[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[NZ]

ah, 1927, benjamin with sorel...
here is the line where ben. also discurazites spinoza's text: (and
later goes to darwin)

"[...] according to the theory of ' state of natural law, people give
up all their violence for the sake of '. the state, this is done on
the assumption (which Spinoza, for example, states explicitly in his
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus) that the individual, before the
conclusion of this rational contract, has de jure the right to use at
will the violence that is de facto at his disposal."

when I read more... he summons darwin on the nomathetic axis against
the ideographic explanation.

I understand darwin's account does not involve animals voting on how to evolve.
sexual selection isn't about a costume party.
nature equips the right pairings with characteristics that are going
to make them more attractive to each other
and it is done unconsciously, like lost pantomime of silent neolithic europe.
so indeed you can act for a purpose without even a conscious possesion
of the purpose.

this is adam smith''s grey eminence.
and this exactly what is going on with "unconscious motication" in
freud's debt to darwin about the origins of human psychology.


x o x o x o x o


"No more watchmaters!!!"
freud's sucking infant has the pleasure-principle because it is an
un-natural creation perhaps it is a frankenstein-cyborg of sorts. (at
least according to hume it should not have llived, but now freud found
a way:
"the idea of a blind nature impregnated by a greate vivifying
principle and pouring forth from her lab without discernment or
parental care  her maimed and aborted children.""

darwin and the teleological natural history method
explanations grounded in causes " vs "on reasons"
it is teleological because goals and purposes served by events.
(it is also comedic in the apollonian sense)
explanations trying to place events in a larger narrative framework,
history, the play.
Can you see how to use the natural history method get to those reaches
of inner life that are not accessable to the patients conscious self?
yes it does involve mimiesis, but this is not depth psychology or psycho-drama.



x o x o x o x o



as for a vote of no confidence for "evolution" in fact I believe there
truely is an "animal economy" that can be applied to humans too, my
pyschological species does not have enough time to figure out with
reason, training, (I am not Horraway's cyborg lesbians) to learn this
entire world.
the neuroessentialist will see that the hypo-campus goes in reverse
gear... especially at a young age so they can grow up and go to school
in the london factory camps.
So for each crop of population, malthus wasn't only talking about
mouths to feed, he was talking about the geometry of an imagined
corporate university model.



x o x o x o x o


"What hole does Science come from?"
remember: malthus and his principle on population 1798 binary conflict

aritmetical suplies of food
vs
geometrical mouths to feed

wars for food, balanced but bleak
its really summed up by the success ofspencer's corporate railway
business of the 1850s and his proto-darwanistic "survival of the
fitest" ...  In time the german laboratory method was the driving
force in corporate univerisity model. biology does not need god, among
other things. but good stable shareholders and financial backers is a
must. the guilded 1870s with exponetial growth of american
univeristies  (all funded by the recent british import.... the
burricratic corporate system with the mult-levels of
auto-burracracy... this is clearly similar to the automata model that
PV has talked so much about when he talks about warfare).....end of
tangent.