[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[NZ]

true, I'm going kind of backwards, and thats confusing.... I am eager
to plot thisstory, where to take violence thread, it is probably best
to make sure we are talking about the same thing ... w/o aggreement
violence will destroy understand (just 2 extra steps through the
ethical ennead)

okay, but to just peek at a tiny clue.... so, there was a garrulous
attractive young woman who talked to breuer & gave freud the idea of
developing their logos-centric (creepy talking on a couch) techniques
of analyzing hysteria which turned into this general theory of
unconscious repression that I can learn at any
universe-ity...blab-blab-logos-blab. the "itty-bitty universe". (What
is repression?) The next big jump is from schizophrenia to violence,
and that's pretty much covered in D-G's anti-oedipus book).

"Sovereign Violence"
The best way to read wb's "violence" is backwards, (that way your
hypocampus can accurately decode it for you to contemplate on your bus
ride home from the library.) Was this essay written in 1921?, same
year that the inventer of the television, Charles Francis Jenkins
incorporates Jenkins Laboratories in Washington, D.C. with the purpose
of "developing radio movies to be broadcast for entertainment in the
home". (Re: Color in 1921)
1) How does wb's discussion (explicitly based) on darwin and spinoza,
turn into a discussion on "Sovereign Violence"? Gee-wiz,  was it WWI
maybe? Why.

"pure divine violence" vs "pure drivel violence"
here the jihad can be defined in western terms: w/o warning "divine
violence" has been realized.  ths terrorizm is violating the laws of
"mythic violence" that sovriegn modernity has assumed for itself. The
fact that nuclear arms are not involved keeps it at this level. But
indeed the entire cold-war/ arms-race, certainly remains as the
current "pure divine violence". (I question whether "divine violence"
is in fact also unalloyed violence.) At least if the sovereignty has
alloyed itself to the spectacle of society. .. 2) ....is it a monocle
for one-dimensional man?

i like benj.... and he leaves me with lots more questions:
3) "ultimate insolubility of all legal problems" vs "psycho-analytical
method", does this indicate benj. attitude towards the logos in
general and could this provide the basis for a hypothetical debate
between freud?
4) "law-making violence" vs "law-protecting violence" how come there
is no "law-breaking violence"
5) is "mutatis mutandis" latin for "mother-fucker"?

--------
soon we will have democracy someday soon, but that, like communisim,
is a mere ideal, it does not exist, it never has, perhaps it will.
(note-to-self: must read spinoza's social contract, what name is it called?)