Dirk wrote:
Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
mistakes.
MANIK'S eloquent improvisation:
Did Deleuze work along or with Guattari in time of those "serious mistakes"?
What was the nature of those mistakes?Something from natural sciences?Or so=
mething which belong to social sciences?If you said for him"philosopher",t=
hat suggest he make mistake in philosophy?No?
Psychoanalysis?Math? Which of his book contend those mistake? Accidentally I
have all books of D&G.If you think on their fight against
classic approach to psychoanalysis(for example in "L'Anti-Edipe),their open=
and flexible thinking about
this not-so-well-define branch of science(if it is science at all),their po=
etic
and free definitions,often on the edge between logic as a school discipline=
,and
logic of "art,schizophrenia and prophecy"(D&G),you could find all their opus
was huge mistake.
Of course,I don't have to know nothing about atom to get hurt from atomic b=
omb
(by the way; we were honored with powered uranium bomb here in Serbia during
NATO bombing at 666I,but I know nothing about those weapon,question what ca=
n you do even if you know everything about atomic bomb when fallow on your =
head-what are you going to do wit Deleuse "serious mistake"?).Fact that peo=
ple actually
haven't seen vampire doesn't make strong influence on garlic value on world=
market.You should wrote comments on Deleuse mistake,that's how Jewish trad=
ition,IMO make names and opuses:Spinoza,Marx,Canneti…etc.You talk,dog shi=
t,what's the different?
I'm not sure how to express that,maybe as your psychosis,this too big bite
you just chew taking heavy load of arrogance on your weak shoulders by ment=
ioned Deleuse.
This list already have experience with semi educated obsessive maniac&MANIK=
,and I find that's
positive.Why not?Nobody's untouchable?But there's one problem which interes=
ted me last few days:If you find
Marx theory about "surplus of value"wrong,is that mean that capitalist actu=
ally doesn't take workers money?
Last Deleuse's book"CinemaI-L'Image-Movement"(in book on Serbian language,p=
age 249,free translate by MANIK):
"…Mental image doesn't have to be created from interlaced of one kind of =
relation,it must create
new substance."(Gilles Deluze)
Cheers
MANIK
PS:I became your big fan.Latin&math&other stuff,education,dude,cool,not Dut=
chman,yeah!
,
schizoanalizys
-
Type: discussion
Comments
>Dirk wrote:
>
>Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
>mistakes.
Foucaul is another deity but then we read a quote like below…
In every society the production of discourse is
at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed according to a certain number of
procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and
dangers, to cope with chance events, to evade its
ponderous, awesome materiality.
Y-YMichel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge
I personally thought the production of discourse
is managed principally to administer the social
structure? To make sure the guy goes to work to
make the nuts that fit the bolts that run the
pump that milks the cow whose milk will be in the
store in a few days so that children will grow up
healthy?
In Foucault's text I see the following words as a
smokecreeen; "the production of discourse is at
once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed". This could be shortened to
"manage" yet it's eloborately structure to
distract full attention from his following
statement,
that discourse is managed "to evade its dangers,
ponderous, awesome materiality".
Don't you think Foucault was projecting
unconscious personal issue such as a real or
imagined fear of discourse? Yes danger is
present in all matters but the real meaning of
discourse is surely not to evade itself?
Miklos
–
Miklos Legrady
310 Bathurst st.
Toronto ON.
M5T 2S3
416-203-1846
647-292-1846
http://www.mikidot.com
On 19 Jan 2006, at 18:06, [email protected] wrote:
> Don't you think Foucault was projecting unconscious personal issue
> such as a real or imagined fear of discourse?
The psychoanalysis and social deconstruction of "Theory" would be
kryptonite.
- Rob.
Come on guys & girls, i was just referring to some mistakes Deleuze
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.
Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:
"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"
To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:
"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."
Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.
dv
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens
[email protected]
Verzonden: donderdag 19 januari 2006 19:06
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalizys
Dirk wrote:
Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
mistakes.
Foucaul is another deity but then we read a quote like below…
In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled,
selected, organized and redistributed according to a certain number of
procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and dangers, to cope with
chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality.
Y-YMichel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge
I personally thought the production of discourse is managed principally to
administer the social structure? To make sure the guy goes to work to make
the nuts that fit the bolts that run the pump that milks the cow whose milk
will be in the store in a few days so that children will grow up healthy?
In Foucault's text I see the following words as a smokecreeen; "the
production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed". This could be shortened to "manage" yet it's eloborately
structure to distract full attention from his following statement,
that discourse is managed "to evade its dangers, ponderous, awesome
materiality".
Don't you think Foucault was projecting unconscious personal issue such as a
real or imagined fear of discourse? Yes danger is present in all matters
but the real meaning of discourse is surely not to evade itself?
Miklos
–
Miklos Legrady
310 Bathurst st.
Toronto ON.
M5T 2S3
416-203-1846
647-292-1846
http://www.mikidot.com