Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:51:09 -0500
From: NZ <pretzelworld-AT-gmail.com>
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


Re "Law is made to exclude violence [...] This is what I missed."

um, you should read wbenj. essay more deeply to find the point that he
makes about "law as violence".  In addition to that I imagine a broad
definition of logos that completely bounds "law." I also imagine this
broad logos bounding math, this is not only my idea, it is very
ordinary. The "language" you speak of needs to be more defined if you
want me to change my definitions of it.. mainly the dialog aspect to
language as a means of incoroprating "intelligence" into logos. I
think if you go with me to this place of thought, instead of trying to
pretend that we are at odds, then maybe you will see some interesting
things.  I have certaily found some interesting things in your
thoughts.
Spinoza was working  on the "laws of the mind" within this framework,
it is much older then Spinoza, that is why he had such a hard time
dealing with laws (both judeaic and christian). All the rest of those
phoiosophers that you bring up are also working within this context,
and I think that is not an issue. That is why in the 0s we have people
like wittgenstein who created a positivism that is so complete
consistent with the mechanisist view of the soul (wittgenstien wanted
to be a robot designer, like his father wanted, but instead he
designed a robot philosophy completely based on legos  ... logos, for
creating cyborg lesbian society)

Isn't it interesting how spinoza parralled the body with society.
Can't this paralled be applied to "laws"/ code/ logic/ philosophy/
ethics, is that not true?
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org