[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

NZ pretzelworld at gmail.com
Tue Apr 11 10:29:05 PDT 2006

Obviously I am impossing my own pulse to this discussion and it will
be difficult to continue w/o "warping" the mesh-points of this pulse
to a meaningful surface... so be it, I am busy at the job logging
footage with my eyes and just typing words, so personally it is of no
importance really but here goes....

what captivates me is the denial of intelligence behind soveriegn
technique. It is not the case that intelligence is removed, its just
not there, what is there in its place is something similar to locke's
response to the rationalists, experience. The need/hunger for
"experience" that sovereignty uses like a battery of power is the
realm of re-territorialization. In the first place this need for
experience really creates the brutal experiences of life that
capitalists call "innovation." The very notion of improvement within
the system, is a brutal process that gets lived by many millions of
people, so this is something real being affected by a theory. IT is
one thing for descartes to address these same things on a blackboard
but is different entirely to en-act the narrative upon non-players who
just so happen to co-exist with the chessboard of the world. why
continue the brutal process? is it  so easy recognize the role of
capitalism in this equivication that has occured to philosophy's

. it is one thing to come to an understanding of "experience", and to
codify laws based on experience. There is true/honast intelligence
needed to do this, actual intelligent human beings who have a
universal potential. But the sovereignty linked to capitalist-mechine
fat is mono-dimentional, and it does not have room for the universal
nature of man's intelligence to keep it running, it requires man's
experience to do that.

So in this way "conservatism" as a replacement for "intelligence"
actually does the job for sovereignty. the conservationist mentality
allows one to look at a given "experience" and then merely protect the
status quo which allowed for said experience to continue (re:
duchamp's endgame) Bypassing intelligence keeps that "fixed", very
much like logos/philosophy, but really it is not necessarily true.
if the "truth" is questioned with words by an intelligent philosopher,
then the infinte virtuals of said experience provide an unlimited
number of equivications within philosophic law (again locke "on
christianity" circa 1698, is a perfect example). Soveriengty has to
only wait a few generations for the next crop of truely intelligent
philosophers to stop fight against anti-intelligence and to instead
submit themselves to it and go ahead and connect the universals to the
growing detentional code.
It should be seen that in its parts "blessed intelligence" indeed
satisfies the individual internally, but externally the soverign
environment remains un-affected and ultimately more complex, as a

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list