[D-G] La irradiacion pornographica del neozapatismo

[Johnatan Petterson]

i don't understand anything of what you say.
are you saying that Guattari was a psychoanalyst, and
that he talked about the state apparatus as
an institution? and that he alluded in his talks about
this institution, in a way that his audience, could percieve
the institution as a psychoa-nalytical ego ( something to be cured
in a session? by a psychoanalyst, like himself?)

that could lead to many various paths which are not borrowed
by the XXI century politcal current vias / spectrum.
it's okay, if we are not blackholed ie sucked by the spectrum.

so we need schizo-analysis to escape the pull of gravity:
so we need to ask you to define your words:

what you mean by phallus?
do you mean a male dick, or something else? or a hyperreal
spectral rocket?

what do you mean by 'colonizing'? do you mean like
in Melville the whale hunters plucking a flag into a Whale's corpse,
and paying attention to the colors of the flags, and the secret
or public, and both public and semi-secret meanings of these flags,
playing a part in the phantasmatic dispute about the meat and the flesh?

why a shadow, to the phallic object??

you mean like Magritte, or instead like Dali?

why a penetration of the phallus? like when you fuck with someone?

why should Guattari establish a comparison between an Institution, left or
right,
mild, cold or hot like Tobasco? say so it's like that, like with a
penetration between erectile tissues, and orgasmic ganglions?

why precisely this comparison, for instance, why not to compare Jacques
Chirac ganglion and François Mitterand ganglion with
a plastic tupperware, and the store where you can retrieve forks and
needles??

why this absolute non-sense of 'an object', is there anything like an
object in the Earth or beyond???

Paul Bryant has made in defence of his puerile imagination such a prospect
for a blog something on the internet.

non-sense, even Guattari did not believe in 'objects'.
okay, i guess, may-be you meant by 'object' , something like the 'purpose'?
because you said to be pro, or against state apparatus, or suggest that
'China' was something related with 'object'?

i don't agree.

present now you argument in favour of the 'object of the institution'
between guattari and deleuze and baudrillard , please, most welcome if you
do so.

and i dislike these allusion to the notion of 'race' in saying a 'white'
theologian, espoused with a 'black' lady??

and 'recorded' by an 'ethnograph? blurp. and what about the 'conceptual'
dashes, in a gramscian melody between this couple and 'pornography in the
East of Mexico' ? why???

xxy Johhnny xxy



2017-12-29 23:04 GMT+01:00 Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com>:

> Penetration of the theologian includes the Creek story of the "Veiled
> Lady" as published by the ethnographer Tuggle in Alabama, this veil
> being symbolic pornography of the white theologian's black concubine
> which is reminiscent of the veil of pornography that is mentioned in
> Beyond the Balaclavas of South East Mexico. This is also supposed to be
> a Guattari list, so the object of the French institutional left,
> mentioned in Beyond the Balaclavas of South East Mexico, link to
> Guattari's statement that the object of the institution is not an
> object at all, but space, whilst the shadow of the phallic object
> penetrates space for the colonization of religious pathologies to come.
>
>
> <-----Original Message----->
> >From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
> >Sent: 12/28/2017 5:50:48 PM
> >To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> >Subject: Re: [D-G] La irradiacion pornographica del neozapatismo
> >
> >i don't understand. this is a deleuze guattari list.
> >we relate to what you advance about the Creeks lands,
> >but you mention 'grammatology' which is French Philosophy.
> >
> >anyway, could we say that the Creeks had no revelation in the Spinozist
> >sense?
> >
> >revelation means contact with Heaven.
> >so i think if Heaven wanted the Creeks to be instructed of Heavenly
> >construct,
> >it sent its angels to the Creeks.
> >
> >I have been to Navajo and Hopi Land, and found it unfortunate.
> >I have been in a Holy place where Chiefs drink peyote.
> >The angels of Peyote ill advised the Navajo/Dine [apparently].
> >
> >the Creeks "interpreted" but had not the revelation about slavery,
> otherwise
> >they would have not been enslaved by the McDonalds and the Kentucky
> Nuggets.
> >
> >Revelation can be explained in Whitehaed 'event spread' way.
> >
> >xx
> >Johhnnyy.
> >
> >
> >
> >2017-12-28 23:26 GMT+01:00 Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com>:
> >
> >>
> >> The EZLN's agreement with the French institutional left becomes
> >> problematic when noting, as Guattari has stated, that "The object of
> >> the institution isn't an object at all. It is space."
> >>
> >> 'Many Indian cadres of the EZLN were recruited in this manner
> following
> >> their
> >> local involvement in the religious communities and peasant
> >> organisations.
> >> Furthermore, their political reasoning is impregnated with the
> >> simplistic
> >> principles of liberation theology.'
> >> (Beyond the Balaclavas of South East Mexico)
> >>
> >> ' " The sign and the divinity have the same place and the same time
> of
> >> birth.
> >> The age of the sign is essentially theological. It will perhaps never
> >> (end
> >> [italics]). Its historical closure is (nonetheless outlined [it.])"
> [Of
> >> Grammatology p. 49]. We are, by language, culture, and tradition,
> >> implicated
> >> with divinity, accomplice to sacralization, predestined to
> >> ontotheology. It is
> >> the task of deconstruction to reveal that complicity and to
> >> demonstrate,
> >> contrary to ontotheological assumptions and by way of marking their
> >> closure,
> >> that the thing we take to be irreducibly itself, originally and
> >> insignificantly itself, "sol de non-signification," is always
> already a
> >> sign.'
> >> (McKenna AJ, Violence and Difference p. 145)
> >>
> >> 'Lo bello no es ni la envoltura ni el objeto en su velo. Desvelado se
> >> mostraria infinitamente insignificante.'
> >> (Beyond the Balaclavas of South East Mexico)
> >>
> >> ''If the moment of birth of the alliance between Big Warrior and
> >> Crowell is
> >> cloudy, the issue that conceived it clearly emerged from the
> >> controversy over
> >> the right of Christian missionaries to preach in the
> Nation....Crowell
> >> explained to Capers that the Creeks were suspicious of missionaries.
> >> They had
> >> two major objections: missionaries worked their children too hard in
> >> agricultural and mechanical courses, which the Creeks interpreted as
> an
> >> effort
> >> to make slaves of them; and missionaries wanted too much land and the
> >> right to
> >> maintain herds that were too large on Creek lands. As Crowell
> >> predicted, Big
> >> Warrior questioned Capers art length on these points.'
> >> (Green MD, The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and
> Society
> >> in
> >> Crisis, p. 63)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-
> driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>