File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0603, message 14

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:34:34 -0500
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

what is the ultimate goal of science? it a psycho-sexual pursuit for
people with intimacy problems? a lot of it is just plain work-drudgery
(so is sex sometimes), like counting integers,  splicing genes all
day, over and over again, and its really really nice to go home and
drink and watch tv. I don't think its good to go around just talking
about "science" like its this "thing" y'know?, Deleuze can be found
often pathologizing the very opposite with his, "assembleges."
- "abolish modern conveinience" <--- isn't it just rhetorical to be
connecting creative invention-inovation with capitalism? aren't they
separate homofauxnorms of different subjects entirely? the west
germans laff at the dull external appearance of east german shopping
malls, while east germans complain about the rigid conformity of
consumer products inside the west german shopping malls, whats the
point other then rhetorical distraction? as "if" such a connection
could ever be proven, how!? (I doubt Liebnitz could even postulate a
mathumatical proof of the rational existence of 3, the integer, as in
1+(1+1)= ...what!? but that does'nt mean that I can conflate a 3 from
him, yeah. I have to uncork myself.

connecting that line from  Clausewitz to  benjamin to virilio, and
mixing in some Rousseau(Emile=freud, freud=marx, capitalism vs
communism, freud=capitalism) it is quite facinating especially in
terms of the state.   would you be willinging to extend this line to
socraties and his version of the state. It seems a strong case to
suggest an overly spartan version of history then. especially up to
this day today. Here at least Clauswitz & Nietsch can cream themselves
over the very same pornographic one-dimensional version of naked
will-power. It is neither gold nor silver like socrates' spartan
citizen but some new alloy orininating perhaps materialized from the
fables of Grimm(and their massive logos complex), i don't know, but
below that prussian blue surface I am looking for the roman empire.

When the empire split, and it did so continuously for thousands of
years, but in the beginning of the split, just after nero, when the
pope was satanic, when the emperor's clothes were clearly revealed and
it was basically 3 or 4 military camp-cities spread all into europe,
when the spartan core, that military civil-union was in place all
throughout europe, that was when they could rule by "religion of the
mind." Spinoza really got wet about psycho-mental control mechanisms
and I am sure it was because of his personal ethical behavior that his
insights should only be used for the good of knowlege. After DeVris
was sucessfully removed, was not the king of France knocking on his
door asking spinozoid to write an "Ethics" for his evil empire as

I am imagining benjamin debating hitler, it is not possible... not
even a spartan king would do it. if not, then who can be seen in
direct opposition to benjamin's philosopical posture, and who was it
that made benjamin take on such a dramatic dialog? was he talking to
himself, Pluralis Majestati, (not one but two spartan kings) as it was
the german troops (citizens of neu-sparta, all thoroughly brainwashed
by a recipe that was equal parts Clauswitz's and straight-ahead
freudian pathology, a modern invention-innovation much like the 1918
spanish flu, what bird flew?) Who had shot through his sure-solid case
with this so-called "suicidal" rhetoric? In what way can it be
considered "suicidal"? (time to remember the plot-line... a suicidal
disposition of social character is not nearly as interesting as
benjamin's symiotec matrix of a capitalist psychological conspiracy, I
much prefer this line of inquiry...) In this way I can understand why
nk would fit foucault in here, foucault trys to make knowlegeble
de-linations while attempting to remain an outsider to that system
which puts clausewitz principals into normalized state operated social
control mechanisms, like FEMA all over in usa. Just like Spinoza tried
to remain outside of the influence of the politics, which he did
rather well, until he died (with his moral code too!). When virilio
meets with the cia to discuss civil strategies during war, I am sure
they have quiet a lot of things to learn from him, and I'm sure
virilio operates with hindsighted knowdelge of the enitire history of
philosophy behind him, he is not there to get played, but that doesn't
mean that he doesn't.

When I read virilio's version of the korean war I was struck by how
imaginative his writing can be. He made beautiful allusions to mirrors
and flowers and a ballet of munitions. In his version I wondered how
he could explain the symetrical patterns that he observed (he plays
dumb like jung who doesn't ask where the anima comes from he just goes
ahead and bases his next postulate upon it). (BTW, the sym comes from
the fact that both the cccp and the usa were building their fleets frm
the verry same nazi rocket plans, and this is also how the nuclear
arms race started, u can look it up in the dictionary). After all pv
was only using these elaborate descriptions so he could effectively
contrast this "style" of warfare with the more modern guerilla
warfare. In his version he did not see how clausewitz had come back
into vogue today (and as far back as the cia's involvement in africa),
or perhaps he was not willing to comment upon his collegues. The way I
read him, virilio is very excited to be a part of the new spartan
order and he finds intellectual reasons for the reader to get excited

HWenk, what does "hoyle" refer to (other then "hole")?
List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005