Two updates:

Last paragraph (1st line): "Identities are plot holes of someone else's curriculum vitae (course of life)."

Endnote 3 and a passage right after "an escape-route or a space for instant evacuation and withdrawal from the camouflaged position."

Reza. (I should make a comment about the "failure" ((supposedly)) of Iranian intellectuals). (This does not classify, I think).

To make sure I understood your point here:

"If militarization is not a war-time process, even peace as the blank space of unfriction between warmachines can be militarized; not taking advantages of peace as an exploitable suspension in time and a depository for militarization processes in wartime but the endo-militarization of peace itself, as if peace can be directly used as a weapon."

Did a search on "militarization" and found "THE 'LAW' OF SIMULATED WAR IN GRAVITY'S RAINBOW" by Nicholas Spencer. Is that opening paragraph on track with above snippet?

tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/okla/spencer24.htm

no it has nothing to do with Baudrillard's simulation, on the contrary, in White War, the unlife of war (Baudrillard loves to mangle it as 'reality of war' for further exploitations) leaks into everything even when warmachines cannot be traced on the plane of conflict; it takes place on the minimum level of technologic diversity (required for a conflict) but is coupled synergistically with techno-capitalism in a perverse / undermining way. (think rereading 'Jihad: Absent Obligation' might be helpful)

>>> as a preparatory moment in the realization of practices of social control that are 'irreducible' to war.

i'm guessing, the writer has mistaken battle with WAR.

>>> Filles Deleuze

Who?

by the way, what failure, i can't see any success or even a global goal, so speaking of failure is not relevant. but what is your point?

Reza. Thanks for checking that and the heads up on "Jihad: Absent Obligation". Unfortunately, I know reading that again will just confuse me more. I actually had to read this one backwards, rotflmao.

Ignore. No point whatsoever. Since "speaking of failure is not relevant".

More updates + a printable version

reza.

attempting to crack "logic of boundaries". ah. hodology? (ok, i can begin to understand those strange hypnotic squiggles) this..............

Boundary language is philosophically based on two primary works, the critical philosophy of Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) and the critical psychology of Jacques Lacan (1901-1981). Boundary language makes clear that there are a number of significant affinities connecting these two historically and culturally distant thinkers; in fact, boundary language makes it clear for the first time that a case should be made that they are, in the world of intellectual fiction-writing, 'one and the same person'.

reminded me of Lemurian Time War & Burroughs connection with Captain Mission (and, come to think of it, that piece is actually a good introduction to Hyperstition).

"Burroughs told Kaye that, during the trance, it felt as though silent communication with a ghostly non-human companion had flashed him forward to his life as an old man, several decades in the future. Oppressed by ‘a crushing sensation of implacable destiny, as if fragments of a frozen time dimension were cascading into awareness,’ he ‘remembered’ writing 'The Ghost Lemurs of Madagascar' – ‘although it wasn’t writing exactly,’ and his writing implements were archaic, belonging to someone else entirely, in another place and time."

is the State's boundary classification you describe what Burroughs experienced as "invisible brothers ... invading present time", the "jail-house mind of the One God"?

reza. endo-militarization.

"within the militarization"?

>>> endo-militarization

Example ‘endo-carbonization of iron’ (another technical term in metallurgy for the process involved in producing Steel): introducing Carbon to Iron in a way that the molecular arrangement, usage and chemical / physical / metallurgic composition of iron change.