Dear Diary Moments:

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Parodites » Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:42 pm

d63 wrote:Dear Diary Moment 3/12/2020:

I recently listened to the audiobook for Paul Krugman’s Arguing With Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight For a Better Future –as usual with his books: he was offering a collection of his blogs and editorials for the New York Times. And confession: this is clearly a matter of confirmation bias in that he brought up something I have thought for some time. The point he made was that when it comes to arguments for FreeMarketFundamentalism, we have to take a good look at the motivations of those making those arguments. This, of course (from the perspective of informal Logic), is considered a “Circumstantial Ad Hominem”. And within the framework of Logic studies, it makes sense in that while we generally get arguments for FreeMarketFundamentalism from those most likely to benefit from it: the rich. But we still have to take the argument on its own merit as if it could be argued by someone that didn’t share that benefit from it. We see a similar dynamic at work with the Tu Quoque argument that argues, in an ad hominem manner, that one be consistent with their selves. For instance, if were arguing a pro-choice position with a pro-lifer and found out that they had gotten an abortion their selves, it would be pointless for you to point that out since any argument they might make might be offered by someone that didn’t have an abortion.



GPT wrote:You’re looking at the argument in terms of how it would apply to them in order to determine how it would apply to you. Likewise, we should look at how it would apply to us in order to determine how it would apply to the general population.

As to the merits of the free-marketers arguments themselves, I could say a few things but first I want to touch on some of the things I read on that site. The first item that seems particularly odd to me is the point about the existence of corporations. When I see a corporation, I tend to think of a group of people (the shareholders, for instance) that have made a contract with another group of people (the workers) where they mutually agree to do work for each other. The corporation, then, is the result of two or more parties agreeing to mutually engage in business, and what that agreement says is that neither party owes the other anything other than their contractual obligation. That doesn’t mean that companies are entirely innocent of exploitation and are always free of it. Rather it means that it is the responsibility of the people in charge of the company to manage its affairs in a way that minimizes its risk of exploitation and to be as transparent as possible so that people can make informed choices about what the corporation does.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:26 pm

Dear Diary Moment 7/16/2021:

Reference: https://www.facebook.com/groups/6757450 ... 0150816089

“This ability seems to be pretty unique to humans (the mirror test) and occurs at the age of about 18months. It is a tearing apart of body from mind, the start of self-consciousness, but with it comes symbolic thought and knowledge of death. Existential angst but it also releases enormous power and responsibility!” –Steve Brewer

The above quote refers to Dr. Brewer’s book Origins of the Self, a book I highly recommend. Not only is it cheap on Kindle, it gave me a lot I can use (my primary criterion (and it can be a useful steppingstone and guide to aspiring philosophers who must, above all, recognize how important (essential even (evolution is to any conceptual model they might develop. I mean evolution is all over contemporary theory.

What Brewer is referring to is an experiment that establishes a sense of self by putting rouge on the face of a subject (both human and animal (and putting them in front of a mirror. If the subject acts to brush the rouge off their face, it establishes that the subject sees something that is not of their self. And as Brewer points out above: children tend to reach this sense of self at about 18 months. And also interesting to note is that some species of monkeys or apes (what’s the categorization, Dr.? (have shown a similar tendency. This just goes to demonstrate the proximity we have to them on the evolutionary tree.

However: this creates a conflict for me. And hopefully the good doctor can help me with this, given his appreciation of more continental thought; or even my respected peers. The identity experiment conflicts with Lacan’s model of the “mirror phase” –which works equally well for me. In it, the child starts off as a chaos of impulses and needs. But when it first sees its self in a mirror, it finds itself as a coherent whole….

It seems I have answered my own question. Brewer’s point only conditions Lacan’s to the extent that the mirror phase only works at a certain point in development. As Rosannadanna on SNL use to say: Never mind………..
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:08 pm

Dear Diary Moment 7/25/2021:

Started today on the book I got from Philosophy Now for getting my answer to the question of the month accepted (

Bragging rights!!! This brain is international, Baby!!!!!!

