[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[NZ]

>  Deleuze say Nazi were suicidary. i took the States (cfr Mein Kamph in Propaganda)
>  values, ressources, and vampirized it. Which triggered this is a 1929 crisis, external, to Germany.

I have looked into this prospect of a plot line that is suicidal. the
suicide instinct or as it is described sometimes the idea that
"self-destruction" is programed into t he genetic code. There is a
fair amount of research into this and infact it is this "suicide"
notion that has greatly funded the genetic research in USA since the
1940's. The ethical position ought to be clear, remove the suicidal
code, pathology. Of couse such an endevour would occupy the minds of
post-ww2 scientists. And it seems ethical onthe surface, but remember,
not every one is Howard Hughes, not every one can have their head
frozen and "cured of death", think of the masses within the framework
of market driven techonlogy. It could not be anyother way with this
one-dimensional p.o.v


--------------------


> habitude in communication is to answer and interprete es direct
> from the text as possible.

It is precisly that connection between habit and communication(via
logos) which is a boundary of reterritorialization (capitalization).
the "codes of habit"  vs. the "language of ideas" ... at what point
does the ethical philosophy become merely a code of ethics? If a man
can train himself, build his identity, why can't the masses be coded
with a coded version of that identity? This is broadcast
communication, this is not dialog, intellectual or even pure drivel,
its not even based on language anymore... (..and thats where
mills-to-freud rhizome can be detected)

* * * * *

Pretending to make decisions and
philosophizing about the state, it is like a super cyber-spinozastic
programable reality!! each step builds a hyper-coded mega-machine!! (I
hope that pure-violence can crush that mega-mach.)

 this is suicidary i find yes
 do you in real life  aim at ignorance and pure violence?

HOnastly, in real life I find myself fighting the mega0machine a lot
lately. It is something I would rather not have to spend my time
doing, I'd much rather bake my grandma some pot brownies and play a
lyre. But as it is, I live in an ubanized environment and my life
relies on the fruits of that evil tree. Myself and most of the people
I know have terrible complexes about stupid things on tv, or in the
news. For example when George Bush was ellected in 2000 most of the
freindly people in my undergrad psychology class at Amherst , watched
about 3-5 hrs of TV a day, instead of activly campaigning against the
future presizdent. In foresight, this is very understandable, why
bother?, but in hindsight, it is stupidity. Right now in Germany they
are going through a massive tv culture attack from USA. Most of the
biggest shows from 10 years ago now translatyed are becoming popular
in Germany. Michael Jackson recently moved to Berlin even. If 10 years
of this trash-identity brought the US to where it is now, where will
Germany be in 10 years?
recognizing code vs language is a good ability for intellectual survival.

>
> I am surprised that there seems no realistc
> view on scientific research and so much
> pressure to control it.
>
>   Pressure by what or  who? dear Collegue?
>

Most of the scientist I know who are doing research at universities
are allowed to do pretty much what ever they want. if they need a
hundred snails for their genetic test, they god it, if they need
patients to send through an mri device, its theirs, if they want a
couple monkey's, of course, but no donkeys please(!). The ethics of
science is built into its technique, specialization (that way it can
be mangaged from outside). The medical student who endevours to
understand so he/she can help others is usually not going to go very
far as the student who strategies his/her learning to excel in the
curriculum.
In this way scinece promotes non-ethical behavior, and this allows the
martkets to prey upon young nubile scientists. (so, afterwards the
rats are let free because they were not really needed in the
firstplace.)

>
> Whhat do you think has science and technology brought about that should have
> better been not been invented.
>
>   Microsoft technological capacity to seize the activity of people using computers, difficultity in learning open source but possibility

The techonology as an ethical issue in and of itself, is obscured by
the ethics of "control of technology". These are to different issues
that get conflated. With fire comes, control of fire, two different
steps. Much of the technology of the computer, especially the big ones
like Microsoft, Sony, Apple, are designed to fit into the framework of
the market. If they are designed to "make life easier" well now, that
is just a selling point isn't it?
When technology is married to the market, the fetishizing can begin
(as the consumer respondes from the coded limbic-system). Right now,
you got Norway suing iPod for taking away an individual's right to own
their own music. iPod does not liberate music from CD, it cages it in
the filesystem. This is the market using technology as an excuse for
weaseling its way into the citizen's identity, via hyponemata (iPod).
And now the Nowgeian govt. is allowing their infamous hacker celebrity
bust the iPod.
http://www.mic.no/mic.nsf/home/forsiden?opendocument&url=http://www.mic.no/mic.nsf/doc/art2005040110255324603799

* * * * * * * * *