[D-G] Deleuze and Guattari on Brexit

Mike Lansing badger2 at mail2world.com
Fri Jan 11 14:19:44 PST 2019

Johnny Pett said: "But I don't think ATP would have included the idea
of a Visible State (perceptible to the Persona) as a terrorist entity
as Lacan had said (your quote).'

If ATP states that the State always arises already formed, the
contradiction would be to disagree with the origins of its formation,
visible or not visible, a kind of oxymoron when relating to perception.

Gulen imitates the migrant UK Founding Fathers by going to
Pennsylvania, and once there tries gets arrogant and cock-sure while
instilling terror in the hearts of the U.S. prisoners by stating that
"I don't think either Trump or any other U.S. president will tarnish
the reputation of the United States around the world and submit to
these unreasonable demands by the Turkish president.' 

This statement can be viewed at time-point 1:46 in the video.


<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
>Sent: 1/10/2019 2:25:53 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Deleuze and Guattari on Brexit
>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
>> 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,
>> 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.'
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>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
>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
>they Visualized the State from afar.
>and retro-actively it's interesting, as it raises the issue: is there
>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
>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
>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
>which could be explained away by D+G as part of the Concept of
>that's one of the false object or wrong illusion in ATP:
>what is really True, is the Difference in Degree between the
>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
>creation of Fabulation.
>(Bergson) :the distinction between the haptic processuality of a
>and the Bible invention of Characters perhaps lies in the Centralism
of the
>the way it captures the attention? the attention of various actors,
>like Science perhaps. various actors can work on a Hollywood
>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.
>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
>Philosophy is conscious of that, (of that mindfulness of the Future in
>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
>the Invention of rare Philosophers
>like Deleuze, to introduce Time in the elaboration of their Concepts
>Work (bibliography)
>so Religion and Philosophy and Science share an ignorance of Others
>Future Time !! Not Arts !!
>if Scientists sometimes mind about their colleagues, their scientific
>proper comes not engaged in that measure that they think about
>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
>the capture.
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org 

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list