First of all, obe, seems like you’re off to a good start. You seem to be enjoying the Play of it.
Kyle, you seem a little more interested in so called “serious philosophy”. So I suggest you seek it elsewhere.
Now is it any wonder I am so drawn to Delueze?
At the same time, it seems to me that what he sold into was one of the primary strategies of Capitalism in that Capitalism eventually hijacked the concept in order to sustain our role as consumers at a time when we’re being asked to consume more while being given less resources to do so. Therefore, they had to turn to virtual tactics to keep us consuming: such as keep things in a constant state of change. This was primarily a lack of foresight, not incompetence on Delueze’s part. And as any psych 101 class will tell you: change is synonymous with stress.
At the same time, you have to admit that becoming is freedom as compared to being.
And that’s just it, isn’t it? We do it because we love doing it. And doesn’t the analytic, as Delueze describes it, shut off that flow of energy? Doesn’t the analytic shut down Play? Do you think it some kind of coincidence that it is always the analytic that is trying to control the discourse?
Delueze is the anti-analytic. And that is why I’ve got to love him. It’s why I’m drawn to what we has done. Simply pointing to posers who parody his style of exposition does little to discourage me.
Logically: what wannabe guru would want someone like Delueze to exist?
*
And isn’t the rhizomatic epistemology homologous to the structure of the brain?
*
The history of philosophy has moved towards the possibility that there is an underlying nothingness to any assumption we can base our assertions on. All Delueze has done is accelerate that process.
Of course, the analytics will oppose him. They will claim to have found real truth. But all they have done is hit a mark by pulling the target closer.
One only need look at the materialists claim to the ultimate truth as concerns consciousness to understand this.
*
Kyle: I literally hope you become a blindspot for me. And I mean this in the sense that Dennett described the natural blindspot that people have in their eyes. Basically, what Dennett done was dispell the old myth that the reason we don’t see it is that the mind fills it in. Instead, he made the profound point that what happens is that the brain doesn’t just gloss over it; it actually just ignores it. In other words, it’s just non-existent data. It’s a little like most of us not thinking about people not existing on the moon, not because our brains are glossing over their non-existence, but because they simply don’t exist.
I mean it, Kyle: I could give a shit how opposed you are to what we’re looking into here (do you actually think I didn’t expect you?). And I could equally give a fuck about what you think is the Truth. What I do care about is that this exploration is allowed to go on without a heckler. That’s my Truth.
(As compared to bitching about non-serious philosophy
(You need to seek “serious philosophy”.