[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

[Mike Lansing]

Thanks for this, I'll study it.

<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Dewey Dell [dewey.dell5 at gmail.com]
>Sent: 2/20/2019 3:03:52 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Communism definitions Physics
>
>hello Mike,
>
>
>i am sorry i cannot answer asap with a text from Nick Land on
socialism in
>the USA
>this would deserve some work of research from me.
>
>in the meantime here is the posted text by Andrew Culp on today's Dank
>Deleuze Guattari Facebook Group.
>
><< Many of these writers draw upon the 'empiricism' of a philosopher
>
>whose thought will inform my own, alternative, approach: Gilles
Deleuze.
>
>The exact status of this empiricism is, however, a strong point
>
>of contention within the secondary literature.
>
>By his own definition, Deleuze uses a reworked version of philosophical
>
>empiricism whereby 'empiricism is a philosophy of the imagination and
not
>
> a philosophy of the senses'. Demonstrating the importance of the
>imagination,
>
>he readily draws upon the literary works of the Anglo-American writers
>
>to demonstrate its principles. In his strictly philosophical work,
>
>it appears as the paradoxical formulation of a 'transcendental
empiricism'
>
>as a philosophical alternative to Kant's transcendental idealism,
>
>in which the transcendental field is separated from its empirical
givenness
>
>to bypass the personal, individuated world of the subject.
>
>In the recent secondary literature, many writers have departed
>
>from the object-orientated camp by following Deleuze's claim that
>
>this empiricism 'treats concept as object of an encounter'.
>
>They clarify that Deleuze's empiricism is strictly concerned with
>
>the real conditions of thought and thus fundamentally uninterested
>
>in an empirical tracking of the habits of thought expressed in lived
>experience [vécu].
>
> Taking seriously Deleuze's separation of the transcendental form of
>
>the empirical, these thinkers focus on concepts and not ethnography
>
> or personal reflection ('for the data of empirical lived experience
>
> doesn't inform thought about what it can do'). Shifting the focus
>
> to concepts is part of their wider move to claim that
>
>'there is no "ontology of Deleuze"'.
>
>They appeal to Deleuze and Guattari's suggestion
>
> in the introduction of A Thousand Plateaus to 'overthrow ontology'
>
> by substituting what 'is' for Hume's ongoing series of interacting
>
>exterior relations 'and...and...and...'. The philosophical consequence
>
> of the concept-based approach is an engagement with the outside as a
>
> relative exteriority beyond sensory givens. Interestingly,
>
> this is also how Foucault defines the experience of thought.>>
>
>
> §
>
>
>here comes the definition by wikkipedia / google of surplus labor /
>necessary labor
>
>
>*Surplus labour* (German: Mehrarbeit) is a concept used
>
> by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
>
>It means *labour* performed in excess of the *labour necessary*
>
>to produce the means of livelihood of the *worker* ("*necessary
labour*").
>
>
>
>
> §
>
>
>and here comes SPINOZA's Ethics Book II Prop 7 Scolie (Trad.Génicot)
>
>
>(tease out)(...)
>
><<Par exemple, un cercle existant dans la Nature et l'idée du cercle
>existant,
>
>laquelle est aussi en Dieu, sont une seule et même chose, qui
s'explique
>par des attributs différents; et ainsi,
>
>que nous concevions la Nature soit sous l'attribut de l'Etendue, soit
>
>sous l'attribut de la Pensée, soit sous quelque autre, nous trouverons
un
>seul et
>
>même ordre, autrement dit une seule connexion des causes, c'est-à-dire
les
>mêmes choses
>
>se suivant les unes les autres.(...)>> <<(Et lorsque j'ai dit) que 
>Dieu est
>cause de l'idée, par
>
>exemple du cercle en tant seulement qu'il est chose pensante, et du
cercle
>en tant seulement
>
>qu'il est chose étendue, ce n'est pour aucune
>
>autre raison, sinon que l'être formel de l'idée du cercle ne peut être
perçu
>
>que par un autre mode de penser qui en est comme la cause prochaine,
>celui-ci à
>
>son tour par un autre, et ainsi à l'infini (...)>>
>
>
>>> For instance, a circle existing in Nature, and the idea of the 
>existing
>circle, this idea being as well in God,
>
>are each one single and same thing, explained away by different
attributes;
>and so, whether we conceive Nature either
>
>under the attribute Extension, either under the attribute Thought,
either
>under any other attribute, so shall we find one single
>
>and same order, that is one single connection of causes, that is the
same
>things following up each one another. (...)>>
>
>(And when I say) that God is the cause of the idea, for instance of the
>circle in that it is a thinking thing, and the cause of the circle
>
>in that it is an extended thing, it is for no other reason, if not for
the
>formal being of the idea of the circle not to be otherwise perceived
than by
>
>another mode of thought which is to the circle as a next of kin cause,
the
>latter in turn to be perceived by another next of kin cause, and so ad
>infinitum.(...)>>
>
>
>
>-§- (as well) - § -
>
>
>Eth. Book II Definitions III
>
>
><< - Par idée, j'entends un concept de l'Esprit, que l'Esprit forme 
>parce
>qu'il est une
>
>chose pensante.
>
>
>Je dis concept plutôt que perception, parce que le mot perception
semble
>indiquer que l'Esprit pâtit d'un objet,
