with deleuze and guattari.
It seems to me that the way "some people" write is not an entirely
satisfactory explanation for what killed a list of over 500
subscribers. Couldn't you have many different people writing in many
different ways and still have a very viable list?
On 2018-06-24 06:53 PM, martin hardie wrote:
The problem it seems with this list, and I suspect the new, is that it some
people seem to think to be Deluzian you must write like a space cadet hippy
using as many jargonised words that you think sound like Deleuze. It killed
this list. Let's hope their is light somewhere else. Poor old Gilles must
be trying to jump out of his window again, out at least rolling in his
List address: email@example.com
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi ... ftline.org
we had thought it came related with facebook development of groups (since around 2009;after the yahoo groups, around year 2004)
we thought aswell the usual writer found a new hotspot on either book publishing, accademic assertion, or blog and internet writing. they found a new public.
but indeed, it could aswell be remotely linked with the very deleuze guattari spoon list history, as we can find it in the archives.
there was this guy called "liza kolzner" who sometimes thought he was a baby monkey called "gondominnie"
Mark Crosby tried to talk with the sign language developed by Liza Kozner and Adline Vanlindenbergh.
then Happened Harald Wenk, and his strange talks with a wrecked keyboard, which was sometimes working. high fun for Martin, i guess.
then the list was something quite anarchist intellectuals from us and uk mainly, or the English Board of Communications on Earth.
but Clifford Duffy brought in the question of Paul Bryant being a spy for Israel,
and Andromache shared her view about the Ostyan Platform, back in 2001. these where fun years for the (dada)list.
But in around from 2005 up to 2009, the list got progressively controlled by Harald Wenks wrong keyboard.
Then the list died. But not because of Harald's authoritative tendencies: no:
At the same time, on the collective movement, in 2000 came Toni Negri & Hardts book of Empire,
and the list got more International, that is more World (Europe & Canada) than stictly Us and Uk.
aswell Chris Jones, who's writing novels nowadays i think in Australia.
But after 2003, came web 2.0 and the social yahoo groups, then quickly Facebook.
Much hope from Deleuze migrated towards Negri and Hardt, and then same hope migrated from them to Occupy, Indignados, Zizek, even Assange ( a mention of his 'war machine' on this list in 2010 I believe)
Then there came this pseudo news from Edouard Snowden. and a panick. may-be that's what killed the alter- Left.
I think, ironically, both the List, and the Alter-Left, were killed by Snowden, not by NSA. funky what!!
I personnaly knew from eons ago (1994)that anything you write is recorded.
Something i read in a book which is here: <<Coming of Age in Second Life>> by Tom Boellstorff,
a book about how humans on internet behave to reproduce the life they know In Real Off Line. the use of 2d Life, build avatars looking like Clark Kent.
i think the news of Snowden, disrupted this pattern which is incribed, coded deep into the Human as Animal on Earth.
now they do not dare to take their Behaviors to be a Fantasy expressed on the Net.
Shame on Artist: this is the Meaning in the Heart of Accademics and Laymen, dumbydumb-Ignorants alike. They secretely would hate being an Artist doing a Fiction. They hate changing the way they think Life, what it IS.
Most of the people on this Planet have this affect, this behavior. We are not Here, to judge this Specie.
We just behave with them.Patiently.
Anyway, i think the list died because of Snowden revelation, that our conversation could be kepts against our Ideals.
and Ideals are such an important part of those Non-Artists People's Brain and Life.
That's what killed the exchange of Philosophical "concepts" or "opinions" on such a List.
Shame on Snowden, and his false new revelation, which was on Belgian radio two years before summer 2013.
the cables, the diplomatic cables revealed by Wikkileaks, they are such drab: they are scandal organized by tabloids.Everyone but the most insane dumbydumb knew the content of the cables from eons.
the reality of eveything on the planet, is way way waaayyy more interesting than anything which could ever be revealed by Internet.
There's no Evolution, though, unless we should be able to trace the lines, and draw the Cartography of our Opinions, dwindling, or increase, rampage Opinions, or imploding ones.
martin hardie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
was Wenk a real thing or just a bot?
Thusfar, we have a date of 1994 for Kent Palmer and can only access one D&G file from 1996 on the internet. Apparently, it was Kent Palmer who began the original D&G list:
In the currently accessible archives, one can find a referral to Joseph Nechvatal's 'virtual conjunctions,' though this is not the complete history of how Nechvatal came to coin 'viractual' as an art trajectory. At the time, Charles Gavette was tripping on black nightshade (Solanum nigrum [Flowers of Flight a la Deleuze]), and Nechvatal offered to him Artaud's Manifesto in Clear Language, as a prescription.
express perfectibility or archeology of human emotions;
rapid prophecies or slow progress, though not as yet exposed by Julian Jaynes, rather (they constitute)an evolution towards
articulate knowledge of a reality which is assumed by prophecies.
science can articulate itself step by step, but the steps are contemporaneous to a divine active understanding .
