>From: Chris McMahon <pharmakeus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: D&G/Habermas
>Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 02:32:20 GMT
>
>Dear Bobo,
>
>Salaam,
>
>>(I hope so. :) But families in the mecanosphere?)
>
>LOL! Yes. They are still there. Can't get rid of old Oedipus that easily.
>
>I have to admit
>>that I'm
>>more than a little bit confused, but. What I think is that D&G want to
>>avoid creating people who desire murderous BwOs, and by doing so also
>>avoid
>>the repression/legislation of such people.
>
>Yes. I think that's right. But I also think they are no so gullible. It's
>like their optimist position (which rides alongside a more cynically
>"realistic" consciousness)?
>
>Now for an e.g. Let's legalize drugs? when this happens, does drug *use* go
>down? Nope. But drug *abuse*? Maybe? 'cos what is "abuse"? Its doing the
>bad
>thing. So for now, with drugs bad, all use = abuse. The Public Spheres
>would
>say, well ... is there a rational utility in the banning of all drug *use*?
>No? Well let's have more rational and utilitarian laws then. It's no big
>mystery.
>
>In such fashion, if in
>>creating
>>the mecanosphere we create the right kinds of desiring assemblages, we
>>won't
>>need any democratic rationality/discourse at all.
>
>Wouldn't that be nice. But really, Bobo, are you trying to tell me that all
>that reading you do, all this thinking, has nothing do do with the
>"enlightenment" process?
lol It's really not that much . . . Philosophy books I've read, I could
make a list and it wouldn't even come to ten . . . I recently tried Critique
of Pure Reason, and oh what boredom I stopped halfway. I think when I have
the energy, I don't enjoy enlightenment, it's just a pastime and I need
enough knowledge in order to think, to play the instruments, you know, the
rhythms. ::: I think it's difficult to picture the society D&G want to
move towards . . . hard to think without an explosion.
>Which is to say
>>that an
>>ethics would be immanent to the assemblages, no need for a transcendent
>>democracy-consensus-rationality to govern the assemblages.
>
>Well a certain ethics is immanent in all assemblages. Take a fascist
>assemblage? Or a punk assemblage? Or an eco-feminist assemblage? So what
>kind of assemblage do we want? and do we want to use our brains in
>designing
>a new assembalge or just *let this assemblage[this system] *evolve* without
>rational input? Cut the rationality out? Cos its already in there. So you
>would have to abstract it and dispose of it somehow.
>
>It's
>>really a
>>paradox of the sort that breaking the law should be allowed, but not just
>>everybody can break the law. I feel, for example, that I should be able
>>to
>>break the law whenever I want because my desires aren't harmful ones, but
>>I
>>can't make that a rule for everybody until everybody has non-harmful or
>>non-criminal subjectivities.
>
>So you would probably be happy with the public sphere, unless they said,
>no,
>your becomoing, Bobo, is a disutility to us all. And we won't let you have
>it. Now my feeling is that they had better have some good rational (and not
>superstitious) reasons for plugging your flows like that!
I don't disagree that that would be a better society, much better, but
culture, Nietzsche, more important than legislation system.
>D&G open up the possibility of
>>machining a
>>world where fascist desires, criminal desires, etc. don't *work*, these
>>desires don't proliferate, a selection of drives in the unconcious.
>
>That's not the world we live in though.
It's the little things, probably. Sending little packages out, writing
literature maybe, the world we live in is just a group of other worlds, so
lets send out packages and forget about big changes? I like that idea,
setting off small chain-reactions that might hook up a few centuries later.
But lests say we can make a
>world
>like this. Yummy. I think the design/recipe is there in Chaosmosis. I think
>Chaosmosis dove-tails okay (on a design level, though not a metaphysical
>level[?]) with H.'s public spheres.
>
>>We can
>>also have conscious stuff, but mechanics not legislators, rational
>>assemblage-artists with selective capabilities which comply with
>>unconscious
>>drives, pragmatic/aesthetic rationality. . . I'll stop here, I'm all
>>unorganized in my thoughts, I should apologize for not being able to give
>>a
>>decent reply.
>
>Your reply was splendiferous, Bobo. Its always a buzz writing with you.
>
>Yes. Mechanics! legislators are already mechanics (prob. is they are also
>demagogues, self-righteous capitalists, puritans, liars, preservers of
>idiotic SE protocols....) lets make them into mechanics much more. That's
>what i mean by lateral pragamtics - mechanics.
>
>:) Chris
A question..can we say that D&G's politics is sort of like Hitler's, by
which I mean grabbing an opportunity like the depression and then sending
out propaganda, I mean, Hitler was so successful, imagine, say, Deleuze and
Guattari in his place, setting off a huge chain-reaction. So when in the
future the next person who accidentally falls into power, let's hope he has
the right criteria? The cry is that there's no justification at all, who
has the right criteria; I can say that Spinoza or Nietzsche have the right
criteria, but how can I say that? It's hard.
:)(: Bobo :)(:
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
