It seems to me that the ‘cynical’ view of politics, far from being the badge of a phantasy middle-class, is a popular one, the view of those who are at ten removes from the spectacle, the disenfranchised. The journos and scribblers, the academics hauled before the Newsnight cameras, on the other hand, feel close enough to the spectacle, the game, to believe that they might just be players. They are in sight of the crumbs from the table rather than being excluded from the feast... [+]
google :: crumbs jesus dogs
fourth link: Was Jesus Racist?
For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician
by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. [+]
AQ 208 = SOZUSAGEN = BIQUINTILE = BLEU CELESTE = CHAOTICALLY = CHARTREUSE = EIGHT REALES = ET TU, BADIOU! = ERWARTUNG ("Expectation"; psychological tale of a woman poised between fear and desire; Schoenberg: Erwartung, Op.17) = LOGORRHOIA = NECROMANCER = PSYCHEDELIC = RESURRECT = THE HANGED MAN = THEURGIST = WHITE MAGICK.
google :: Caussidiere for Danton
The Tragic Farce of Marx, Hegel, and Engels
AQ 474 = QUALITATIVE PSYCHIC CHANGE = NOUVELLE DIFFÉRENCE FRANÇAISE (Reuel Marc Gerecht) = PREFABRICATED TWISTS OF DNA = THEY CALL ME MELLOW YELLOW (Mellow Yellow, Donovan) = UNION-NEGOTIATED CONTRACT (Piet: Marvin Gandall) = WHEN I LOOK OUT MY WINDOW (Season Of The Witch, Donovan).
From Plato (DR 59-63) to Heidegger (DR 64-6), Deleuze argues, difference has not been accepted on its own, but only after being understood with reference to self-identical objects, which makes difference a difference between. He attempts in this book to reverse this situation, and to understand difference-in-itself.
We can understand Deleuze's argument by way of reference to his analysis of Plato's three-tiered system of idea, copy and simulacrum
(cf. LS 253-65). In order to define something such as courage, we can have reference in the end only to the Idea of Courage, an identical-to-itself, this idea containing nothing else (DR 127). Courageous acts and people can be thus judged by analogy with this Idea. There are also, however, those who only imitate courageous acts, people who use courage as a front for personal gain, for example. These acts are not copies of the courageous ideal, but rather fakes, distortions of the idea. They are not related to the Idea by way of analogy, but by changing the idea itself, making it slip. Plato frequently makes arguments based on this system, Deleuze tells us, from the Statesman (God-shepherd, King-shepherd, charlatan) to the Sophist (wisdom, philosopher, sophist) (DR 60-1; 126-8).
The philosophical tradition, beginning with Plato (although Deleuze detects some ambiguity here (eg. DR 59; TP 361)) and Aristotle, has sided with the model and the copy, and resolutely fought to exclude the simulacra from consideration, either by rejecting it as an external error (Descartes (DR 148)), or by assimilating it into a higher form, via the operation of a dialectic (Hegel (DR 263)).
While difference is subordinated to the model/copy scheme, it can only be a consideration between elements, which gives to difference a wholly negative determination, as a not-this. However, Deleuze suggests, if we turn our attention to the simulacra, the reign of the identical and of analogy is destabilised. The simulacra exists in and of itself, without grounding in or reference to a model: its existence is "unmediated" (DR 29), it is itself unmediated difference.
...each simulacra is its own model. [+][+][+]
"the verb" (thing you did) and "the noun" (thing you are)
"It doesn't matter so much if we actually torture people, along as we're just not the kind of nation that tortures people."
in Nelson DeMille's The General's Daughter, Ann Campbell, (aka, Elisabeth Campbell in the movie) was murdered as she recreated the gang-rape that occurred ten years earlier while she attended West Point. before her father saw her in the hospital, he had a meeting with army brass to keep things quiet (future of women in the military, blah blah). the general told his daughter to forget it ever happened. DeMille covers betrayal, the fact that Ann was a virgin when she was raped (a gynecological report dating back to her entrance physical at West Point, and a doctor had noted, "H. imperforatus"), & that her promiscuity was a response to her father's invalidation of the loss of her virginity.
"When? When did this happen?"
He replied, "About ten years ago."
"She was at West Point about ten years ago."
"That's correct. It happened to her in her second year at West Point."
Cynthia asked, "And when did she begin to seek revenge? Not immediately."
"No, not immediately. She went through the expected stages of shock, denial, then feelings of depression, and finally anger. It wasn't until about six years ago that she decided she had to seek revenge rather than try to cope with it. She, in fact, became somewhat unstable, then obsessed with her theory that only revenge could make things right." [+]
is Difference and Repetition the primary theme of Cycle #38? reading Swifty's comment & post made me think about that noun-verb equation. especially jesus & the crumbs bit. would a christian, knowing s/he would be the supreme commander of U.S. military forces (sending people to kill & be killed), really seek the presidency? does that really make sense? (following Deleuze, the Hendoku-Iyaku formula involves looking at the thing-itself, the simulacra; or IDEA (ARTHUR) / COPY (HERAKLEITOS) = SIMULACRUM: (SUMERIA)?).