Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Sartre] Hopeful for Discussion

Expand Messages
  • june
    hello Elaine where is your question ? june ... Deleuze had been profoundly influenced by Sartre and as such i perceive this email not to be off-topic. The
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 18, 2005
      hello Elaine
      where is your question ?


      --- Elaine <lizral@...> a écrit :

      Deleuze had been profoundly influenced by Sartre and as such i perceive
      this email not to be off-topic.

      The other day I sent an email in response to the subject "Boundaries:
      "Plate-Glass" Feelings and Glass Walls", but no one responded. When no
      one responds, I often wonder if everyone perceives my response as
      non-sense. Again I send an email associated with what I perceive to be
      the same subject matter and again I plead for some discussion on these
      ideas. I am an off-campus student and as an off-campus student i attend
      no lectures, no tuitorials, have no other students with whom i can
      discuss and no friends who are intellectuals;))) I only have my books
      and like minded people on internet forums, so
      pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee indulge me;))))))))))))))

      Again I have woken early this morning, not as early as yesterday, but
      earlier than I normally awake in winter. However, I was asleep by
      7.30pm, asleep within 2 minutes of my head hitting the pillow loll. It
      is now 6am and I have already tidied the kitchen, made a coffee and
      have come to read emails. If u draw my bedroom as a square, my desk is
      in the top right hand corner, the sliding door to the garden is in the
      middle of the top line and my bed facing toward the right hand
      side-line is against the left line of the box. Above my bed is a window
      about 5ft by 4ft. If I look out that window from my desk I can see the
      tops of trees, but no sky. However, if I look at my sliding door I can
      see the reflection of the same window, but in the reflection, I can see
      the sky with its wispy pink clouds. My mind always looks for the theory
      in the practical "direct experience". The reflection in the mirror
      draws the infant out into a world of possibilities - the reflection in
      the glass sliding door allows me to see something that cannot be seen
      by my direct vision - but the reflection I see in the glass sliding
      door is not merely a possibility, it is real, it is only my positioning
      which restricts my vision. I feel impelled to connect this with
      something I had written several years ago - Nietzsche once said, "Men
      wear masks to cope with the chaos of Nature, but the true Master
      acknowledges he wears a mask and continues to play". Within Nature, I
      need wear no mask, for Nature knows her own and mirrors the reflection
      of my own being, these images allowing me to touch the very core of
      "I", my soul. Chaos lies not within Nature, but rather within the mind
      of Man.

      While in the supermarket on Friday, I intently watched the woman in
      front of me at the checkout, in this woman I saw myself. At that moment
      I considered Deleuze's statement: - only differences of nature
      supported a concept of difference, which withstood the pressure of
      identity, whereas differences of degree supported only differences
      between self-identical entities.[1] I know there is something important
      here, I only need to grasp it. What I see as a reflection in the
      sliding glass is not perceived in subjective reflective thinking,
      rather it is direct experience from a differing position. The image the
      infant sees in the mirror is not perceived in subjective reflective
      thinking, it is a direct experience from a differing position. While it
      could be said that my seeing myself in the other at the checkout was a
      result of subjective reflection, it was not. Rather it was the
      reflection of the other, that allowed me to have direct experience of

      The other day I sent an email in response to the subject "Boundaries:
      "Plate-Glass" Feelings and Glass Walls", but no one responded. When no
      one responds, I often wonder if everyone perceives my response as
      non-sense. Again I send an email associated with what I perceive to be
      the same subject matter and again I plead for some discussion on these

      I would be extremely grateful for a response to these insights and also
      to the email I sent the other day:- Speaking of the "ego boundary"
      could this not be oedipal triangulation, the trinity of "me-the
      physical, I - the spirit/soul and God - with I and me as merely part
      there of? The initial oedipal triangle is mummy, daddy and me, where
      this oedipal triangle is superimposed upon the social field of desire.
      Deleuze proclaimed this oedipal triangulation to be a structure created
      by desire through the process of social production to
      ground/territorialize the ego/ subject.

      However, given that in reality there is no ego/subject, this oedipal
      triangulation is mere delusion. From the standpoint of ego self and its
      desire to become a thing in itself, it kills off the mummy and daddy,
      but retains the trinity of I, me and God. While the schizophrenic
      process gives insight into the delusion of other, the I being all that
      is throughout history, the schizophrenic's reluctance to abandon the
      ego results in withdrawal and exile to the oedipal triangle of I, me
      and God. While the real and possible worlds are seen to co-exist, the
      schizophrenic is neither part thereof the real or possible. The
      schizophrenic, in having withdrawn to the trinity of I, me and God,
      looks out into the world of possibilities as if looking through glass.

      Hence, as u suggest, "For these people the transparent barrier is not
      only a window that allows the outer world to look in to their innermost
      being, but also an invisible barrier that prevents them from reaching
      the life they are aware of outside that barrier--the life where
      everyone is being all his or her being." However, is not the reluctance
      to reach outside the wall indicative of the sense that what is beyond
      the glass wall is mere delusion?

      Strangely this sense of being behind a glass wall also connects with:-

      One must agree with both Bradbury and Deleuze, in that desiring
      production and fantasy does begin within the nursery. However, rather
      than the infant participating in the familial group fantasy, the infant
      appears to create its own fantasy, where as Deleuze proclaimed, the
      unconscious in itself is an orphan, producing itself "within the
      identity of Nature and man".

