note/questions re w benjamin’s critique of violence?

Violence in nature comes curious IMHO.
* How Benjamin feels the danger of humans taking darwinian evolution and, in a sense, divinationing their violence through a spinozian alter made of god=nature?
* How violence might need to be asked whether they can live
outside of a human. and in case they do – where and how they differ from Force?
When a rock falls on a tree, or an avalanches meets living organisms death does it do violence, is it being violent or since it is a force – there are regrettable consequences?
* How violence has legalities – laws, regulations and tolerances – perhaps hints at the aethetics the options and controls with which its thought, moves and enacted?

State, laws, legalities, legitimacy and violence?
* Labour strikes require being legal to come as – beside the state – lawful violence making?
* Criminal acts offer another system of violence that challanges states – hence can come admired on that challenging spirit’s ways?
* military violence both Natural and sanctioned by state?
* how large a shadow has ww1 got in the text?
* Capital punishment as a theatre of legal state violence?

Non-Violence possibilities?
* How exactly or rangely non-violence comes here? (ie un sure whether it is defined or offered any kind of a range to offer examples of what is talked about..)
* conference as an ultimate non-violence example? (not sure whether benjamin has been to the kind of academic conferences i have – and again, maybe his non violence is different to my mind, and indeed – the notion of conference?)

Divine and Violence?
(the And here comes after b used divine power with divine violence – which i am unsure may isomorph)
* How educative element of law is violent in a divine manner (p12 bottom). This leads to Relative embodiment of law into ones own life practices(culture?) that benjamin claims to come violently non the less. Obedience is violent divine style since it’s a nike-like just-do-it. You will not kill, b notes, has the command pre-deed?
* How do we get Pure divine can come as a different with divine?
* How mythical violence is recognisable – but divine isn’t?
* How we get also Pure immediate violence – how is that different from divine? (at least in manner of no particular aim – it just has to be.)

Activity and violence?
seems that state, divine, natural and so on – violences – are defined by Who is taken to be inflicting the violence.
* How materially disconnected each of such violence with other stuff? Stuff? yup, like
Language make up?
* How indeed, in cases of some Divine V – in some way there’s no other way, it’s Fate.. And therefore, this may take back to 1st note:
is divine violence Violating or Inflicting its own energetic life upon surrounding?
* How free will seems absent somehow? ( eg promethean challenge to violence – is that a free will’s own divine violence?)

— sub notes here
(echos of chomsky and claims of media induced amnesia? )
(benjamin talks of such internalisation of laws into ones own life as something that allows/persipitates human/human violent acts since a person may consider others Divinely in the wrong. Is it possible to wonder how, since mediated lives have to internalise rules and laws as virtual divine – such as what do you do in XYZ media garden park to be seen/noticed? – any deviation can easily be met by a sense of justifies violence?)

A curious thread going through comes from the attachment – or indeed ontological persistence of fate – X has to be as X is and that is somehow outside of negotiable or otherwise, manipulation. Even the rule of law, rather than, for example, a military law – has chance fate. Perhaps the violence is the ontoFateness of law??

A reading of the text with a justice bias? (Massimiliano Tomba)
I wonder how Fate might come as Justice?

Zizek has a few points that i may repeat? (violence without aims.. which i think is different from aimless violence…? He talks of a disagreement with Critchley who, in Z’s mind, claims divine violence has an aim indeed.)

…and here’s Simon Critchley telling truths of Zizek’s lies about him?
(A partial read gives a few clues that perhaps both Z and C – which could come and S n S – talk of different points. S comes via reading violence in a kind of general manner when the other S comes from a specific reading of violence – one which come in law’s range.)

Butler and Critchley re force of non-violence? (a critique of Non-Violence?)

Also might interest

Notes on the Thought of Walter Benjamin: Critique of Violence