Oh shit.
Brief interlude.
Foucault is undone by a single question. Who is doing all this? Because he does describe an attack, a prison. The genealogy of power as genealogy of attack. Who attacks?
Baudrillard noticed this. He problematized who it is that is attacking, is there even an attack, noted that what they are hiding is that they are hiding nothing, and went to sleep. Y’all handle the rest.
Ok, back to this fucking gorilla of philosophy.
Fuck i can’t handle this. This is too great.
He talks about the point of inflection in the infinite series in the folds of the soul. Well, the pliege. French probably has a greater degree of untranslatability than any other language. It’s too much about the joy of the word itself.
But he says that. And he says the genetic material is the inflection. I’m starting to realize he noticed a lot of the same shit I noticed. About genetics. (Not DNA you cunts). What I called pivot points.
Another brief interlude.
In that same interview, the abecedaire, he says he hates dogs. Thinks they’re stupid. Cons. He much prefers frogs. Hahahahahaha.
The man in a nutshell.
Ok then. The plieeege.
Damn. I’ve lost a lot of my stamina for philosophy. Gotta go watch a movie or something.
I left him at where he was talking about the infinite series as math as Leibniz worked on it. Only an infinite series is a true fold, in a sense, and Leibniz concluded that only irrational numbers give infinite series.
Perhaps possibly, if it is not simply my stamina dropping, Nietzsche might here step in and say that math is simply applied logic, and that you are using a ruler to describee a thing you do not need a ruler to describe. and, perhaps, the ruler desplains more than explains (lol, deplain, explain, the plieeege).
I find this. Philosophy must not rely on math. Simply because the world is as is, and the mind apprehends it that way, and math is just a tool for to regularize it and mechanize it when needed, like for catapults or atom bombs.
The insight about the inflection point of genetic material is genious. And the pliege as infinity. (Lol, didn’t Sawelios use to obssess about infinity? But enough, we are talking about the barroques now). Why, then, do you need to add math? There is a reason Leibniz himself never used math in his philosophical writtings. I get what Deleuze is doing (I think), he is using math as the bridge between Leibniz’s philosophical writtings and the barroque pliege, thus illuminating it’s true transcendence in genetics. But I worry he might go overboard with the math. Stick to the things, D. The measurements are post-facto.
Damn, no, I can’t stop here. If I stop here I’m trapped in an abyss of abstract metaphysics.
2 straight hours of Deleuze it is.
Got a glass of milk, the lights are off.
There’s bunt cake in the cupboard if needed.
Ooooh fuck, it WAS my stamina. Daaaamn. Fu-cking Deleuze.
We’re gonna go through this like cows, gentlemen. Four stomachs, lotsa chewing.
What did these French dudes do? Prove how the first half of the 20th century was irrelevant.
Just post-platonic anaphilactic shock.
Shit on my fucking face.
I can’t do this.
I gotta go to work tomorrow ffs.
But at least I walk away for now knowing that Deleuze is on his shit.
Lol, see? Pivot points. The plieeeege.
Continuity, Deleuze was also talking about continuity. The unfolding of the labyrinth. but see? How can you let mathematics in here? Predetermination, neh? However irrational. But no, it’s not pivot commands, or even predictions of movement. It’s pivot POINTS. Deleuze was even talking about how you can choose your own point at an intervening place.
It’s interesting. There is also a duality, there are two labyrinths: of matter and of the soul-ah. so the soul labyrinth… Well he hasn’t gone there yet, but presumably the soul series works off the pivot points of the matter series. That kinda works too. But there is something missing here. Will. the thing that pivots. Fuck. Am I gonna sit down here again and keep listening to Deleuze? I guess I am. Maybe I gotta remember: it’s not about the series, it’s about the fold.
But yeah, so far that’s the difference I see. Deleuze is simply describing the genealogical progression. No mention yet of the toolbox that I mentioned. I guess in the end it’s inconsequencial. The only pivots that will happen, the only expressions of will that transcend, will occur at the pivot points. The inflection points.
Yeah, that’s good enough. That’s good enough. Let’s keep listening then, shall we? The irrational numbers aren’t an insult, they are a compliment.
Also worht remembering, deleuze is a gentleman. there is no universality here, it is all strictly within the genealogical study of the transcendence of the baroque.
Ah… The inclusion. Infinite pliege is because it is included in. It is inside something. the line. hmm… That is the ultimate goal of the folded line. the sandbox? Let’s see.
“Je ne sais pas encore ou la line plie a l’infinite est incluse…”
Aha…
then he shrugs. Let’s see what he says.
The question is from the inflection to the inclusion by means of the infinite series.
As an example, he gives: the predicate is included by the subject.
This… holy fuck let’s keep listning.
“Has crossed the Rubicon” is contained by “Cesar.”
The fold IS the fucking sandbox.
Holy fuck.
And the fold occurs in infinite progression by irrational numbers as the inflection points with which one plays, in the sandbox.
Mind blown yet?