[D-G] blaming G.Deleuze for Bolsonaro schizophrenic killing of University in Brazil

[Johnatan Petterson]

Le mar. 7 mai 2019 à 22:25, Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> a écrit :

> Very busy at this time and may not be able to respond for several weeks.
>
>



it seems one of the strong arguments in the EU election is about people
reclaiming driving the EU from the local.
at least what seems wrong in the Belamy LR in France is the will to tie the
EU to the
1) Greco - Romans
2) the Christian faith
3) the mind of the Enlightenment (les lumières)
if it could function as an argument in a philosophical debate
it is not logical to tie people's life to such three factors philosophical
definition.
life cannot be tied by philosophy.

but anyway LR doesnot score high in polls.

the electors of RN (LePen) instead will be more attached to their local
community.
they think not about the roots of EU, they think about their Territory (I
use such a DG word even if I disagree
with the choice of such an idea in ATP and Deleuze in general)

in order to defend Europe and avoid the schizophrenic shoot in your face
that does Bolsonaro with the
1 billions and half cut in University and Education,

i suggested to follow people's claim to their emotions (the Earth) and
their Territory (the local community against the delegates)
by considering how to amend Deleuze and Guattari's work in their relation
to the possible entities related in their work to the word 'Territory'
and 'Earth'

i am not too delusional, and understand Deleuze and Guattari
have only had and have a strong impact on the intellectual left, especially
in France and the US,
yet the intellectual left is powerless against such schizophrenic acts
such as those of Farage or Bolsonaro.

i have a theory in my slide which says that Trump
speaks for Capitalism
and that at the contrary Bolsonaro and Farage or LePen
express Schizophrenia.

the Schizophrenia of Capital

the intellectual left is powerless against Capital
because Marx himself just expressed such a Schizophrenia.

A fractured life, an opposition to life, is powerless against Life.

the fact is that such world leaders as Farage, LePen and Bolsonaro
see from a Machiavellian height how the intellectual left is playing (and
interacting with words)
as the missing part of the other part which is the mass
of schizophrens who want their Territory and shall elect them.

What I think is that Trump might turn himself anon against their new
elected Fascists.
They might be surprised.
I have heard that Poland expresses more reluctance than Macron in America's
fight against Iran.

Now Poland who expresses so much doubts in relation to the jewish people,
just shows how Europe might behave if the Lepenists win this EU election.

if Europe becomes a society of independent nations with a wrong guide
(Alexander the Great and Jesus as dogma ?)

instead i would hope their would be a party
embracing Guattari's ultimate claim for an aesthetic
paradigm, but even Negri himself did not follow Guattari.

That is Negri remained an intellectual, a no - doer, an advocate of Bartleby
the idiot scrivener,
instead than turning his words & theories into practice.

And the only way to do this was to
question the creativity of his friends Guattari & Deleuze.

is the concept of Visagéité

Faciality -

non predicated on a computer combination?
i mean: of a White wall which would be Deleuze's creative
input in the Face concept
(the signifier is a concept which is void of sense:
what is a cause of a sign within a system of Universal Becoming,
think about it more than once)
the boiler in Griffith is said to be a Face in Griffith movie;
perhaps you can understand that the boiler is hot
and that the Face is so hot.
so if you avoid the Face you get schizophrenia
and sadness.
which stands apart from against Deleuze practical own happyness
or perhaps it is a reference to Deleuze's forthcoming book
in Cinema 1 & 2 which ends up with the wrong idea
that Godard was not preparing himself doing something like 'cinema'
when writing in the Cahiers du Cinéma, learning practice.
Deleuze indeed ends up Cinema 2 by stating this is not
showing a good idea of what Theory is.
which led him towards the What is Philosophy? as a higher book and problem.
why did not Deleuze start his own career by writing right away What is
Philosophy?
and his last work CC .
that seems impossible to solve as a question as Deleuze destroyed
all his paper when killing himself, destroying a possibility to understand
the
quality of his Work (his Oeuvre)
I think this is highly intellectual and schizophrenic
and more in the style of Bartleby than in the style of Herman Melville !
such a distrust in other people, perhaps such an egotist activity,
required him to destroy so much around him, and advance false objects like
Faciality
and Territory . i reckon the inventiveness of his activity , like
the words used. perhaps it is also due to him,
living in an academic environment, which helped
him build his work, but was making him nervous in an unfortunate way.
he should have broken free of academia. early.

the academia is even less interesting now 30 years after his departure from
it.
is the world of books more interesting?
did he influence it?
in a wrong way, making academia and Arts in general
less interesting than they were in the sixties.

best regards,
J.Pett.