[D-G] color In 1908

NZ pretzelworld at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 17:21:12 PST 2005

beyound good and evil sort of. that is to ask not to follow choices
offered by the situation but to decide for a visibility of the
situation. so i think cinema could help this visibility of the
situation, and that is all profit for the inhabitants of the structure
to see the structure.

looking beyond the Theravada Buddist version of good or bad praxis is
difficult to do especially after it becomes clear that some people
truely believe we are on the hell-plane. that kind of truth-value
reading of technology, "is it good? or is it bad?" would remove the
discussion away from plain heurmanutic observation, or history.
ultimately all cinema is light, positive light, it can only
"illuimate" via the production of countless photons.... as we
understand it in the logos of physics (thanks to spinoza for building
the foundations for that logos). the extreme complexity of any
cinematic technique begins at theory. the automation of that theory to
the celluloid object, the film strip, the projector, the moviehouse,
to the entire machine of cinema. that theory before the
cinema-phenomena (but leading to cinema) is slow and barely traceable,
it is like a phi-phenomena.

the tantric nature of tibetan buddhsm, tells us to satisfy desire,
that no matter what the technique will be just satisy desire. cinema
trys to act like a tantic which is beyond good and evil - placing
traditional moral consciousness to the sidelines. that is why cinema
automatically becomes political.

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list