Re: violences

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, douglas edric stanley wrote:
>=20
> This is absolutely g=E9nial, and perhaps what I ought to have said was th=
at
> Tom gives us ideas, images (child-rape, nazis, me slapping him, etc.) whi=
ch
> do not invent anything new but rather occupy thought, give it something t=
o
> think about without really having to think. I love this description of a
> thinking which would be simply _recognizing_ things. For those that don't
> speak french, Deleuze says something along the lines of


I have to intevene here in my own behalf again. You've really mistaken=20
what I'm about. The main things I've been talking about have been:=20
thoughtaction, enconstruction, nonviolence as it relates to the ethical=20
and as hidden in, say, D and G, violence as gravity, disalienation of=20
nonviolence, standing in nonviolence, "in and through-ness" (which bears=20
some resemblances to immanence, it appears to me, various senses of=20
violence, psychical violence, the question of violence more broadly,=20
unfolding nonviolent thoughtaction (which is anything but a simply=20
process of recognition), etc. Thought along these lines have been my=20
primary points of departure. I am no simply saying "dogs eat." Perhaps=20
you should actually read and respond to one of the more substantive posts=
=20
(that would mean de-desubstantializing them) I put out. I have not wanted=
=20
to say something like this, but at this point I'm inclined to say that=20
this actually is getting a bit violent!

TMB



>=20
> "There are thoughts that don't bother anyone, and those that force us to
> think. The first are objects of recognition. Thinking and all its faculti=
es
> can occupy themselves fully. Thought can wander around freely while while
> having nothing to do with thinking. Thinking is filled with an image of
> itself where it recognizes itself all the better in that it recognizes
> things : it's a finger, it's a table, hello Th=E9=E9t=E8te."
>=20
> And that's precisely what I was getting at, although it's better. There's
> violence, sure, we all know what that is. It's a bit like saying, "dogs
> eat", and thinking that that is thinking. Sure, something is being said,
> but is it really worth opening up our email to learn something we already
> know?
>=20
>=20
> Thanks for the references, it helps to spread things out a bit, find
> something to work off of.
>=20
>=20
> Douglas Edric Stanley
> destanley@xxxxxxxxx
>=20
>=20
>=20

___________________________________________________________________________=
_

"I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her hounour,
than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless
witness to her own dishonour." M. K. Gandhi
___________________________________________________________________________=
_