AUT: CIA Commandant Harald's interror-gation of Deleuze

[andrew robinson <ldxar1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Harald's deductions of guilt are such as to suggest he
would make a good "prosecutor" or interrorgator at
somewhere like Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.  He is an
expert at third-degree guilt-by-association and
sideways interpretation of throwaway remarks to link
his different "suspects" to one another and make them
the root of all evil.  A little torture-by-mutilation
of their respective texts and he might even get them
to admit it.

I seriously hope he gives up any plan he has to write
anything on Deleuze and Guattari, which could only
conceivably be a contribution to the entire
Sokal-Bricmont-Callinicos-O'Neill-Best-Kellner fiasco
of half-based dissing of "pomo" theories one doesn't
understand, for being too difficult to understand and
for failing in their elementary duty to agree with
one's own views.

There is absolutely no reason why alleged "blindness
to statist thinking" in Nietzsche and Spinoza - itself
contestable - has anything whatsoever to do with
affirmative versus negative ontologies.  Hegel
believed in dialectics and was a supporter of the
German state. Zizek supports far worse than the German
Greens, and is a card-carrying Hegelian.  Marx
supported political parties in various countries.
Engels called for the elimination of "nonhistoric"
peoples (such as Norwegians).  Stalin believed in
dialectics too.  And Mao.  And Pol Pot.  Not that I
would say this means anything against dialectics, but
if Harald wants to start guilt-by-association, then he
is treading on thin ice.

There is even less reason why positions on "the
negative" should have anything whatsoever to do with
Guattari's support for the German Greens, which in any
case happened at an earlier time than their alleged
crime of being "Masters of War", 20 years before to be
precise.  The dialectical DSP in Australia has also
called for votes for Greens at various times.  The
dialectician Benedetto Croce was a supporter of
Mussolini.  Is this relevant?  No?  Then how is
Guattari's support for a party which committed some
sin 20 years after he supported them?!?!

Notice that only SPECIFIC aspects of the philosophy
and personal biography of Deleuze, Nietzsche etc. are
considered, and that they are linked together in an
especially ad hoc way, to create a pattern of
guilt-by-association which is about as credible as the
Dodgy Dossier.

For the record, Stirner was one of the earliest
critics of "statist thinking", and Stirner was a
strong supporter of affirmative ontology.  Kropotkin
was ontologically pretty much a positivist, and again,
was a critic of statist thinking.  Hakim Bey is an
anti-statist and also a (more-or-less)
poststructuralist.  And I would also say that Deleuze
and Guattari are critics of statist thinking - see the
chapter in A Thousand Plateaus on the state - even if
they do not come up to Harald's standards of purism
(which for some reason, no doubt, he will
differentiate from the much loathed "moralism" of his
enemies).

"And the major difference between what
Deleuze does when he reads someone like Leibniz and
what you're doing
is that Deleuze actually knows and understands Leibniz
to an extent
that he can make all the pieces line up and challenge
traditional
interpretations of his significance as a producer of
concepts. " (Lowe)

Actually, the major difference is that Deleuze is
buggering Liebnitz to produce an immaculate conception
which is also an illegitimate child and a monster.
Harald on the contrary has a monstrously buggered-up
and illegitimate conception of Deleuze.  :-)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---