>
>tandis que concept semble exprimer une action de l'Esprit. >>
>
>
>>>By idea, I understand a concept of the Mind, that the Mind forms 
>because
>it is a thinking thing.
>
>I say concept rather than perception, because the word perception
seems to
>imply that the Mind suffers
>
>from an object, whereas concept seems to express an action of the 
>Mind.>>
>
>
>
>///
>
>
>Do you mean Mike Lansing in your post today that a worker in USA
>
>or a worker in France have a different surplus labor?
>
>I in any case am not sure of the definition offered by
Google/Wikkypedia
>
>( seek above) because it seems obvious that I work a lot, like at this
>present moment, sending this message,
>
>in a way which could be defined by either definition of necessary
labor or
>
>surplus labor, according to where we cut the Time Line and its
encompassed
>Vision.
>
>Besides something is existing between the recipient(s) of the message
and
>
>the executive producer of the message. This produced thing is both
real and
>behaving and becoming with a neighbor: distance:
>
>the same things (formal being) are to be found in
>
>one single connection of causes. It grows or decreases. As such it is
>perceived within a Ratio by the Mind. We could say that to cut Time
Line is
>trying to tease out a phase (ie. a partial object) instead than
>
>a full concept. Yet Time does not exist. Time is a partial object or
>partial concept. Extension exists but Time does not. The text by these
>secondary Philosophers espousing in Andrew Culp's
>
>vision of transcendental empiricism, this text shows this not: it cuts
out
>a part of reality (ironically
>
>when we find on same Facebook group today Sam Bhag, the correspondent
with
>Andrew Culp, deals with the Winnicott partial objects in Three
Ecology).
>
>But the Vision or Ratio of the Time Line _can_ or _should_ exist.
>
>It is part of Perception. A Perception as Concept, or as Action. A
Sensible
>Intensity that can be approximated
>
>with another according to a certain Ratio. This Ratio belongs to the
>Deleuzo-Foucaldian requisite of concept-based
>
>approach (ie. 'a relative exteriority beyond sensory givens' ) because
the
>sensory given (or the sensory produced, when happily this event
happens)
>
>is always an Intensity, extension being the increase or decrease of a
>formal being. The latter being affected
>
>by positive affections, either sad or happy. So remains the question
of the
>collectivity . This is where Ethics come
>
>involved within the definition of Marx's necessary or surplus labor.
The
>necessary labor requisite comes verified when the sensory comes
produced
>within
>
>a necessary increase of the producers' sensibility. This happens when
the
>(Transcendental) formal being undoes the sadness of the struggle of its
>
>conatus, which can in certain circumstances encompass ignorance of the
>Transcendentality of its Being, or its Self-Re-flexion. When Narcissism
>ends up with The vanishing Illusion of Inertia.
>
>a Space-Time understood by its emotion(s): as surplus affection or
>decreased affection(s) of the commune (notion) shared by channels or
>attributes
>
>of new other Space-Times. (ie Space-Time agents or patients) . The
latter
>can be given with 'conceptual exteriority' only within distance, ie.
>within the Vision of increase or decrease of
>
>interaction(s) taking the shapes, or ratios, of intensities.
>
>
>
> Very Respectuously,
>
>
>Johnny Petterson.
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> 
>wrote:
>
>> We look forward to discourse from Nick Land or these other
>> communist/post-communist philosophers because of the deadly
democratic
>> socialist thrust beginning to gather momentum inside the American
>> rhizome. If Hardt and Negri are correct in stating that the pivot of
>> socialism, the point at which it becomes impossible is necessary
labor
>> vs. surplus labor, then we must tease out differences between UK,
>> France, Venezuela, U.S. from the confusion.
>>
>> 'On a January evening in 1934, approximately 6,000 Chicagoans
gathered
>> in the city's large Coliseum Hall to celebrate and remember Lenin. It
>> was the kind of evening that brought out the complexities of
Communism
>> in the city. "In behalf of the American Communist Party," the main
>> speaker declared, "I say that the one program which will bring unity
to
>> the American people is the program of Lenin." ....In a sense, this
>> occasion honoring Lenin's memory had already begun the work of
unifying
>> American people across the lines of age, sex, ethnicity, and
>> occupation. And yet Communists clearly had their work cut out for
them.
>> American Federation of Labor leaders, the speaker warned the crowd,
>> equated Lenin's program with "a Russian program - not one for the
>> United States."
>> ....
>> What did this diverse grouping of Chicagoans find relevant about
Lenin
>> and the Communist party? How are students of American history
supposed
>> to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory images: one of an
>> organization that celebrated Soviet leaders, co-opted Soviet symbols,
>> and embraced revolutionary Marxist-Leninist ideology, and on the
other
>> a somewhat popular American social movement comprised of a wide array
>> of otherwise ordinary people?'
>> (Storch R, Red Chicago: American Communism at Its Grassroots,
1928-35)
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org