From: "hwenk" <hwenk-AT-web.de>
To: <deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:44:47 +0200
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


Hello,

what i expressed in my last email is that you say
you want to discusss and get new
opinions and to understand me.
But in your email praxis I find things
which in conventional terms erxpress and do the opposit.
A if I   ananswered your question, instead of
taking that up you change the theme and perhaps, as in the email
indicated, start to  ironize that.

As a reader of Deleuze and Guattari you certainly know that
this is the structure of illmaking - especially schizophrenizing -
expressions of feelings and thinking.
As Nietzsche had put  it:
"You may lie with the words, but the face you make is still telling the
truth".
This in a discussion group concerning Deleuze and Guattari is very puzzling
and unexpected.

So I discussed a lot the theme of violence,
arguing in a most selfcontended and for everyone understandable way.
In my eyes I gave standard arguments which are shared of almost all,
esecially academic educated people.

But until now I still don't know why these arguments are overrun or play no
role and
 what you think about pure violence and what benefit
you imagine it could bring in our  concrete political or a private
situation.

The essay of Benjamin has a lot of aspects, even if it is read.
So which one in what interpretaion is meant?

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: Dienstag, 25. April 2006 00:30
To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence


At least between you and me, I feel like I'm getting an education
about some subjects that i would otherwise be ignorant, and this I
appreciate( I hope to provide for you a unique reading that can be
expanded instead of excluding). So in whatever capacity you'd like to
continue, be welcome. I am not trying to be a fiesty bastard with what
you talk about (re:stasis) but I just would like to help direct it
back into the questions that N posed in the opening of this thread. I
do like those questions. I think it was...

pure-violence?
positive law? (and not natural law as wben is critiquing sovereignty,
not humanity... yes?)
internal?
external?
how agamben reads wbenj?
unilateralism?
trans-atlantic crisis?

Of course I already have loads of opinions about all of these words
and how they are used, but I am slowly becoming self conscious because
of the chorus who has nothing to say really except that it is not
happy. ultimatly I  really would like to get beyond what I already
know (re: true enlightenment) and if I could download that data please
let me know where.

Ultimately I would like to drive this discussion into the sophic
paradox of knowlege. I personally see that as one of the biggest
problems esp. the comedic/tragic relationship between the "sophic
paradox and capitalism."
Perhaps it unfair for me to ask you a question and then use your
answer to direct my stasis, but it has certainly helped me understand
how it is that other psyche are able to see these same illuminations
that I do.

the words that I have to answer for my stasis are...

conservatism?
intelligence?
america?
europe?
rhythm?
stasis?
etc... really, its a long list that does not belong all in one place.
_______________________________________________
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