schizoanalisys for beginners II

Sorry Manic, i don't care 1 teedly bit if it's 'opportunist' to 'fool
around' with you or not. I don't have anything to sell or promote here. Now
if you want others to reply to your posts more often, you might want to try
using less abusive language, better English and a more thoughtfull attitude.
People are known to avoid the kind of noise you make at times. You may
deplore these facts, the requirements of politeness, understandable English
and an engaging attitude out of some artistical or ideological motivation (i
don't think i'd be likely to share such a motivation), but they will remain
facts. For one thing, the language problem is something i would find worthy
of further consideration, but not by us, rather by the American community
who maintains this thing for us, and i'm sure they do.

Now i take this list for what it is: an opportunity to discuss things that
matter to me with people who are likewise engaged in a search to position
themselves artistically or otherwise simply socially interact because they
know they can learn something in the process.
We do this publicly because however foolish or weak or whatever we may be as
individuals, we all represent a point of view that is valuable as such, and
the fact that we know these things might get read by many others makes us
aware that we need to write on the limit of our knowledge, as Deleuze used
to say, to do our best to say things that could matter to other people:
"On n'ecrit qu'a la pointe de son savoir, a cette pointe extreme qui =
separe
notre savoir et notre ignorance, et qui fait passer l'un dans l'autre."
(Avant propos to Difference et repetition, p 5, i never got much furt=
her in
that book. Yet.)

Surely these are hard, harsh criteria to uphold for anyone, and not
applicable to your everyday post to [email protected] , but its a nice ideal
you might want to cherish, in the back of your head. It's an exercise, if
anything, and we're likely to fail every minute of it, but I'm gratefull for
that: it's not every day that you get the opportunity to chat with a
professional mathematician on things that matter to your practice of art,
for instance.

So i firmly objected to you and Miklos misquoting what i wrote in order to
make some points of your own. i think i was right in doing so, however
unimportant the issue. Simply because it's not fair, not to me, but more
importantly, not to Nad, to the conversation we were having, to the list and
what it stands for, in my very humble opinion anyway, as such.

dv
_____

Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens manik
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 januari 2006 2:07
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalisys for beginners II



People who have no courage to appear with own(although weak belief and
knowledge)
we call "egg thief".He/she know that for this small offense could earn,in
best case, kick
in ass.
This fuchsia below,this private fawning have bad connotation because repeat
really filth practice
of not so small number of Rhizomers who send private compliments,but
strictly avoid to
mentioned MANIK in Rhizome_Raw!Yes MANIK'S belong to other side,he/she is
other/same,different,far and close same time,one who disturb idyll&communal
spirit
and we suppose it's not
opportunist to fool around with him.
No private mail,please.
MANIK

Second Vekermans letter's so dilettante and confused,that I have no time
to discus such fantasy.
Find this Deleuse mistake,prove that if you can,and good-bye.
What can I expect tomorrow,new theory of Universe?


[email protected]>
1/19/06 2:03:16 PM
deleuze
Hi Manik,
Thanks for the fanmail :-[]
As a matter of fact i don't remember exactly which kind of mistakes Deleuze
made when talking about science. I remember reading an article in the French
'Magazine Literaraire' somewhere around 1996 about Deleuze going wrong on a
topic in either physics or mathematical topology. Can't find the mag
anymore, i'll admit so much in my next answer to Nad.

Got most of Deleuze's work too, actually finished reading three of them..

Am at work now, can't get in the list from here, so you won't get an onlist
answer this time….

g*dspeed,
dv

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