[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[NZ]

thre is no need for me to re-phrase this outline as I have been doing
(it was in order to incorporate my other stasis, but nobody wanted me
to do that) b/c DyG have a very clear description of where Neitsche
fits into philosophy's history of violence. This is from "What is
Philosophy" aka "why" (re: why vs what) where they use this term
"plane of immanence" which is inside the logos as the
""plane-sieve"(surface) for giant mesh of philosophy:
DyG understand this movement as a "friendly" movement, but Neitsche
does not, he is suspicious and asks "will philosophy ever stop
disguising itself?"... so DyG continue to break down this "immanence"
and compare it to Nietsche's "4 errors of philospophy"
1)illusion of transcentdence (as against religion concepts that
pretend to be the plane)
2)illusion of eternal (as against concept-creation mistaken for the plane)
3)illusion of discursivents (as against propositions mistaken for concepts)
(i forgot the 4th... but its not important now anyway)

so later on they get to the heart of it....

1st
Neitsche makes us understand "thought as creation, not will to truth"
and so thought becomes only a possiblity of thinking. <- here is
Neitsche re-territorializing the plane-sieve, ie "perceived logos"
(wow! its "per-sieved" isnt it?)

2nd
"[...] what violence must be exerted on thought for us to become
capable of thinking; what violence of infinite movement that, at the
same time, takes from us our power to say "I"" (from DyG, "what is
philosophy?" )<- here the reterritorializing of "perceived logos" is
understood as a violence against perceiver.

3rd
is about the incapacity of thought as at THE core of the plane of
immanence. this has to do with N's "thought as creation", I know some
of the vocabulary gets confusing, but rember that "thought" is not
thinking, its more allong the lines of "recording surface". And on
this point here, DyG bring up the "snarling dogs"... the schweinhunden
von philosophy, not Neitsche specifically but if you follow their
montage of logic you will see them point at Neitsche nonetheless.
(this is where I would bring up Locke-the-capitalist as one who is
able to equivocate "incapacity of thought" as "liberty" re:
divine-ignorance)

They end with:
"[...] we have no reason to take pride in this image of thought, which
invites much suffering [...] and indicates the degree to which
thinking has been increassingly difficult: immanence." - from DyG
"what is philosohy"

....please tell me if you are able to read this another way - I would
like to know.

(as for spinoza, they put spinoza right up front as being the guy who
has nailed down this plane of immanence so well, after bacon divided
it.) Such an act is applaudable insofaras "applause is an act of
violence" when the right words cannot be spoken or have been held
inside during the performance, sometimes some coughing will occur, but
the spotlite is not on the audience untill the end and we can hear
their outrage over the performers use of logos by the rigorous
slapping of hands. ...