Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 20:51:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alessandra  Nardin <an3m-AT-avery.med.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: 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-.
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.