At what point do critical analyses of violence/non-violence become
strato-analyses, rhizomatics?
Non-violence is everywhere as is violence - to me this sounds like a
discussion of the BwO and stratification or, the plane of consistency v.
the plan(e) of organisation.
I think you can make a good argument for violence being everywhere -
tying the Nietzschean idea of mnemo-technics to coding via pain, blood
and (of course) violence. This would mean that any coded (or over-coded)
system was violent. I should stress that mnemo-technics stretches far
past primitive coding into State over-coding and Capitaist axiomatics -
hence the ubiquity of violence. The strata form matter by way of a code
and coding is violenc/t.
But there is always a decoding ... A non-violence, if thats the symbol
that you connect with, a way of creating your own BwO. So yes
non-violence is as everywhere as violence. But no, it certainly, if TMB
agrees with this analyses, need not be timid, insipid - its the plane of
consistency.
I?m only suggesting this cos if you argue that decoding is as violent as
coding then you lose a possibly useful distinction. Though of course
decoding can have violent effects -when the strata come crashing down
...
Don?t have a copy of ATP with me (typical) but I?m trying to remember
the bit in the beginning of the Apparatus of Capture plateau when
Deleuze and Guatarri descibe the, I think they call it violence, of the
warrior who undoes the bonds and betrays the pacts ...
deterritorialises, decodes.
"Another violence but also another pity" is I think how they describe
it.
All coding is violenc/t . All socius?s exist to code and are therefore
violent. Only the nomads do not operate by codes and territories - and
therefore are non-violent.
Winging it here.
Jon.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
