[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence
pretzelworld at gmail.com
Wed May 3 19:58:48 PDT 2006
DyG often use the term "played out", one example would be
conflating neitch.y with deleuze then perhaps I could recommend the
(above) endquote of DyG's "what is philosophy, aka "why?"1991, to cure
this "symptom." This is where they seriously turn neitsche's "what"
back into "why?" and where he adds a question mark onto his 1st
apparent affirmation/separation of neitsche and philogosophy.
here is the quote:
B ut what to us seen more important now are the problems of
"interference" between the planes that join up in the brain. A 1st
type of interference appears when a philosopher attempts to create the
concept of a [...] function.
[...T]he rule is that the interfering discipline must proceed with its
Thus, there is "extrinsic" interference, because each discipline
remains on its own plane and utilizes its own elements. But there is a
2nd "intrinsic" type of interference when concepts and "conceptual
personae" seen to leave the plane of immanence that would correspond
to them, so as to say in any of the functions and partial obserbers,
[...] on another plane. These sliding are so subtle, like those of
Zarathustra in Neitsche's philosophy. [...] that we find ourselves on
comlex planes that are difficult to qualify.
The plane of philosophy is "pre-philosophic" insofar as we consider it
in itself independently of the camps that come to occupy it, but
"non-philosophy" is found where the plane confronts chaos. Philosophy
needs a non-philosophy that comprehends it. They do not need the "No"
as beginning, or as the end. [...] but at every moment of their
It is here that concepts [...] become undecidable, [...]as if they
shared the same shadow that constantly accompanies [it].
(note: all "quotes" were added to indicate "italicized" text. the
parts that were omitted[...] indicate those several other strands/
that were simultaneious being knotted uptogeghter on the
single-suicidal last page, but the whole book is recommended still.)
it might be tempting to mistake the above "quotations" for an attempt
at systematizing two philosophies simultaneously, but Deleuxe and
Neitsche are really/always two seperate "dice rolls." so to speak.
Readers got to question why Neitsche's-thought is being conflated with
Deleuze here. and why to suppose such a conflation is "conventional."
(who says that? what ethos are we evoking now?, please specify
otherwise the rhetoric will just float away....)
(re: wooden-iron) This is not an "ironic" question, if it was, then
getting an anwer would be much sexier.......and we do like that, don't
we, The "we" like haraway's andriod lesbian's wee-wee, it likes things
to be sexy all the time....... sexy-wind into nite. do you hear music?
(also "who", but we allowed that abortion to end as a latenight comedy.)
Just like certain detentional females who pretend that power exists in
"witholding the father's identity", so do we have to w-a-i-t for the
answer. This way "it" can be born, eternal-becoming (ah yes!), but
"it" is born at least, retarded, r-e-t-a-r-d-e-d, as in "the retarded
trans-atlantic crisis." which is certainly WHAT we have given birth
to today as we w-a-i-...t ...for... what?. (am I waiting too quickly
again?) But nobody was asking "what" except Neitsche (I will feign
pathos here) .... so perhaps he just needed to know "What protest to
join?" and there are so many today:
Anti-cable access laws....
Anti-houseing laws.... laws... etc... <--- all intentional questions
for our sphinx when we ask questions about "pure-violence"..... if we
loose our human head we remain only headless beasts capable of all
kinds of inhuman violence.(do we need a reminder?)
all the detentional questions, are really just a pile of bologna
intended for the "einherjar" or intellectual class/thralls for putting
them into a retarded aporia, spiralling endgame of "eternal
recurrance". (There actually is a complex reason for all this - read
Diderot's fatalist to find out.)
....welcome to the clean plate club... come again... :-p
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari