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

["Chris Hurl" <munkah@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

hey people,

Lowe writes:

>Statist thinking confines politics to such realms, but what does it
>mean to make thought become "nomad" (exterior?) and war-like? It is
>not to retreat from all State apparatuses and pretend like they don't
>exist (or worse, try to make one's OWN state apparatus). Rather it
>means at each point engaging them, pushing them, destroying them,
>engaging with counter-movements, minoritarianisms, subject-groups (as
>opposed to object groups and dominant signifiers).

I get the sense in D&G that the State exists as a tendency everywhere.  The
State is everywhere a looming threat, even where there isn't a State.  Thus,
the so-called "primitive" societies already encompass a
anticipation-prevention mechanism that is constantly warding off the State.
Likewise, the nomadic war machine is at war against the State, not as a
State apart from it, but rather it seems to fend off the development of a
State within it through embarking on a line of flight.  Is "the State"
something that can ever be completely escaped?

I've been reading through the "Treatise on Nomadology" as a result of our
conversations, and I came across this line, "We are compelled to say that
there has always been a State, quite perfect, quite complete".  But what
does this mean?  I mean at face value it suggests that the State is
ahistorical.  "States always have the same composition".  I assume that D&G
are getting at a common 'movement', the move to make things interior.  "The
State gives thought a form of interiority, and thought gives that
interiority a form of universality".  And here, it seems, there is a
connection to Hegel.  They actually state, "if there is even one truth in
the political philosophy of Hegel, it is that every State carries within
itself the essential moments of its existence".  But they seem to part
company, as D&G reject this interiority, they reject the sleight of hand
that posits the State as universal, whereas Hegel seeks meaning within it.

I remain unclear on the State appropriation of the war machine.  Of course,
this is something that can never be fully accomplished by the State, insofar
as the war machine is irreducible.  So how does it happen?  And this
directly touches on the question of working within parliamentary politics,
in the heart of the beast as such.  An interesting example that D&G use is
the "lobby": "there is a very old problem of the lobby, a group with fluid
contours, whose position is very ambiguous in relation to the State it
wishes to 'influence' and the war machine it wishes to promote to whatever
ends".  It seems as though there is often a blurry line between the State
and the war machine, an ambiguity which is often taken advantage of.

