[D-G] Varela/Stengers : enaction /environment

Sat May 29 16:08:36 PDT 2021

could you i think you like the japanese culture,

could you explain in more detail fashion,

guattari s « collective subjectivity » which is

  »massively produced » in Japan?

how can this be?

and how it is or it is not an ethic of finitude?

and to whom is addressed Guattari invocation of an ethic of finitude?

did it help Japan?

( my opinion is in Japan no one gives much fuck about Guattari 
invocation of an ethic of finitude)

but autonomous intelligence is present on blogs and facebook of 
deleuze-guattari readership, not even talking about the universitarian 
litterature about Deleuze, wh

has the function of a model, a cult figure in autonomous intelligence.

so did Guattari invocation of « subjectivity production », and « an 
ethic of singularity/finitude », how did it interact within the 
autonomous intelligence

  « community » on facebook and philosophy books?

my impression: instead of a rhizome inspiring growth of consciousness,

it piloted nothing: the high tech being piloted by a ghost or an african 
animist divinity, was only a « inverse rhizome », something to drag down 
the intelligence, like heavy weights, creating a microcosmic « tree of 
knowledge », very much appended to the « general » tree of knowledge 
that i call autonomous intelligence.

the « collective subjectivity » became a lower strata, divided, and the 
word divided is important because Deleuze wanted to oppose « dualism » 
he found in Descartes and the tree of knowledge of the history of 
western philosophy. The collective sets of subjectivities were the lower 
strata. the upper strata was the autonomous intelligence atmospheric 
continuum that is transversal to facebook accounts blogs and uni campus 
litterature, creating thus « subjectivities » piloted by the galaxy of 
authors within the autonomous intelligent community . « What could we 
do? » seem the main ludicrous question haunting these subjectivities. 
The answer is militancy: boycott groups and black lives matter shaking, 
financed by Soros from Davos.. the question was never « what about 
Guattari, or what about Deleuze » they are fine where i am told they are 
at the moment. the question is: how to avoid this dualism between 
subjectivities and an atmospheric intelligence, when asking ourselves 
the question : « what can i do? » « qu'est-ce que je peux faire, je sais 
pas quoi faire » disait Anna Karina in Pierrot le Fou.

i think there is « something » which has become « wrong » in the work of 
Deleuze and Guattari. They are dated!

at the same time, precisely, they are « cult figures »: those for whom 
they are not « cult figures » their « true » successors are only artists 
who have « digested » and « evacuated » their work, subliminated their 
concepts. concepts who have lost their quality of « ustenciles for 
forging, new totally different, ustenciles » among those artists, 
because they have access to « singular intelligence » and hate this 
atmospheric galaxy of intellectual autonomy with all their heart. but 
the concepts are not « activated » within these successors works/minds. 
just words.. « de-terri-torialisat-i-o-n » funny times of the 
seventies.. ah what a time.. .

not saying the concepts of deleuze and guattari should be activated, in 
artists/singular/universes, because it would be a quick nightmare: this 
would make the singularities become part of the massive collective 
subjectivity political shake-up existing just a « strata »  below the 
autonomous tree of knowledge continuous non-sensical activation of these 
concepts in the books and facebooks groups.

  i think these deleuze and guattari thoughts should be left as they are,

and be brought in the light exterior to this duality which is in my 
opinion the consequence of Guattari and Deleuze anchor in a dated planet 
Earth.

the new Earth which is happening , when DG only predicted its coming, 
the new Earth is now. the autonomous intelligence will shrink in the 
subjectivity collective masses, and the hell with them.

regards Sylvia

On 29.05.2021 03:39, Mike Lansing wrote:

