To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:38:47 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence



HHello,

I think the theory of Spinoza concerning the social contract "contact
social" in France is very simple and convincing.
As almost every contract you can break it if you have the impression that
the other side does not fulfil was
has been written up in his contract.
Now in case of the state people are interested in safety and having a
comfortable life with
decisions of conflicts and the supply of the more or less necessary goods.
Now if people (one, few, a lot, many or almost all) got the impression
thar the people who have the power, that is the power to make
laws and thr positions in the institutions payed from taxes,
act in a way that does not fulfil the increase or mainaining of a
comfortable life
they draw back their power from the "res public", that is from politics,
in the frame of the institions of the government.

Commonly spoken they are deeply disappointed and feel to be mistreaten. .

First they may think: "We are badly ruled" and turn against the government.
What Spinoza meant is, that you have your natural power, your head to think
and your
arms and hands to act even if you do not believe in the state and support
it.
This is the power given to you by birth and your evolution.
Then it is possible, but in general not very wise, to turn this power in a
kind of more or less
private war against the public institutions.

In my eys and in the eyes of most thinking people it is much bettter to
discuss
things open and to hope and work for reasonable solutions to be
are realized. This is the nerve of democracy and the trust in the other
people of
the society. If you think there are only or mostly people in your state who
are
not able or willing to organize a comfortable life - it must not always be
the optimum -
you got isolatd. Maybe not concerning your social contacts in a concrete
mannner, but in
your mind and direction of thinking and acting.
One thing in democracy is that you thimk of the interest of the other
or all people if you are doing something also concerning them.
If this is lost, you can get very soon in trouble with other people,
because they are certainly intelligent enough to grasp that.
And it is almost unavoidable that they intepret this as unfriendly, to speak
harmlessly.

But in most cases this is not necessary or even by will of the one
neglecting the interst of the other. It is not enough thinking
or to be to much and to narrow concerned with their own affairs.
This can be repaired by redirecting the mind and action from this narrow
sight.

Of course there maybe real enemies. But if this gets public and they act in
a commonly
condemed way, normally there are way outs if you get back the commlony
accepted ways of acting.

To speak general, culture is the trial to reduce brute violence in every
social or personal damaging form and to turn it into fruitful or harmmless
chanels,
which is also on the ground of the philosophy of Nietzsche, who may possibly
be a
defender of the use of brute force.


I don not seee what your intention in the discussion of Freud is.
In my eyes things here are also very important and very complicated.



greetings Harald Wenk


gr


-----Original Message-----
From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org
[mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ
Sent: Freitag, 24. Marz 2006 08:48
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


ah, 1927, benjamin with sorel...
here is the line where ben. also discurazites spinoza's text: (and
later goes to darwin)

"[...] according to the theory of ' state of natural law, people give
up all their violence for the sake of '. the state, this is done on
the assumption (which Spinoza, for example, states explicitly in his
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus) that the individual, before the
conclusion of this rational contract, has de jure the right to use at
will the violence that is de facto at his disposal."

when I read more... he summons darwin on the nomathetic axis against
the ideographic explanation.

I understand darwin's account does not involve animals voting on how to
evolve.
sexual selection isn't about a costume party.
nature equips the right pairings with characteristics that are going
to make them more attractive to each other
and it is done unconsciously, like lost pantomime of silent neolithic
europe.
so indeed you can act for a purpose without even a conscious possesion
of the purpose.

this is adam smith''s grey eminence.
and this exactly what is going on with "unconscious motication" in
freud's debt to darwin about the origins of human psychology.


x o x o x o x o


"No more watchmaters!!!"
freud's sucking infant has the pleasure-principle because it is an
un-natural creation perhaps it is a frankenstein-cyborg of sorts. (at
least according to hume it should not have llived, but now freud found
a way:
"the idea of a blind nature impregnated by a greate vivifying
principle and pouring forth from her lab without discernment or
parental care  her maimed and aborted children.""

darwin and the teleological natural history method
explanations grounded in causes " vs "on reasons"
it is teleological because goals and purposes served by events.
(it is also comedic in the apollonian sense)
explanations trying to place events in a larger narrative framework,
history, the play.
Can you see how to use the natural history method get to those reaches
of inner life that are not accessable to the patients conscious self?
yes it does involve mimiesis, but this is not depth psychology or
psycho-drama.



x o x o x o x o



as for a vote of no confidence for "evolution" in fact I believe there
truely is an "animal economy" that can be applied to humans too, my
pyschological species does not have enough time to figure out with
reason, training, (I am not Horraway's cyborg lesbians) to learn this
entire world.
the neuroessentialist will see that the hypo-campus goes in reverse
gear... especially at a young age so they can grow up and go to school
in the london factory camps.
So for each crop of population, malthus wasn't only talking about
mouths to feed, he was talking about the geometry of an imagined
corporate university model.



x o x o x o x o


"What hole does Science come from?"
remember: malthus and his principle on population 1798 binary conflict

aritmetical suplies of food
vs
geometrical mouths to feed

wars for food, balanced but bleak
its really summed up by the success ofspencer's corporate railway
business of the 1850s and his proto-darwanistic "survival of the
fitest" ...  In time the german laboratory method was the driving
force in corporate univerisity model. biology does not need god, among
other things. but good stable shareholders and financial backers is a
must. the guilded 1870s with exponetial growth of american
univeristies  (all funded by the recent british import.... the
burricratic corporate system with the mult-levels of
auto-burracracy... this is clearly similar to the automata model that
PV has talked so much about when he talks about warfare).....end of
tangent.
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org

_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org