From: dionysus-AT-bway.net Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: violence >so, it seems that violence can be actually named only by who is suffering >it. >that it becomes itself only in the object/subject -that is: in some of the >objects, sometimes- >the interpretation is left to the final element of the trans-action >the flow getting a sense only at the very end -relative end, since all are >intermediate positions-. The moment of judgement is the event of information-jouissance which reterritorializes and is a difference which makes a difference in the ecosophic flow of energy-matter. For Bataille and Sade the ultimately decentered and radically objective ecosophic grasp of existence only served to increase their own personal subjective moments injecting them with an impossible richness due to their fleeting unicity and absolute sovereignty not to mention their absolute indefensibility and arationality. >From steps to an ecology of mind to a general economy. >in this sense I was wrong, since nobody can call itself nonviolent and to >its neighborhood in space and time we leave the pleasure to judge. >death -being dead- is really completely nonviolent /nobody to suffer >violence/ >this relativeness is contradictory, I know, but I don't mean it to be >substitutive for the concept (and rejection?) of >violence-in-the-moment-of-being-done. The pleasure to judge In the flow of things a human being sunk in his circuit of percept-affect-concept-act is like a psychic black hole.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005