears to me as an (often quite beautiful) complete merging of
content and expression.

Charles,

Thank you for that.  I too had a great laugh envisioning a group of
size 10 hats suddenly emerging from the shadows and presenting us with
their delicate words of wisdom.  But surely someone such as yourself
can recognize when a certain amount of expertise might promote a
little more attention from the list members.

Ruth,

I find the archives quite formidable, that is, I am never quite sure
how to bring back what was said in a way that doesn't simply sound
like "um, can someone please explain what this thread was all about?"
And yes, time is a huge issue.  Just to participate at all is a
challenge these days.  What can be done?  I have heard some
suggestions, but few have met with much success.  For instance, your
research sounds fascinating!  If only I could find a way to find a way
into what I'm sure are layers and layers of information that make up
your work.  For now, however, I can only use this outdated computer
keyboard to type in a question: can you please say more about "our
first neologism for reflecting on internal states experienced outside
the body".  Not so much the neologism, but this incredible sounding
experience!

Harald,

I can always tell that what you have to say is overflowing with jewels
that I wish I could unearth.  But for now, in terms you might relate
to, the jewel remains mired in the mud.  I can't tell if you are
typing too quickly, or experimenting with word structure, or if it is
a question of language, but I find it terribly difficult to understand
you.  What's more, the emails you write are so very very long!  Would
you consider taking more time to focus in on one or two key ideas,
perhaps solving both of my problems?  I certainly don't mean to come
across as self-righteous, and I hope I am not being rude.

sincerely,

james




On 9/9/07, Wouter Kusters <C.W.Kusters at let.ru.nl> wrote:
> Hi henkw
>
> > Now Badiou and me are used from amthematics and other sciences,
> > that if you don not understand the things down to the details and
> > examples,
> > you did not understand much.
> > That is also according to Deleuze and Guattari.
>
> Is it? Where do they write that exactly?
>
> > And, it is not so complicated,
> > for there is nobody who will torture if
> > some thought is not the last word in the
> > issue under consideration.
> > But it is not very helpful, if there
> > are no consifderations at all in ana email
> > or a dialog, an answeeer to a question or
> > an answer to an answewerror
> > an prsuing sonme issue.
> >
> > It is a "fals kind of being shy",
> > as good old Spinoza had put it.
>
> thnx Spinoza!
>
> > On the other hand,
> > desorientating discussions by free, spontaneos
> > irritaing emails is a verys trang misuse of freedom
> > and friendlieness to concern oneself
> > with questions of other people.
>
> What are you talking about? What e-mails? Are they in the archive?
>
> > On main wewoek, explaining Deleuze imn other words
> > is the book of DeLanda,
> > which incorporates also mathematics.
>
> DeLanda? Sounds interesting!
>
> wku
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>