From: "hwenk" <hwenk-AT-web.de> To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:27:44 +0200 Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence Hello, in my eyes Spinoza did not much more than laying down very general properties of the mind and the possibiltie to go confirm to some extended things on the ground of inner consistency. You are right that he was a fan on "acting as guided by one idea", he even thought about a religion by laws of the state to achieve that. As many other philosopher he was a great friend of harmony and unity - especially in social things. Now the theoretical and practical advice comes ex oriente: "Wear what all people wear, but eat what you like". In my eyes this means that in things which are of common interest one should at best think of greatest harmony and unity and the greatest happiness of the gratest number, but there is enough space and possibilities for a very individual development of the soul. The next trap due to society is science, at it is also bound to social benefits in very much things, what is dramatized in Nietzsche's Zarathustra: "Zarathustra is no scientiest no more". But also in case of science I would adhere to the oriental wisdom in my interpretation, you don't need to be against science buon the contrary you better use it and make it better. But the scope of the soul is even greater. Almost every time the intentions oof your discussions are not very transparent and the references are a little bit obscure. So the danger of misunderstanding - Spinozas solution of intellectal struggle - is given. I am I friend as a mathematician of argumentions as selfcontended as possible. greetings Harald WEnk -----Original Message----- From: deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org [mailto:deleuze-guattari-bounces-AT-lists.driftline.org]On Behalf Of NZ Sent: Mittwoch, 29. Marz 2006 18:51 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 _______________________________________________ List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org Archives: www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005