[D-G] Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 69, Issue 9

[Harald Wenk]

Dear group,

I reread Negris "wild anomaly" and saw
his interpretation od Spinoza as explicitly antiheglian,
using forces instead of "notion" or mediations
or institutions as Hegel.
This was empahsized by Deleuze in his forward too, the line of
thinking in "forces" is a real thread for the understanding of Spinoza,
which spares lots and lots od unnecassry difficulties.

This corrects some emails on the Hardt thesis under Negri of me,
suspecting a too heglian Spinoza.

The german left winged newspaper TAZ reprted of serveral
collaborations of Zizek and Negri,
of criticism of Zizek of Negri too.

The most prominent collaboration was a conference on communism.



On the other hand, Guattari was educated by Lacan and member of its 
school Freudien until its dissolution.

Deleuze admitted to have learned a lot from Lacan too.

Therfore I cannot see, why in a Deleuze/Guattsri group an excplicite 
propnent of
Lacans is a persona non garat as obejct of discussion.

To be honest, there have been much more far from deleuz/Guattari 
themes and persons
her the objects of discussion.

It is even hard to understand them without any Lacan.

So, I am, as always a little bit puzzled by the wild polemic.



greetings Harald Wenk


>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:58:40 -0300
>From: Tancredo Neto <tanbra at gmail.com>
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: [D-G] Zizek and Jameson
>
>
>Hi.
>I agree with the message about the propaganda of Zizek's book, the spam. It
>all turns out to Zizek and Lacan, as always, probably.
>And Jameson is an 'interesting' case. In his book about Brecht he says that
>Barthes book about photography is, maybe, the best of Barthes' books. But he
>does not mention that Barthes makes a short but devastating criticizing of
>Brecht in this book.
>Well, I think intellectual honesty would deserve some comments on the
>Barthes' sentence about Brecht. So Jameson doesn't stand out as a secure
>mark of intellectual quality to support Zizek's writings, since he makes
>some strange omissions at strategical points...
>All best,
>Tan
>