>How does a passage from Deleuze demonstrate that an interpretation of
>the following passage from Foucault on the relation of "instinctive
>violence" expressed as a "murderous," "malicious," "rancorous,"
>"cruel" "instinct for knowledge," "will to knowledge," to "all" "forms
>of scientific consciousness," "all knowledge," is "terribly wrong"?
Because it doesn't pull out terms, put them in quotation marks, and then put them in an order that says (or you seem to think so anyway, I don't see it) what you want to have them say.
Maybe this passage from an interview with Foucault will help:
All human behavior is scheduled and programmed through rationality. There is a logic of institutions and in behavior and in political relations. In even the most violent ones there is a rationality. What is most dangerous in violence is its rationality. Of course violence itself is terrible. But the deepest root of violence and its permanence come out of the form of the rationality we use. The idea had been that if we live in the world of reason, we can get rid of violence. This is quite wrong. Between violence and rationality there is no incompatibility.
http://www.semiotexte.com/books/foucaultLive.html