File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1996/96-10-27.132, message 58


Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:52:00 +1000 (EST)
From: Mr Christopher McMahon <Christopher.McMahon-AT-jcu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: chris


Dear Alessandra,

Thanks for the input. I agree, I think Tom & me are arguing in cloud cukoo
land - or perhaps Humptydumptyville where words mena exactly what we want 
them to mean, no more, no less. When reading your comments, I certainly
was worried. Particularly when you pointed out the
justification of sociopolitical irresponsibility that
can attend either/or a will to deferral or a desubjectification of
position (what I said about the other positioning you). But I just want to
add two things.

My wife is Chinese, poeple position her everyday in very bland ways. -
possibly I am being positioned too, but don't notice this for lack of a 
lable (or maybe "crank" fits). She is not responsible for the position she
is forced to take up. Is she responsible for the way she responds to this
positioning?

BwOs etc. Rhizomes, war machines, are irresponible because they are
non-subjective. People can get hurt when lines of flight get going. That's
the subjective cost.

Basically, what I am saying is that I do believe in so called
"nonviolence" in the everyday sense. But I dont think its a metaphysical
thing capable of being opposed to violence. I think nonviolence is part of
a regulative system. Kill there, not there. My classes are peaceful
because the bad people are kept out (by force if need be). My marriage is 
co-operative because here we deny (filter, filter....) the agression that
we apply elsewhere. A kiss can become a bite so easily. I think its wrong
to always condemn violence - just as I think nonviolence can be a good
strategy.

Thanks again,

Chris.



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005