Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:48:12 -0400
From: NZ <pretzelworld-AT-gmail.com>
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


just to bite deeper into the issue between myself and Hwenk:

"
To life in security a
comfortable, if possible a happy life. Therfore the governemnt is the
sefvant of the people in a democracy.
 And this means in my eyes not to begin to fight or struggle (against the
government for example)
before even one word to an issue is said.""

here is the critical difference of pov./principle of philosophy vs hapiness
The ideal dogma of democracy I have trouble seeing as an actual part
of reality (other then just dogma). the ideal of democracy(like
communist dogma) is moral in sofar as it is an ends (re: wbenj's
violence and fate discussion).
so when in reality I am expected to treat such a dogma as something
more then just principle, that I am supposed to actually sit down and
discuss some hypotheical virtuals of that dogma, I have difficulty see
the point really as such a discussion will only lead to a
stronger/richer dogma that can be impressed upon the "consenting
public." Such a discussion does not deal with "expanding possibilty of
life" but rather better acclimating a body to a more-and-more moral
"detentional existence." it is the intention that is missing for me to
see this p.o.v. as ethically "good." but I can understand why some
people (rousseau for ex.) would see it as good interms of good/sound
philosophy, but not me I see it as detentional.
_______________________________________________
List address: deleuze-guattari-AT-driftline.org
Info: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
Archives: www.driftline.org