[D-G] Deleuze and Guattari on Brexit

[Johnatan Petterson]

Le jeu. 10 janv. 2019 à 18:32, Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> a
écrit :

> The question of superego is already schizoid. Either collective or a
> singularity. This means that the perpetrator can rely on the polarity
> with which to establish a supposedly valid argument.
>
> Guattari, SC, p.31-2: 'The Maps of Subjectivity. Before going any
> further with our examination of the cartographic possibilities opened
> up by our four functors FTPhiU, we must ask ourselves about the status
> of the present theoretical undertaking. Our principle concern is to
> develop a conceptual framework that might protect schizoanalysis from
> every temptation to give in to the ideal of scientificity that
> ordinarily prevails in the 'psy' domains, like a collective Superego.
> We will seek instead to find a foundation for it that will make it
> similar to the aesthetic disciplines, by its mode of valorization, its
> type of truth and its logic.'
>
> Guattari's Figure 1.4 has Gulen's rump perched precisely at the
> location in the diagram: 'territorial refuges for the repressed.' Gulen
> seems to think he can rely on the deceptions built into the U.S.
> Constitution due to prepositions such as "freedom of religion" in
> variance to "freedom from religion," as well as the nieve, trusting
> nature of the U.S. prisoners. In addition, Johnny Pett may wish to show
> us where in the literature D&G contradict themselves against their
> statement in ATP: 'The state always arises already formed.'
>
> Ironically, it is in Jacques Lacan, Politics, Aesthetics, that Apollon
> exposes the State as fundamentally terrorist.
>
>
>
Johnny Pett will not say otherwise than (s)he never said that D&G would one
time contradict
the word "contradiction", stay assured, was only referring to one of the
sentence imbricated into Mike Lansing email.

D&G never contra-dict :) :(even if there's no scientific value commonly
attributed to their saying.
why is that? because they talk by concept and with phases, which valorize
the becoming and the retro-action loops of becoming on the phases.
D& G have said they want to dig a hole in a tube, to make "flight" the
lines, that's why Johnny Pett said that (see previous emails) expains why
they Visualized the State from afar.

and retro-actively it's interesting, as it raises the issue: is there only
connexion, or is there sometimes conjunction (conjugaison)
which would not be only an effect, a sight becoming, only -solamente in
relation of determination with the connexion(s)
i read recently on nettime mailing list last week a commentator uttering
that the State is always Centralist
at the moment, faulting me another definition of <<The State>>, i would use
that one, and say that the State is that which
Centralizes the Circles of Signifiance. which attracts them inwards on a
structure which is thwarted by <<pre<<signifiance, but
not necessarily <<pre<<
its a kind of Conatus at this society level.
it is so different to the Cats, to the Dogs, to the Wild Gooses Birds
Conati, that immediately in Philosopher's Consciousness & Citizen
Consciousness alike,
there is an effect of permanency of a certain state of the strata of
Centralization,
which could be explained away by D+G as part of the Concept of Conjugaison.
that's one of the false object or wrong illusion in ATP:
what is really True, is the Difference in Degree between the Cause/Effect
Chains, eg, variancy of "Conati"

please Mike send the Gulen video wherein it will be explained how Gulen
breaches the separation of copulation

yet, i think in wip? there is a binding bridge (between part I and part II)
of the Transcendent Projection on the Plane of Immanence with the Aesthetic
creation of Fabulation.
(Bergson) :the distinction between the haptic processuality of a VanGogh
and the Bible invention of Characters perhaps lies in the Centralism of the
Plane,
the way it captures the attention? the attention of various actors, just
like Science perhaps. various actors can work on a Hollywood Entertainment
set, for instance,
yet the various Brains of the Actors gather together, for a different
reason than do all of Society gather instead, because of the Centrality of
the Projection.
yes or not?
Because we could imagine that Society would cherish to gather its Actors in
ways they would have a different relation with the Future:
Arts mind about the Audience, and that's how Future matters in a more
Conscious way in Arts,
then they do in Science, and especially in Society and Religion. Perhaps
even so that the Thinking Brain of Society is Imagination as we find it in
the Arts.
The Emotive Brain of Society being in the Intestine, in Central Signifiance.
Philosophy is conscious of that, (of that mindfulness of the Future in the
Arts) but itself it is incapable of being Mindful of anything else than
the Present, which it sees in the Fabric of its Concepts. That's somehow
the Invention of rare Philosophers
like Deleuze, to introduce Time in the elaboration of their Concepts and
Work (bibliography)
so Religion and Philosophy and Science share an ignorance of Others within
Future Time !! Not Arts !!
if Scientists sometimes mind about their colleagues, their scientific work
proper comes not engaged in that measure that they think about competition
with colleagues.
Religion seem to think a lot in a holistic way. Religion is so Central
minding, it reflects upon everything which shall empower its Vision.

that's the polarity of the schizoid imagination found in Arts which the
copulation you were talking about lacks so much.
it would be so interesting to decide with what schizoid analysis to absorb
the capture.

Johnny