      Deleuze perceived the infant's formulation of a relation with parents
      as merely produced within the interplay of desiring machines. However,
      Genosko had pointed out, from six to eighteen months, the infant, who
      is not restricted to the code of Oedipus, perceives and delights in its
      own mirror image, anticipating and identifying with the body it sees.
      The infant's anticipating and identifying with its own mirror image,
      reflects the
      Buddhist understanding of the five "skandhas" - form, feelings,
      sensations, perceptions and consciousness, the five groups of grasping
      a sense-of-self as subject, where it could be said that the infant's
      own mirror image, in addition to feelings and sensations are
      fundamental to the constitution of
      the infant's ego.

      Initially the developing infant freely flows within productive
      processes of the real world, where no self as subject exists. However,
      the image in the mirror, a self, external to itself, appears to draw
      the infant into a world of possibilities. The self-image the infant see
      in the mirror expresses a possibility,[1] where the infant's direct
      encounter with itself could force the infant to think,[2] I am, what I
      perceive in the mirror to be. With emergence from the real world into
      the world of possibilities, the infant has become a part. While Deleuze
      perceived this becoming a part to be a natural unfolding of virtual
      tendencies, in having already embraced a sense of ego, as Buber
      suggested, the ego-self's being in a world of possibilities is
      actualized only by entering into a relation with others. [3] With
      emergence into a world of possibilities, where the ego-self's being is
      actualized by entering into a relation with others, linguistic
      expression presents descriptions of the infant's observed reality and
      with understanding of these descriptions, the infant defines an

      Further to this of the schizophrenic process, the schizophrenic and
      schizophrenia I have written: -

      Laing believed it was only in the event of extreme trauma that
      collusion was broken, the schizophrenic becoming conscious of hidden
      collusion,[4] this becoming conscious, referred to by Deleuze as a
      rupture. Laing perceived the schizophrenic as the visionary, overtly
      aware of direct experience and motives, hypertrophy of consciousness
      conferring a greater sense of psychological mindedness,[5] the
      schizophrenic becoming privy to collusion, to the micro-macro-social
      drama as mere fantasy.[6] In agreement with Laing, Deleuze proclaimed
      the schizophrenic process to be a voyage of initiation, a
      transcendental experience of loss of ego, a loss of subjectivity, with
      the undermining of emotional reactions.[7]

      In relation to the co-existence of the real and possible worlds,
      Deleuze perceived of both inner and outer worlds. While Sartre believed
      inner passive states to be beyond consciousness, Deleuze, describing
      this inner state of intensity as interiority, believed interiority to
      be pure consciousness, wherein this state the object was pure. In this
      state, consciousness and its object were as one, consciousness as
      "signification inscribed objectively" in its object. In pure
      consciousness there was no other, there was no differentiation, there
      was no-thing outside of itself.[8] In acknowledging the significance of
      both the exterior and interior voyage, one must concur with Deleuze,
      that while upon an interior voyage all form and quality are abandoned.
      Deleuze proclaimed that in abandoning all extensions in exteriority,
      one experienced pure intensities of coupling without confusion of
      spaces and forms.[9] As Deleuze proclaimed, relationships of intensity,
      as states, through which the subject passes are the cause of becomings,
      rises and falls, migrations and displacements.[10] Deleuze perceived
      the schizophrenic as embarking upon a double voyage, the "geographical
      exterior following non-decomposable distances" experiencing
      intensities, which divide into one another while changing their form
      and the "interior historical", enveloping intensities, where rather
      than the perception of a subjective I, the schizophrenic perceives all
      the events of history to have been experienced by the I as
      subject.[11] For the schizophrenic there is no ego-self at the centre,
      enforcing grounding and as such, the schizophrenic process lacks
      no-thing. The schizophrenic freely flows with the entire energy of
      desire. The schizophrenic has no need of Oedipus, no need of a despotic
      signifier. As Deleuze proclaimed, rather than experiencing a breakdown,
      the schizophrenic experiences a break through. For not only does the
      schizophrenic experience a multiplicity of productive processes in the
      flow of desire, passing through a multiplicity of differing intense
      states in a world of possibilities, but also the schizophrenic connects
      with the real.

      The schizophrenic process in itself does not (still working on
      this)... Hence, Deleuze proclaimed, that schizophrenia, defined as
      mental illness, rather than caused by a lack of Oedipus, was a result
      of enforced oedipalization, which the subject of desire was unable to
      bear.[12] Distinguishing between molar organization and the molecular
      multiplicity of desire, Deleuze perceived Schizophrenia as the boundary
      between molar organization and the molecular multiplicity of desire.
      Psychiatric intervention forcefully draws the Schizophrenic into the
      factitious and subjugated territory of molar organization, where
      Oedipus signifies displacement.[13]

      Please respond,

      Love & Massive Hugs,



      [1] Faulkner K.W. - "Deleuze In Utero"; p.28

      [2] Paul Patton - "Deleuze: A Critical Reader"; Ibid; p.30

      [3] Buber M. -"I and Thou"pp.27-8

      [4] Laing R.D. - "Wisdom, Madness and Folly"; p14

      [5] Burston D. -"The Crucible of Experience"; p.41

      [6] Laing R.D. - "Wisdom, Madness and Folly"; p14

      [7] Deleuze G. & Guattari F. - "Anti-Oedipus"; p.87

      [8] Faulkner K.W. - "Deleuze In Utero"; pp.27-8

      [9] Deleuze G. & Guattari F. - "Anti-Oedipus"; pp.84-5

      [10] Deleuze G. & Guattari F. - "Anti-Oedipus"; p.84

      [11] Deleuze G. & Guattari F. - "Anti-Oedipus"; p.88

      [12] Deleuze G. & Guattari F. - "Anti-Oedipus"; p.91

      [13] Deleuze G. & Guattari F. - "Anti-Oedipus"; p.102


      [1] Paul Patton - "Deleuze: A Critical Reader"; p.86

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      To visit your group on the web, go to:

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
      Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.