> you wrote: 'if science thoughts/experiments are/is founded on a 
> transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a 
> power drifting from the "event-truth", that which resists man/organisms 
> thinking.'
> 
> Deleuze: 'Monet's first water lily which repeats all the others. 
> Generality, as generality of the particular, thus stands opposed to 
> repetition as universality of the singular.'
> (D&R, p.1)
> 
> Guattari: 'As for the mega-enterprises of the second voice/pathway, the 
> great collective industrial and scientific adventures, the management 
> of the large markets of knowledge, they evidently retain all their 
> legitimacy. This, however, is on condition that their purpose, which 
> today remains desperately deaf and blind to human truths, be 
> redefined....the purpose of the division of labor, like that of 
> emancipatory social practices, will have to end up being re-centered on 
> a (fundamental right to singularity [italics]), an ethics of finitude 
> that is all the more demanding with regard to individuals and social 
> entities the less it can found its imperatives on transcendent 
> principles....But one should not be deceived: these questions of of the 
> production of subjectivity no longer concern a handful of visionaries. 
> Look closely at Japan, the model of models for new capitalist 
> subjectivities! It has never been emphasized enough that one of the 
> essential ingredients of the miracle cocktail that it presents to 
> visitors consist in the fact that collective subjectivity, which is 
> massively produced there, associates the most 'hi-tech' components with 
> archaisms inherited from the depths of the past. There again one finds 
> the reterritorializing function of an ambiguous monotheism -- 
> Shinto-Buddhism, a mixture of animism and universal powers -- which 
> contributes to the establishing of a supple formula for 
> subjectification, which, it is true, goes well beyond the triadic 
> filter of Christian capitalist paths. There's a lot to learn!'
> (Schizo. Cartog. pp. 12-13)
> 
> On Thu, 27 May, 2021 at 4:29 AM, .Sylvia_Jenepi. 
> <sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz> wrote:
> 
> To: mike lansing; deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> exact quote reconstituted by my superpowers:
> 
> »Expérience de pensée:en quoi serait différente de la notre une société 
> ou l' « l'enaction »(?) aurait réussi à devenir aussie « vraie » que 
> l'est désormais pour nous le mouvement de la Terre? »
> 
> -> « Thought experiment: in what way would be different from our 
> society, a society where « enaction » (?) would have succeeded in 
> becoming as « true » than is for us now the « movement of the Earth »
> 
> ->deepl more correct in reproducing man made translation than google
> 
> enaction for Varela: cognition in relation to environment, different to 
> Descartes where thought is « only » substantive « je suis une chose 
> pensante »
> 
> stengers thought experiment objective is reminding us science is an 
> enaction, earth movement as studied by Gallileo (reproducible today) is 
> an enaction: science is no antropological construct or artefact: it has 
> a condition : some thing resist: an event(s) in universe, which 
> scientists in action call « truth » it resists to man thinking (/acting 
> on) the systems of phenomena.
> 
> environments: different can be: mankinds eco-system and singularities 
> eco-system(s) two different environments. mankind=transcendental being 
> » falsifying adequate functioning of thinking in the singularitie(s) ie 
> thinkers of science. if science thoughts experiments are/ is founded on 
> a transcendental being then it can have more diffuse/molar power than a 
> power drifting from the « event-truth »: that which resists 
> man/organisms thinking.
> 
> a power which leads the audience led astray:  influenced by it in 
> certain direction away from the truth (adequate potentially to the 
> singularities as in spinoza's natura-substance-god) ( the original 
> useful objective of science though!!), it becomes a « truth » that is 
> autonomous and away from these « events/truths » in the universe which 
> philosophers of science posit as condition for « objective science » 
> though..
> 
> for instance, singularities (light science thinking or living 
> organisms) these days get  more alerted by a « mini-ice-age » estimated 
> lasting ten or fifteen years, than by carbon-dioxide warming climate of 
> « mankind environment » a concept closer to dark science.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Sylvia
> 
> On 27.05.2021 [1] 02:20, Mike Lansing wrote:
> 
> Yes, Bains quotes Stengers: Deepl says: Thought experiment: How would a 
> society where 'action' has managed to become as 'real' as the movement 
> of the Earth is now for us be different from ours?'
> 
> Google says: 'Thought experiement: How would we be different from a 
> society where 'action' has succeeded in becoming as 'true' as the 
> movement of the Earth is now for us?'
> 
> French text, 31 Jan 1997: Experience de pensee: en quoi serait 
> different la notre societe ou 'l'enaction' aurait reussi a devenir 
> aussi 'vrai' que l'est desormais pour nous le movement de la Terre?'
> 
> On Wed, 26 May, 2021 at 6:14 PM, .Sylvia_Jenepi. 
> <sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz> wrote:
> 
> To: mike lansing
> 
> Hi, could you reproduce here the stengers text you talk about and your 
> impression about it?
> 
> (orbital flat surface is down tonight because i am upgrading from PHP 
> 7.1 to PHP 7.4 and the PhpBB forum needs an update i try to restablish 
> asap)
> 
> byebye
> 
> S
> 
> On 25.05.2021 [2] 23:44, Mike Lansing wrote:
> 
> I will try "deepl" for Stivale's quote of Stengers from the D&G 
> archive, 31 Jan 1997, to see how it goes.

Links:
------
[1] http://27.05.2021
[2] http://25.05.2021