File deleuze-guattari/deleuze-guattari.0603, message 26

To: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:22:15 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


as I thought is already known the suicide of Deleuze was caused by pains
caused by a illnes of his lounges. This is also in accordance to
Spinoza and the  antiques to choose the less painfull.
As you may know, in old Rome there were suicides caused
by political intriques.

Deleuze and Guattri were no friends of Thantanos, the desire to die,
which in my eyes has good grounds in experience.

Now habitudes are there to make the life more comfortable.
 To have ideas you have to have spare time
and the head free of the a lot of things that normaly bother you.
And if you have ideas, the test that you really understand what idea it is
by the classical
probe if you are able to explain it to someone else in an understandable way
is in my eyes very good.
I note that Russel, Einstein, Freud and a lot of other great minds are
perhaps most famous because they had that ability of graspable
As it is complicated enough to understand something, especially grown in the
head of someone different,  it is also polite
to express it in very polite and direct way.

greetings Harald Wenk

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
Sent: Sonntag, 19. Marz 2006 21:06
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

I think I understand how Deleuze's suicide was an act of joy, a repetition
that generated difference, while the Nazi suicide was a repetition of the
same.  Difference is limited in the (super)market to the calculated
differences between brands of breakfast cereal.
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: NZ <>
> >  Deleuze say Nazi were suicidary. i took the States (cfr Mein Kamph in
> Propaganda)
> >  values, ressources, and vampirized it. Which triggered this is a 1929
> external, to Germany.
> I have looked into this prospect of a plot line that is suicidal. the
> suicide instinct or as it is described sometimes the idea that
> "self-destruction" is programed into t he genetic code. There is a
> fair amount of research into this and infact it is this "suicide"
> notion that has greatly funded the genetic research in USA since the
> 1940's. The ethical position ought to be clear, remove the suicidal
> code, pathology. Of couse such an endevour would occupy the minds of
> post-ww2 scientists. And it seems ethical onthe surface, but remember,
> not every one is Howard Hughes, not every one can have their head
> frozen and "cured of death", think of the masses within the framework
> of market driven techonlogy. It could not be anyother way with this
> one-dimensional p.o.v
> --------------------
> > habitude in communication is to answer and interprete es direct
> > from the text as possible.
> It is precisly that connection between habit and communication(via
> logos) which is a boundary of reterritorialization (capitalization).
> the "codes of habit"  vs. the "language of ideas" ... at what point
> does the ethical philosophy become merely a code of ethics? If a man
> can train himself, build his identity, why can't the masses be coded
> with a coded version of that identity? This is broadcast
> communication, this is not dialog, intellectual or even pure drivel,
> its not even based on language anymore... (..and thats where
> mills-to-freud rhizome can be detected)
> * * * * *
> Pretending to make decisions and
> philosophizing about the state, it is like a super cyber-spinozastic
> programable reality!! each step builds a hyper-coded mega-machine!! (I
> hope that pure-violence can crush that mega-mach.)
>  this is suicidary i find yes
>  do you in real life  aim at ignorance and pure violence?
> HOnastly, in real life I find myself fighting the mega0machine a lot
> lately. It is something I would rather not have to spend my time
> doing, I'd much rather bake my grandma some pot brownies and play a
> lyre. But as it is, I live in an ubanized environment and my life
> relies on the fruits of that evil tree. Myself and most of the people
> I know have terrible complexes about stupid things on tv, or in the
> news. For example when George Bush was ellected in 2000 most of the
> freindly people in my undergrad psychology class at Amherst , watched
> about 3-5 hrs of TV a day, instead of activly campaigning against the
> future presizdent. In foresight, this is very understandable, why
> bother?, but in hindsight, it is stupidity. Right now in Germany they
> are going through a massive tv culture attack from USA. Most of the
> biggest shows from 10 years ago now translatyed are becoming popular
> in Germany. Michael Jackson recently moved to Berlin even. If 10 years
> of this trash-identity brought the US to where it is now, where will
> Germany be in 10 years?
> recognizing code vs language is a good ability for intellectual survival.
> >
> > I am surprised that there seems no realistc
> > view on scientific research and so much
> > pressure to control it.
> >
> >   Pressure by what or  who? dear Collegue?
> >
> Most of the scientist I know who are doing research at universities
> are allowed to do pretty much what ever they want. if they need a
> hundred snails for their genetic test, they god it, if they need
> patients to send through an mri device, its theirs, if they want a
> couple monkey's, of course, but no donkeys please(!). The ethics of
> science is built into its technique, specialization (that way it can
> be mangaged from outside). The medical student who endevours to
> understand so he/she can help others is usually not going to go very
> far as the student who strategies his/her learning to excel in the
> curriculum.
> In this way scinece promotes non-ethical behavior, and this allows the
> martkets to prey upon young nubile scientists. (so, afterwards the
> rats are let free because they were not really needed in the
> firstplace.)
> >
> > Whhat do you think has science and technology brought about that should
> > better been not been invented.
> >
> >   Microsoft technological capacity to seize the activity of people using
> computers, difficultity in learning open source but possibility
> The techonology as an ethical issue in and of itself, is obscured by
> the ethics of "control of technology". These are to different issues
> that get conflated. With fire comes, control of fire, two different
> steps. Much of the technology of the computer, especially the big ones
> like Microsoft, Sony, Apple, are designed to fit into the framework of
> the market. If they are designed to "make life easier" well now, that
> is just a selling point isn't it?
> When technology is married to the market, the fetishizing can begin
> (as the consumer respondes from the coded limbic-system). Right now,
> you got Norway suing iPod for taking away an individual's right to own
> their own music. iPod does not liberate music from CD, it cages it in
> the filesystem. This is the market using technology as an excuse for
> weaseling its way into the citizen's identity, via hyponemata (iPod).
> And now the Nowgeian govt. is allowing their infamous hacker celebrity
> bust the iPod.
> sf/doc/art2005040110255324603799
> * * * * * * * * *
> _______________________________________________
> List address:
> Info:
> Archives:

List address:

List address:


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005