Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:53:45 -0500 (EST)
From: TMB <tblan-AT-telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Re: God help us, back to TMB


On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Michael Rooney wrote:

> And what about Deleuze's insistence on the role
> of violence in thinking?

Cheap, easy capitalism, Heideggerian-style "return to the Greeks" (in a
way), while ignoring that the Greek society was founded on slavery. Lazy
failure to develop things better, amidst so much *production*.
Capitalization of talent, etc. A failure to think issuing from the very
closure of thought he cited, but was too close to. But, in any event the
"violence in thinkinng" thing testifies for the extensiveness I attributed
to "the ethical", and likewise serves as a founding condition for a
thinking that has nonviolence as well as desire and "freedom". Your
version of thought, by my standards, is rather like a man who must beat
his wife every time they make love, and insists that that is the "only way
to do it, baby!" But look at the black and blue marks over this "thouht".
Well, you probably can't even see them by now.


> 
> 
> > You will notice my willing
> > inclusion of a moment or two of polemics in my address to you here. I
> > suggest that this kind if inclusion of polemics is closer to what is
> > fruitful in philosophy, and even then, it is something that ought to be
> > both limited and entered into the substance of philosophical concerns, a
> > gesture I am likewise accomlishing even in this sentence. 
> 
> I'm sorry, did you have a point somewhere in all
> that verbiage?  I'll take Herakleitos' brevity, wit
> and polemos over you any day.

I know. But what if I had some really cool stuff?

TMB