Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:19:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Provisional Remarks on the Question of Violence


---TMB <tblan-AT-telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>
> I question, very strongly, just how quickly we move to "necessary
> violence". And how quickly we do at times! You shore up a final
question,
> based on a *tiny* moment of thought, bolstered by a very technical
> language (suspicious for many reasons), and move to being ready to
do the
> cognitive work of "which and what". Doen't look good to me.

Be nice here, no reason to define my thought as tiny or large.  Though
sometimes the smallest difference can become the greatest difference
when it goes to the edge of what it can do, so maybe that's a
compliment on your part.

The clause of a "necessary violence" is very simple... Language is
violent because it fixes things within boundaries and tries to halt
the movement of what it describes.  This is unavoidable insofar as
must use language, but we can certainly try to find ways to use
language that counteract this violence, or at least insure that these
boundaries and thresholds do not become too fixed.  This is one
function of poetry *thank god*. 
> 
> It's a bit presumtuous to just jump right into determing "what is
and is
> not violent". I generally agree with this, in certain ways. What I
really
> tend to want to say is not "violent! stop!" but "too violent", but
also:
> let's prevent some violence, let's ameliorate, let's find less violent
> means, let's dance (I know, that must sound pretty faggy.) 

Of course we hope to ameliorate violence...  No disagreements here. 
The question is how to do this when were encircled in a structure that
is itself violence.  An answer to that question would indeed be a way
of dancing.

But always,
> also, I am saying: If "violence", and I mean *bad violence*, can't
by now
> be *entered into thought as a datum, an issue, a ground, a condition,
> etc.*, then something is wrong. You don't enter it into thought
here, by
> the way. Youre just flexing a rather technocratic muscle, and on the
basis
> of that, its range of resonance (which is not far by my standards),
set
> out now to make some decisions, presumably of who you deem fit to
attack.

How do you decide if I've entered into thought or not?
 
> The interactions occuring here lately are just too violent, and it
doesnt'
> even take a very nuanced series of distinctions to be able to point
that
> out. 

Agreed, that's one reason I wrote this post...  As an attempt to make
an intervention.  Part of overcoming that violence consists in
recognizing it and determining strategic ways of overcoming it and
doing things differently.  As far as I've been able to observe lately,
this list is dead and has become an antagonistic pile of rubbish. 
It's a real shame too.

Nor am I (assuming you mean me to some extent here) just issuing
> knee-jerk reactions. You will notice (if you aren't too busy simply
not
> reading me even as you read me), that I *do*, in fact, include
moments of
> violence, reaction, reactivity, etc., in my resposnes. To me, the best
> overall level of that is like about 5 percent of what is happening
on here
> in the main.

Why do you assume that this is about you?  I didn't mention your name
anywhere.  I'm flattered you would think so though.  

> You did your thought, now you are done. You precipitated a full
language,
> and now you "go". Philosphy, thought, I don't know, I think it in a
> certain way always exceeds this sort of language. 

Thought always exceeds language, and language always tries to catch up
with thought.  That's just a tragedy of writing, and is perhaps the
reason we keep writing. We all have so much fun in the mean time.

I'm not sure what you're trying to express here.  Maybe you should
clarify it a little.  At any rate, I do indeed attempt to acheive a
certain precision in my thought so that I don't fly all over the
place.  That's just an ideal of writing...  To trace a thread and
allow it to take on a form.  I find that tracing things well and
clearly creates less misunderstanding on the part of my readers.

> But in some ways, at least, I guess I can say, maybe so. You don't
see me
> saying "everything has a gravity of viiolence, therefore every thing
must
> be stopped!" Nor "never criticize *me* or you are am imperialist
fascist."
> I am saying that everything has a gravity of violence and a
concommitant

Actually I've heard you say all these things on this list to one
person or another.  But perhaps that's just my (mis)reading.  You
strike me as very antagonistic.

> nonviolence. You don't recognize or even posit the latter, you just
want
> to shore up (or is it "sure up") the former, and carry on. It's a very
> restricted basic range. I think that recognizing that gravity can
enable a
> great deal more than simply not recognizing it. The metaphor I am
fond of
> here is of a ballet dancer: the ballet dancer is not at war with
gravity,
> does not deny that there is gravity, yet her standing is, at the same
> time, in a kind of continual opposition to gravity, even while being
> always in its pull. That is the role of nonviolence as I see it. 

I don't recall ever using the word "war" in my post... I certainly
wouldn't frame the question in terms of war.  That's a little too
binary for my tastes.  Hopefully we could get beyond such a binary to
begin to think in terms of collaboration.

Your
> take, here, is of a piece with that, but with a very definite agenda. 

Of course I have an agenda...  No problems with that assertion. 
Should I be without one?

Not
> so much a dancer, but a football player. There is something called
> philosophy, and it has been constituted like a football game and a
war,
> for a long time, and effectively does not render thought impossible,
but
> tends to make it bad, poor, crippled, boring, uniform, uncreative, a
poor
> teacher, unfriendly, vicious, garrulous, occasionaly fascist, unable
to
> open a wealth of possibilities, warlike, rather blind and
ineffective in
> either confronting war as historical conflagraion and even often
> unconcerned about it, variously uninterested or strikingly
ineffective in:
> healing, helping, teaching, imparting talent, opening minds, etc. 

