[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[hwenk]

Hello,

in my eyes Spinoza did not much more than laying down  very general
properties of the mind and the possibiltie to go confirm to some extended
things
on the ground of inner consistency.

You are right that he was a fan on "acting as guided by one idea", he even
thought about a religion by
laws of the state to achieve that. As many other philosopher he
was a great friend of harmony and unity - especially in social things.

Now the theoretical and practical advice comes ex oriente: "Wear what all
people wear, but eat what you like".
In my eyes this means that in things which are of common interest one should
at best think
of greatest harmony and unity and the greatest happiness of  the gratest
number,
 but  there is enough space and possibilities  for a very individual
development of the soul. The next trap due to society is science, at it is
also bound to social benefits in very much things, what is dramatized in
Nietzsche's Zarathustra:
 "Zarathustra is  no scientiest no more".  But also in case of science I
would adhere to the oriental
wisdom in my interpretation, you don't need to be against science buon the
contrary you better use it
and make it better. But the scope of the soul is even greater.

Almost every time the intentions oof your discussions are not very
transparent and
the references are a little bit obscure. So the danger of misunderstanding -
Spinozas solution of intellectal struggle -
is given.

I am I friend as a mathematician of argumentions as selfcontended as
possible.



greetings Harald WEnk

-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces at lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Mittwoch, 29. Marz 2006 18:51
To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


Re "Law is made to exclude violence [...] This is what I missed."

um, you should read wbenj. essay more deeply to find the point that he
makes about "law as violence".  In addition to that I imagine a broad
definition of logos that completely bounds "law." I also imagine this
broad logos bounding math, this is not only my idea, it is very
ordinary. The "language" you speak of needs to be more defined if you
want me to change my definitions of it.. mainly the dialog aspect to
language as a means of incoroprating "intelligence" into logos. I
think if you go with me to this place of thought, instead of trying to
pretend that we are at odds, then maybe you will see some interesting
things.  I have certaily found some interesting things in your
thoughts.
Spinoza was working  on the "laws of the mind" within this framework,
it is much older then Spinoza, that is why he had such a hard time
dealing with laws (both judeaic and christian). All the rest of those
phoiosophers that you bring up are also working within this context,
and I think that is not an issue. That is why in the 0s we have people
like wittgenstein who created a positivism that is so complete
consistent with the mechanisist view of the soul (wittgenstien wanted
to be a robot designer, like his father wanted, but instead he
designed a robot philosophy completely based on legos  ... logos, for
creating cyborg lesbian society)

Isn't it interesting how spinoza parralled the body with society.
Can't this paralled be applied to "laws"/ code/ logic/ philosophy/
ethics, is that not true?
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org