Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:00:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Alessandra Nardin <an3m-AT-avery.med.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: violence On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Tom Blancato wrote: > On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Alessandra Nardin wrote: > > > so, it seems that violence can be actually named only by who is suffering > > it. > > But who suffers it? Beat my dog, you beat part of me. It means that either you and your dog are suffering it, and actually both of you can name it as violence, at different levels of awareness. And either a passer-by that see your dog beaten and feel any kind of discomfort. (sorry for your dog -maybe- but I can't help him being actually a non-practising vet) > > > > 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-. > > Interesting. But perhaps part of the problem of violence is that one > subjected to it may not be capable of interpreting much at all. I might > read your abbreviated language poorly, or mistakenly (not necessarily > violently, and perhaps you aren't the final judge of whether I'm > violently doing so here), but the violence of violence as rupture may be > something that *exceeds* "trans-action", while "flow" and "transaction" > operate on a certain "Deleuzian upgrade" of metaphysics. Metaphysics95. > Do I need new function keys? > I am not sure to understand you here, but it might possibly be referred to what i wrote at the end, that is: violence can maybe be truly (??) interpreted as itself only at the relative end, BUT it can be acted ( with conscious or unconscious purpose?) from the beginning. And there may be no consistence between these two feelings (they are not simple "feelings", of course) that ultimately appear to be hopeless separate. maybe maybe maybe maybe al
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005