--chris



>From: Lowe Laclau <lowe.laclau@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: AUT: Re: CIA Commandant Harald's interror-gation of Deleuze
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:14:58 +0100
>
> > Hopefully a closer reading will lead me to a clearer
> > understanding of how Deleuze handles these questions, or
> > better perhaps; these risks, as falling into mysticism  It is far from
> > entirely clear from how he ends his book on Bergson, who was
> > explicitely to endorse Christian mysticism, for instance.
>
>Ah... I see you've been doing some reading!
>
> >And
> > even in the preface to the 'Difference and Repetition' he speaks
>positively
> > about empiricism as a 'mysticism and mathematicism
> > of concepts'. What is certain is that he walked on the bordeline.
> > And further that the answer to that question is highly complex.
>
>I agree with what you're saying in essence, but where I'd raise an
>objection is with the arbitrary nature of this word itself
>"mysticism". I think insofar as he uses it at all its only because of
>the "conceptual personae" that he found to be a powerful one (a c.p.
>is a type of aestheic image of a personae capable of thinking
>something)... that of the Mystic (remember that in Bergsonism that his
>intent was more or less to define this event in Bergson's life in
>terms of its positive movement for him, and not define it in the
>negative). The Mystic invokes a certain image of a particular relation
>of a person with thought... in Nietzschean terms an asceticism. But as
>we see at least in its first full explication in Mille Plateau and in
>its only full explanation in What is Philosophy?, he never takes only
>one conceptual personae. In fact one can say that as eary as
>Anti-Oedipus there is always a multiplicity of such aesthetic images.
>
>The major difference between "his" philosophy as he presents in Diff &
>Rep and that in Wh is Phil? is that while the former presents his
>philosophical activity as walking between the Mystic and the
>Mathematician (as ancient Greek images of the origins of philosophy),
>the later equally dismisses both images as arbitrary. But at any rate,
>never is the Mystic alone in D&R. And again, this personae should be
>seen as what he allows in terms of thinking (the breaking away from
>the social and the meditation on that which lies beyond it).
>
>What I fear however with this priviledging of this concept in
>particular is that it will be misunderstood for certain connotation
>which are not present in D's use of them.
>
> > But there is nothing in itself unreasonable about raising the
> > question. I might easily be objected to the manner which
> > I articulated myself in doing do. And it would be just about
> > impossible to wholly disagree with negative judgement here ;-)
> >
> > Anyway, I still owe you some concrete answers.
> >
> > You ask: 'What do you mean his "period" as a Christian? And
> > what would that have to do with this supposed "mysticism"
> > you want to find in his work?'
> >
> > I blweive I read some years ago, I am not sure now, but I
> > could try to trace it,  that Deleuze published some texts
> > prior to those now part of his offical works, that he did
> > not want republished, as they were written when he still
> > considered himself a Christian, and reflected this. I some
> > times mix things up, but that is how I remember it. But if
> > correct, this may or may not cast some light on the themes
> > that was also to preoccupy Deleuze latter, as that of
> > 'univocity' a theme which certainly has Christian
> > precursors, also within Christian mysticism. Now this in
> > itself says nothing. But is none the less a perfectly
> > legitimate question to ask, just as such questions are
> > quite frequently raised as regards Hegel.  That Deleuze
> > walks on the edgeline, is probably one of the things that
> > makes him interesting. Turning him into some pop-philo-
> > sopher, as I least see as a strong tendency, makes
> > him less so. And this regardless of my strong scepticism
> > towards making his philosophy serve as a foundation
> > for a political strategy. In particular without a prior
> > critque.
>
>Deleuze writes quite a bit about some of the "neo-Platonists", which
>are quite interesting for him in terms of what they "do" to Plato. And
>of course Duns Scotus... but how has "univocity" changed from their
>use to his? Drastically. Its use has changed entirely. Its purpose
>however is the same... Being cannot be divided into divergent senses.
>This has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. All of this
>(again) is addressed to Plato (and before Plato, to Parmenides). If
>the neo-Platonists offered a point of interest its because they
>attempted themselves to rectify some of what they perceived as Plato's
>limits. Although he would see that they did so only limitedly.
>
> > You ask me to explain further what I was *implying* ( your
> > emphasis and choice of word ] with :
> >
> >        That Lowe so without reservation declares, "Its called being
> >        political...", from my perspective implies a less than wished for
> >        purge of 'statist thought', as I think it would for many
> >        others on this list.
> >
> > Nothing mysterious in that remark. It is straightforward political
> > disagreement. Support of parliamentary politics -- here more
> > explicitly Guattari's early support for the parliamentarism of the
> > German Greens, but also that of similar French parties -- in
> > my opinion,  as already stated, implies a less than wished for purge
> > of 'statist thought', in this important respect at least. For many
> > of us this is simply not what being 'political' is about, even if
> > having learned in school that is should.
> >        The development of the German Greens was very much
> > forseeable, as if one wanted to prove that history repeats
> > itself, first as a tradegy, the course of social democracy,
> > then as a farse: the Greens. The former at least had a broad
> > non-parliamentary base, a class perspective, and in its initial
> > phases, an end beyond captalism , while starting out without
> > the lessons history might have taught. The Greens had only the
> > latter, but had learnt next to nothing from it, except
> > cosmetics,; and did not even have anything close to the
> > broad non-parliamentary social base which would have had
> > made it all imaginable to become anything substantially different
> > from what they became. Nothing but pure idealism!
> > What they accomplished  was turning a lot of energy into
> > a blind track, which wholly unsurprisingly ended up giving us
> > 'green' bombs.
> >        Finally, to spell it out, the parliamentary road is
> > precisly a statist one, this even if the intentions are all
> > the best; which I never for one moment doubted held
> > true for Guattari.  Which does not mean that calling for
> > various government commisions as integral part of 'What
> > is to be done?,' is any less an approach tied to statist
> > thought, and that in one of its most traditional senses:
> > the state as a means. I could be entirely wrong, but I
> > cannot escape the thought that this also -  not solely -
> > has something to do with the 'immanent' path, and the
> > rejection of an affirmation that includes 'the negative'
> > within itself. It sort of also brings into mind the in many
> > ways curious, and somewhat hyperbole, first published
> > political article of Bakunin 'Die Reaktion in Deutschland'
> > printed in Arnold Ruge's Deutsche Jahrbücher in 1942,
> > long before Micky became an anarchist but which none
> > the less attacks 'the mediators,' and celebrates the
> > life-giving force of the negative.
> >
> > The one might say that Guattari's stand was pragmatic,
> > given the overall situation, as it would be now. Personally,
> > I think we can safely leave that field to convinced parliamentarians;
> > they are not exactly a threatened species. I cannot see
> > any need for us all to take on the role as would-be-watered-
> > out-social-democrats. One could always cast a vote if one
> > so wishes; if a U.S. citizen, on Kerry with the intention to
> > get rid off Bush, for example. Being opposed to pollution,
> > even the prospect -- now gone - of not seeing his smile
> > and hearing his voice for the coming 4 years, might have
> > been worth it.
>
>What you failed to recognize about both the idea of "statism" and
>about Guattari's understanding of politics is that there is never
>simply parlamentarianism.. there is never simply "official" politics.
>Statist thinking confines politics to such realms, but what does it
>mean to make thought become "nomad" (exterior?) and war-like? It is
>not to retreat from all State apparatuses and pretend like they don't
>exist (or worse, try to make one's OWN state apparatus). Rather it
>means at each point engaging them, pushing them, destroying them,
>engaging with counter-movements, minoritarianisms, subject-groups (as
>opposed to object groups and dominant signifiers). YOU may not see the
>greens as being of any importance in German politics. *I* for one,
>having lived in Germany, think otherwise. Where the hell would German
>politics be if it were simply stuck with the christians/socials and
>liberals??? You're not gonna get another communist party there. The
>green's radicality in the beginning to me was very admirable to me! To
>demand the impossible from the State (as Zizek would say). Why does
>one do that? Well we can address that with another question? What
>happens in absense of it? Is this not familiar with the case of the US
>election, where even those with the most radical of left impulses
>votes for a centrist elitist conservative piece of shit party (the
>democrats)? What type of new found strength that gave all those forces
>of conservativism there?
>
>Anyhow, you've got a problemed perspective of Guattari's politics.
>There was never any radical separation from his thought and his
>practice, and he was among the most insistant in his critiques of all
>the statisms and fascisms that invested the french communist party and
>other movements of the left as well as the right. But for all that he
>never shied away from political engagement. If you want a better
>perspective of his politics *in practice* read "The Winter Years"
>(though I'm not sure if its been translated to other languages outside
>of the french).
>
>Lowe
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---




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