Hmmm, you really think this about philosophy?  I find it to be some of
the most beautiful writing ever seen. Maybe I'm just a victim of my
own misrecognition.  I also don't think it's too far off the mark to
say that philosophy can heal, help, teach and impart talent in direct
proportion to its ability to wound and hurt.  It all depends on how
you use it.


The
> *themes* of these matters *do definitly inhere* in what I see of
Deleuze,
> but the *grounds* remain very much more of the same, in a lot of ways.
> Your gestures, here, are a nearly perfect exemplification of this
kind of
> philosophy. This is a bit more of a direct attack than I would like
to be
> doing, but here I feel it is appropriate to be pitiless (not that I
sense
> much danger to you!) My pitilessness, here, is grounded on *some
kind of
> definite and free opening of nonviolence*, and *not* the kind of bare
> shred of an opening you accomlish. The kind of cruelty I enact here is
> what I think *is* appropriate, and is the sort of "sanctioned
violence"
> that you yourself call for so *very, very* quickly. I do them
*after* a
> definite and clear, *provisional* (and hence definitely not too
specific)
> inclusion of a moment of "ethics as first philosophY", even as the
very
> conception of "ethics" must be deconstructed into
"violence/nonviolence"
> for it to even be possible. 

The *provisional* in the title was meant to keep things open so that
others could tack onto the notion of violence in areas where they see
mine as lacking.  Thus it was an invitation to trace a rhizome...  The
hope of a collaborative effort.  So far that hasn't materialized.  Alas.

Well, once again, my post wasn't really attacking anyone but trying to
trace a concept with the hope of making an intervention.  I really
don't find what you're saying all that cruel, just perplexing.  Why
take this approach when there are so many others open to you?  Again,
it's very antagonistic and I would say, needlessly so.  That's just a
question, not a personal attack.

> This langauge gets *very* systematic. Just thoght I'd point that out.
> 
Nothing wrong with systematic language...  It's one way of making
things clear, and I find, generally, that clarity helps to alleviate
needless antagonisms.  With that said, it's not at all the case that I
think systematic language is the only way one should express oneself. 
 
> "Argument, questioning and polemic"...yet, there is also straightout
bad
> polemic. I.e., garbage. And these others, they are fine at times, I
agree
> (am I not doing each and every one of these, in a decent form?), but
they
> are hardly all there is. 

Careful here, I'm not extolling argument, questioning and polemic as
the sole virtues of thinking or anything like that.  I'm asking how we
can rethink them to make them less violent and territorial.  I agree
about some forms of polemic that are garbage, and I agree that form
has appeared on the list.  Again, another reason for writing this post.

In this respect, I really think this is what is
> going on with Unleash. He is almost deliberately refusing to tow the
line,
> and is stronly holding to a certain truth, even in what is poorly
wraught,
> because, I think, he senses that there is a real dominance at work
here. 

What has happened with Unleesh is very unfortunate.  His name has been
turned into a signifier that is then used as a power word to put
others down.  On the other hand, that phenomenon might change a little
if Unleesh takes the time to clarify himself to people that ask him
questions about what he means.  But maybe things are too far gone... 
It would be a bloody shame if they are because I tend to enjoy his
less polemical posts.

I
> am not equating all polemic with dominance. I do have to say,
though, that
> polemic is not so very good. At that point, though, it becomes a
matter of
> "how much", not just "inclusion". I mean, how much polemic? And, when
> there is polemic, is it just a "neutrally good violence"? I have
doubts. I
> go to "five percent" as just a rule of thumb.

I'm not particularly fond of polemic...  Maybe deliberation would be a
better word.  People have to deliberate over things with each other
and this deliberation takes the form of questions and problems to be
dealt with.  It's not always the most pleasant activity, but it's very
productive when carried out openly and with an end in view.
 
> And, btw, why not just say, in the usual academoc voice, to Unleash:
> 
> "I'm sorry, but I can't go that far with this idea..."
> "Some of your ideas sem to be interesting, but the overal rigor is a
> problem..."
> "your critiques have some good in them, but some of it is getting
out of
> hand.."
> "can you maybe flesh this out more?"
> "Isn't this getting a little too wishy washy?"
> 
> *And just leave it at that.* But no, that isn't what is happening.
It's
> much more like a kind of crazy, fascist attack. Yes, fascist. IN the
form
> of what has made *one move of thining and stopped*, and can now say:
"The
> greatest danger is what which wrongly accuses of fascisms when we are
> enacting necessary violence". I don't want to this to turn into a
simple
> polemical "you're a fascist, no you're a fasicst", but you see, the
> language to which *I* refer has a definite *inclusion of the theme of
> polemics*, not just the passing reference made in order ot justify
all I
> do. This move is a crucial issue: whether or not polemics as such is
> included as a *primary issue* in "broader thought". For you, broader
> thoguht is the systematically desubstantialized language you
demonstrate
> here. For me, it is the inclusion of the issue of polemics as such,
which
> requires the opening of the issue of (non)violencee and a great deal
of
> "openings" that must remain provisional. Heidegger: "Thinking is on
the
> descent into the poverty of its provisional essence." Would that
were the
> case more often.

Not at all sure what you're saying here.  Also, what does this quote
from Heidegger have to do with anything?

Well, that's all I have to say for the moment...  Could you possibly
shorten your messages a bit?  I think the things you're saying could
be said more economically, and the grammar and manner of connecting
your ideas makes your posts very difficult to read and misleading to
your audience.

Thanks for the reply,

Paul
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com