: The Philosopher Queens, edited by Rebecca Buxton and Lisa Whiting. And it’s about time. I always know that I have to open myself up to multicultural studies. And when I do, I’m always glad I did. But as a white, heterosexual male, I tend to attract to “dead white males”. I just relate to them more easily. And as wrong as it may have been, we have to admit that they have dominated the general discourse as concerns our cultural history. But that is mainly because they have had the luxury of exploring deeper issues such as the nature of mind or whether the universe is determined or random or matters of free will. Women (as well as minorities (have always had to contend with the more superficial issues of social and political justice. They end up having to play off of and utilize the more metaphysical musings of those dead white males. And all we can do now is not try to reinterpret or change the past, but try to change how we go forward.

That said, every book is an adventure. You follow the author (or authors (through another world in which you are allowed to mill about and explore and see what happens based on the information you get from it. I look forward to seeing what happens with this particular book.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:34 pm

Dear Diary Moment 8/14/2021:

One of the things that came up for me in James William’s guide to Difference and Repetition is Deleuze’s distinction between “repetition for itself” and “difference in itself”. And phrasing is really important here. The thing is I can’t help but see a correlation between Deleuze’s dyad and Sartre’s (respectively: “being for itself” and “being in itself”. So the question is:

Coincidence?

:I personally think not. Sartre may have been more of an influence on Deleuze than I previously realized. Still I have to ask if my instincts on this are wrong. And if I am right, how do they correlate? It seems to me (according to what I THINK I understand (that repetition should be in itself (that which is associated with common objects (while difference should be for itself: that which is associated w/ consciousness. But then Deleuze had and has a reputation for twisting these things around.

Anyway: anyone?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:09 am

Dear Diary Moment 8/16/2021:



Reading Joe Hughes' Deleuze's Difference and Repetition, I'm starting to better understand Repetition in the latent sense that Deleuze describes it as compared to the manifest sense of it that we see in the everyday. As I read it, it's like an abstract bricolage that is in a constant state of revision (Difference (while maintaining a limited stasis to the extent that a pure repetition would consist of a pure nothing: death. It's a repetition that requires difference in order to keep repeating itself. In a sense, I was getting at it when I attributed it to a kind of metaphysical/analytic statement:



At best, a pure repetition can consist of the same thing at different moments in time. Therefore, the only thing that can truly be repeated is difference.



: however, I now realize that the description I offered was an expression of manifest repetition. But it was still a useful stepping stone.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:40 am

Hello d63:


This is to noticy you that I referred to your present article in the now posting philosophy forum entiteled ' easy ideas , hard ideas.

I request your permission , after the fact.

Thanks,

meno




Here is a portion of relevance that an examination of ontological/ontic split may have on your present consuderation:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>

"this amounts roughly to the same thing here—ontic critique. While consciousness feels the ontic unrest of shuttling between the two poles of comparison, it is bereft of the ontological restlessness one experiences when one dwells without abiding in the split between the ontic and the ontological, in the spacing of the ontico-ontological difference. Any residual unrest is subject to immediate pacifica­tion through a more stringent and exacting, though not necessarily exact, application of the acts of comparing, weighing, and judging. What is thus absent from the relative (or naïve) phenomenology of consciousness is the experience of experience that has nothing in common with theoretical consciousness, the being of experience that “means being this distinction” (“between the ontically true and the ontological truth”).


And this clears things up a bit :


"Difference and Repetition was Deleuze's principal thesis for the Doctorat D'Etat alongside his secondary, historical thesis, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza.

The work attempts a critique of representation. In the book, Deleuze develops concepts of difference in itself and repetition for itself, that is, concepts of difference and repetition that are logically and metaphysically prior to any concept of identity. Some commentators interpret the book as Deleuze's attempt to rewrite Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) from the viewpoint of genesis itself.[1]"
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:12 am

d63 says:


"At best, a pure repetition can consist of the same thing at different moments in time. Therefore, the only thing that can truly be repeated is difference."


