[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[NZ]

I will have to take the time and track down this book so that I can
talk about it with convincing authority. ;-)
In a small way there are some symptoms addressed here, but from what I
gatheres most of the writing is just thrown up on the wall. some of it
slithers inside itself and makes disgusting sounds as one oozing snot
ball making friends with a handkerchief. I suspect some of the members
are merely empty edu.c-shell email accounts wherein any looney-bird
can peck out an odd phrase or two or twenty and we all get to read it
never knowing who will be behind the password tomorrow. The poetry has
been missed.... the goal to aspire to the perfect form, perhaps it
will someday, practice makes perverts....

As for the thread, I am happy to clarify what I have found in the
logos, but I am not trying to stay here with this point. For starters,
the logos is too ill defined for most hypothesis, so a definition
becomes the destination and also the point of departure.

 the "personal logos", or better put would be the "perceived logos"
(implies perceiver) is that giant spectrum of "human knowlege
expressed in language."(how's that?) Now from this plateux of meaning
many people begin to divide it up, ie. there is the "spoken" logos and
there is the "written" logos. People like Derrida are keen on this
distinction and it is true, but there is no need to be exclusatory,
both are still logos in actuality (so Derrida's Truth is mostly
equivocal - "equivocating the power" beware of paradigm shifts!) The
ancient amarnaic Rhebus is the evolutionary fulcrum of meaning that
divides the logos between written/spoken for these people, by dividing
the "perceived logos" one exerts control over the "perceiver". (its an
evolution that continues in the likes of Grimm, Russian cyrilic,
St.Patrick, etc...) There are many historical examples showing how by
dominating the logos it becomes a tool for power, and DyG have few or
more paragraphs getting into the "recording surface"

merging with writing techology and hypomnemata (by spartan conquest in
430bc), Philosophy orginally began completely connected to the
logos... "full human knowlege" but when it was learned that the logos
could be divide to gain power, monotheistic religions created a
"conventional" schism. It was a long time between when the Romans had
burned down the greek libraries and when university-born-bacon was
able to re-claim the split (from satanic popes snarling among the
thralls variants of the name include Sahrimnir, a common Anglication).
But bacon did not merge them, he kept them apart and added another
split (for more dominance, of course) - the method of science, a
mother-[explicative]. Now what we have with science today is much more
then a third of the logos and even the creationists cant hold their
own semi-solid sacred ground of "deviscive politcs". LIke darwin's
evolution, the rhizomes of the logos evolve on their own within the
entire scope of the absolute. the reptile today has a much more
sophistcated brain-neurology then the humanoid's own "reptilian"
limbic system (and more...) and... for an author to make intentional
comparisons between them has everything to do with underlying
evolution/circuitry as in the circuitry of a few BwO(marketeers play
very unfair game). These are the circuits that D and G keep looking
for, they indicate important underlying rhyzome evolutionary structurs
that travel up a persons butt, through their spine and out their nose.
or sex-starved eyes floating around looking for an ass.... its a
not-so-unpleasant divine-violence alloyed with testicles.

Now if Wbenj. asked Neitsche "who's wooden iron", Neitsche would
answer "What, you mean what." To me this seems like a comedy routine.
At least the intent of its "force" exists outside of the
"divine-knowlege" logos game for neanderthal-nerds who dont drink
enough beer (re: freud's tri-partide man). A schwienhund will always
beat-out a scientist... or to get a more eloquent equivocation just
read some Locke, that dude could serve it on a plate.