http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archiv ... ri.archive
http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archiv ... e-guattari
atp (= a thousand plateaus) by gilles deleuze and félix guattari 1980 éditions de minuit
p176 (differences between matter and functions in abstract machine's diagrams)
Johnattan has no experience nor know how in the Mike Lansing own accademic scientific abstract machine
and just proposes deductions occuring when reading p176 of atp:
an understanding of how works gilles deleuze's mind:
why to make such a distinction between matter and function? (see p176)
which could explain us better the nature of an abstract machine
and re-situate an abstract machine in the grammar of emotions
gilles deleuze wrote in 1968 a book about expressionism in spinoza
which denotes his interest for passion and actions (definition of which see
my post on a grammar of human emotion).
the distinction between passion and action is at great length exposed in spinozae ethics
so that the reader understands by herself why and how to distinguish what constitutes
an action and what constitutes a passion (servitude) seek as well appendix book 4
and spinozae short treaty: on the topic of how what is action depends upon what nears by good and bad which itself depends upon
the model of freedom spinoza sets up for himself, not what the majority of readers understand by bad and good.
in expressionist 1968 book deleuze proposes a dynamic reading of spinoza's
which Johnattan believes comes from the greeks, Epicure, Lucrecius, etc
but Johnattan has not yet read Lucrecius so is unsure about the tracibility of dynamism
in those authors.
anyway an important notion in 1968 book is "the becoming active"
of the forces. for deleuze, the becoming active is a way to summarize the
ethics project in constituting the model of the free man.
deleuze as well sees in it the only way for salute.
he talks about some "affections actives" which i think is an expression not directly
found in the latin of spinoza, even though deleuze's book as always
with deleuze functions with the book of reference, in that case the spinoza various litterature.
deleuze (book) only can be understood alongside its direct reference.
deleuze we contend only is understood if spinoza is understood
deleuze book with guattari are different because deleuze schizophrenized, delayed,
his expression, in order to extend its power, yet he only reached to adequate idea
expression and formulation after what is philosophy? especially this is the theme of his essay on actual virtual.
even if the questions in Logique du Sens 1969 (namely : a same aliquide for what passes by and what is said)
expresses this concern which he strove to temporarily betray in his quest of expressive quality with guattari.
Mike Lansing seems to be uncertain about it yet salute is an important topic in atp
when deleuze and guattari recurrently call the attention of the reader,
to the risks emanating from multiplicities to become a flood.
for instance p380 (end of becoming plateau)
the question is if you climb up towards a random model, like on the mount arafat,
you can find the spot of cause and not the spot of effect
hence the quest for the right model which gives you control over both effect and cause
the object of the understanding and the understanding, once together
form the adequate idea which matters so much to the understanding. is that what you mean by double articulation, Mike?
the categories of expression and content in the geology plateau show versatile qualification
you could not say the mind is the expression, it does not work like that,
atp does not work on this level of "generality"
the purpose of atp for the writers are to create instances, or "dashes" which travel between
sedentary topics. yet Johnattan contends the dash "function" is rooted in activity
whereas "matter" can only relate the observer of the diagram of the abstract machine
as shown by deleuze and guattari, "matter" can only relate this observer to the passive
side: that to which the abstract machine is not, the "captive" if it has a brain functioning
the question: -"has the spinozist god a brain functioning right" seems the question Mike is raising in this discussion with Derrida.
but if you want to know what is the peculiar instance of an abstract machine,
Johnattan studied page 176 and Johnattan wondered: is the matrix of the distinction
between functions and matter, what in Deleuze's mind, and what does it say about the
rights of the Deleuze brains?
but if Mike wants absolutely be no "spinozist god" then he will not
admit that the latter can be an abstract machine for deleuze and guattari
(see yet pp190 - 191 about the set of all BwO: it seems such set of all CsO or BwO
is a god which is conceptualized, or which passes in the words of dg, even if as a concept,
because it is unadequately formulated a Concept, it is no surprise that deleuze and guattari
readers have no other relations than a subjection to the words used by deleuze and guattari
when they try to think the "matter" which deleuze and guattari proposed themselves to "think" .
so it is a hopeless cause. what i try to correct, even though in vain.
when Mike says:<<
As Derrida has shown, the idea of a god, especially an infinite god, is impossible because there is no such thing as presence in itself. The relentless coming of time undermines an a priori idea of god, which is by default a space problem as well.>>
this topic has been addressed by Spinoza in ethics (see ethics book II prop 7 etc) about the Order(s) of things which can change, thus Spinoza implying a Becoming,
movement and rest, thus space itself can only be posed in formulae of movement and rest, so time as well : can only be posed in formulae of movement and rest, so Johnattan's deduction (but Spinoza does not explicitely say this): "sub speciae aeternitas"; "eternity" can only be posed in formulae of movement and rest
so that "spacement" "espacement" should be envisionned in the same perspective:
in relation with Order(s) of movement and rest, and cause and effects .