[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

andw at riseup.net andw at riseup.net
Thu Apr 27 21:08:09 PDT 2006

talking fast and saying nothing is still virtually nothing, whether its
driven by one's own "logos" or anothers.  this seems to be very far from
the spirit of what deleuze described as transcendent empiricism, no?

By the way, can there really be one's own logos? (You do seem to take this
for granted. I dare say you presume it to be sound and use it as a point
of departure for your inscriptions).  This seems to be a contradiction,
fundamentally. Logos is by definition (ha!(?)) saturated with the
weight/history of language, such that concocting hyphenated new terms
and/or making up new words will often run the risk of confusion. No, no
one HAS TO understand you, in any kind of sense, ultimately. Great you
have your isolation. So do we all. So did Adele H.

But it seems to me that since this list is for relatively public or shared
usage it would be a risk worth taking to communicate with an ear towards a
 general sensibility (eschewing overly personal "logos" flying with the
wind inscribing as the main and vital thrust... eh em...).

Particularly in this phallocentric culture we are in, no?


> there is no irony in my writing for you to judge, if you do then that
> is your choice to be exclusitory in terms of your precieved
> "conventional terms" (I am ignorant of this notion that you hold and
> in this way ignorance becomes just as blessed as intelligence) I would
> suggest that these conventional terms are not allowing to you see some
> very "normal" readings. Please don't be so deffensive of people who do
> not think like you -  I have my own logos that is not like yours, so
> what, who cares? we still obey the same codes howerver and we can talk
> about the same subjects (and again, how come "I" have suddenly become
> your subject when we're already talking about another subject? is
> there something missing here, perhaps intimate physical contact? Is
> this the time/place for mental intercourse?)
> Wbenj was not a big fan of Nietsch or freud, read his "cult of
> capitalism" essays and see that I am not being a bastard contrarian, I
> am following through, trying at least to be consistant, with a
> discussion that Wbenj is having with philosophy back in 1921 (you
> should explicate what discussion you would like to be in b/c I assumed
> you are also along for the ride/fantasy voyage).
> Now I am seeing that, according to you, people, "conventional,
> academic educated" people have lost a great deal of their own
> logos(re: p.h.i.l.o.s.o.p.h.y) and they do not know how to talk about
> these subjects anymore because of detentional-logos (re:wooden-iron) ,
> that would be a tragedy (if it was because of fate), but it is a
> comedy (if it was done according to intentional form/agenda). Even
> Neitsche would be able to see this difference bewteen the comedy and
> tragedy of long term agenda-making and the chorus (or lack of) plays a
> significant role by adding dimension, but where are they? are they
> just baffled? reading porn? (please don't complain to me about a lack
> of dimension on this subject, I am only one person) Freud tell us when
> we get angry with our logos we can do 3 things. The tri-part man can
> 1) do drugs and get saratonin into your brain, its an associative
> chemical that helps connect the logos in pleasing ways... 2)
> isolation, which is a polite way to say "shut up and leave me alone"
> and 3) sublimation, ie "submission to the cult of capitalism" (this is
> not my reading alone, it is not ironic, it is not literal even). Yes
> indeed, my reading of" interpersonal relationships" is strictly an
> issue with communicaion/logos and in-directly about internal
> aggression (which is directly about logos/anger) , perhaps the most
> 'normal" reading does not illuminate this point. I say yes to
> illumination, but hold on to the fact that "the path to illumination"
> is trapped within the tempo control of sovereign capitalist control,
> is it not constant with wben.'s critique of pure-violence? are we
> ready for a cyber-thetical debate between wben. and freud?
> ---------
> please note:
> spinoza -> helmholtz -> debord
> this is the chain that shows how debord's "spectical of society" can
> be percieved in spinoziastic terms, and answers the most basic literal
> question "why a spectical?" These so-called paradigm shifts are merely
> re-worded logos constructions used to dominate the tempo of
> philosophical narrative. I dont think it is a particularly clever or
> ethical approach to philosoophy, there is more behind what it conceals
> with words.... especially in the digital age, where domination of
> tempo is conflated with "technology" - can you see that the "breaks"
> of the ego onto the id.... the notion of "retarded" control as a basic
> agenda is exactly that, retarded. It does not contain
> divine-intelligence (re:locke on christianity) because it is an agenda
> of conservatism of experience. So when capitalists see Stalinist
> Soviets rushing thu industrialization they can label it "brutal" but
> the whole point of such a strategy is to "lessen" that brutalizing
> stage and gain tempo-control of fate, unlike the dogmaless-capitalist
> approach which perfers to "lengthen" the brutalizing process via
> retard-factor. this is the pure "divine-violence alloyed with the
> spectical" ... it is seen as a spectical because such a spectical is
> understood by spinoza's concepts of spiritual knowledge perception.
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info:
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list