[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[andw at riseup.net]

i am new to this list, but are the writings here always so personal/ego
stylin/esoteric?

bit hard to tell what the hell is being said or discussed!

but maybe that is the point? (smoke and mirrors makes an interesting
labyrinth? at least to the one who is conjuring it up?!)

-a




> getting directly to the code is sometimes crucial for survival,
> without itLife would be tragic (re: Comedy/narrative as forms") I know
> I'm supposed to have a code for my
> ideas/action/(praxis=blogging=putrification) but recognition of code
> is sometimes difficult after major cerebral infection(couldn't you
> tell?). Unlike my warped cranial mesh, I think the code is fairly
> complete and in any regards not even necessary at this point, as the
> code has already become semi-conscious of itself and  on its own
> accord and fled these harse environments. all this even before I was
> able to identify what it was I was looking for.... near starvation...
> days had gone by, a week really, but in the anallogs I can remind
> myself of what the primordial ooze must of felt like:
>
> "Now the critical function of philosophy/ is to move away from fixed
> ideas,
> making one not to see possibilities of living which are actual there.
>
> The positive function is to look
> at sources which are not used until now."
> --
> how long of a "now", 10days ago?, give or take a year? 350 years, the
> social contract? Its a source and reference and model. It has
> everything to do with positivism and positive law and positively
> violence. (remember natural law was not a discussion yet (re:
> wbenj.textt), and I would perfer it if it werent a formal
> "disccussion" at all, but I do enjoy imagining scenarios erupting in
> civil society where questions of natural law could come up.... like
> what are the ethical reprocussions of when a young man throws an egg
> at a police car?...s.i.f.l virutals. sifl...later)
>
>
> rousseau's contract was not so concerned with ending the oppression of
> men in chains - but answers the q:
>
>  "how can it be made legitimate", made reasonalbe and Just. <--- THAT
> there
> moreover,
> "force cannot be used to control the will of the people, only consent* can
> the total alienation of each associat of himself and all his rights to
> the whole community
> since the aliation is unconditional no associate has anyother rights to
> claim"
> """
> blab, blab, logos, locke really wrestled rouseau about this and this
> fun -de-mentally infected greater amereiche. but locke was merely
> being a bastard and sidelining the real issue which is just "consent"
> and really how "money equivocates consent." Capitalism married to
> Imperialism needed free-markets and Locke ruled in 1770s, (America,
> Australia, Perry in Japan) and as a contract it was full of loopholes
> that can be equivocated in courts, just like they are today on the
> front page of the newspaper. Rousseau faired better in Europe as a
> techique for civilianizing the population(re: poland france).  This is
> a positivism that rouseau was responding to and acknowledging but not
> yet denying... justifying really. The idea is that, the better
> informed the passive state is, then the less likely its spartan
> soviergn twin will act out aggressively, unintentional aggression.
> Since the state's initial relationship with religeous institutions
> prevented it from utilizing Scientific techniques for informaton
> gathering there needed to be discovered  methods for massive social
> control at the pschological level. This involved canonizing
> mathematica works and eating pharoh's circumcised cartush  such
> re-territorializing of tragic spinoza on sunday morning.  Most of the
> real violence, are the orchestrated wars of the soveregin economy,
> ww1ww2ww3(now, its happening today!) are outside of the s.c., meaning
> that such things are not allowed in the contract(and furthermore... as
> a contract it is pretty weak if nobody has signed it yet, I'm still
> searching for the name of someone who has actually signed it, google?
> - sotherwise it is just dogma, otherwize its just dogma, and is that
> good?)
>
> what I am interested in is finding the clues in r's social contract
> that told napoleon to steal the mona lisa?
>
>
> the pointy-point that pricks me is the :
> using the sources is like writing the code
> (do I want to share my code?)
>
> here is another interpretation of  the issue:
> the purpose of p-h-i-l-o-s-o-p-h-y = enlarge/explain life =  thereby
> [giving newXopportunities to (think + act)]
>
> where:
> (p.h.i.l.)o.(s.o.p.h.y)
>
> p.eople
> h.ave
> i.nteresting
> l.ogos
> o.nly       <------CENTER OF THE SPHINX ( very important fact!!!)
> s.ome
> o.wn (their own)
> p.hilosopy (and that)
> .h.appens to b e
> y.ou!
>
>
>
> ... anyway I think
>
> compare rousseau(age37) sitting under a tree in the middle of
> philosophic revelation to rousseau(of NewJersey circa1998) would he
> have the same revelation again and again?
>
> """"
> " """"
> " " " " " " "" " " " " "
> Detentional arts vs
> the purpose of a-r-t = enlarge/explain life =  thereby [giving
> newXopportunities to (think + act)]
>
> """"
> " """"
>
> I do think there is abc...
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info:
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>