How can we correlate Delouse's idea of repetition with Heideggers,' who seems to denote a more weighty content in the hardened idea of ontological certainty with the 'liter' one of Delouse, in terms of similar structural affinity within Nietzche's idea of recurrance and even Kierkegaard's ' Repetition'?
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:40 am

Here is an interesting reference:


"Article
Repetition and singularity. Kierkegaard and Deleuze
July 2013Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 105(3-4):735-748
Authors;
Cristina Zaltieri
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:13 pm

Meno_ wrote:Hello d63:


This is to noticy you that I referred to your present article in the now posting philosophy forum entiteled ' easy ideas , hard ideas.

I request your permission , after the fact.

Thanks,

meno




Here is a portion of relevance that an examination of ontological/ontic split may have on your present consuderation:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>

"this amounts roughly to the same thing here—ontic critique. While consciousness feels the ontic unrest of shuttling between the two poles of comparison, it is bereft of the ontological restlessness one experiences when one dwells without abiding in the split between the ontic and the ontological, in the spacing of the ontico-ontological difference. Any residual unrest is subject to immediate pacifica­tion through a more stringent and exacting, though not necessarily exact, application of the acts of comparing, weighing, and judging. What is thus absent from the relative (or naïve) phenomenology of consciousness is the experience of experience that has nothing in common with theoretical consciousness, the being of experience that “means being this distinction” (“between the ontically true and the ontological truth”).


And this clears things up a bit :


"Difference and Repetition was Deleuze's principal thesis for the Doctorat D'Etat alongside his secondary, historical thesis, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza.

The work attempts a critique of representation. In the book, Deleuze develops concepts of difference in itself and repetition for itself, that is, concepts of difference and repetition that are logically and metaphysically prior to any concept of identity. Some commentators interpret the book as Deleuze's attempt to rewrite Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) from the viewpoint of genesis itself.[1]"


Cool!!!! And clearly you're referencing Joe Hughes' book which I am presently reading.

And thanks for asking; but steal what you can use, brah!!!!!
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:00 pm

Dear Diary Moment 8/19/2021:

Thinking about it now, Deleuze’s ‘connect and forget’ makes perfect sense. In order to connect w/ the infinite in our finite capacity, we would have to let go of the possibility of retaining everything. To do otherwise would be the pride (the arrogance even (that goes before the fall.
*
Joe Hughes in his reader’s guide to Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition points out that Difference in Itself (what James Williams refers to as ‘pure Difference’ (is not just a movement of Being but, rather, integral to Being itself. And if one thinks about it: Difference is what allows Being to continue being. Without Difference, Being would succumb to something like Deleuze’s ‘Actual Death’ (as compared to the virtual deaths we experience throughout life (which is a perfect repetition that can no longer even be a repetition without Difference: a perfect Nothingness.
*
What we can see in Deleuze’s agenda (his manifesto (is a forward flight similar to Sartre’s –as pointed out by one of Sartre’s critics. However, it is reversed in Deleuze’s case. In Sartre’s case, it was about being-for-itself projecting out of being-in-itself towards being-in-itself. But put in mind here that Sartre saw Nothingness as coiled into the heart of Being like a worm. Think: Fulcrum. Therefore, we could argue that Sartre (very much like Deleuze (was arguing for a dynamic of something projecting out of nothing into nothing. What I would refer to as the nihilistic perspective.

I would argue that it was this sensibility (this forward flight in Deleuze (that led to D & G having to tone it down for a Thousand Plateaus after seeing the effects on people of the Anti-Oedipus.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:48 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/5/2021:

Reading Joe Hughes’ reader guide to Difference and Repetition, I’m starting to get clearer sense of a line of development that started in D & R and reached a deeper and more evolved expression in Anti-Oedipus. But first we have to backtrack through Husserl’s understanding of Kant’s Doctrine of the Faculties: that which describes the synthetic process by which we move from immediate experience to understanding. Using the terminology I lifted from it all:

It starts with the sensible which is the data input that comes through the senses.

We then move on to what Kant called Reproduction through which imagination and memory process the incoming data in order that the mind might achieve:

Understanding which is the active domain of thought as compared to the passive nature of the previous two.

And this is a two way street. While there is a synthetic process that works from the sensible to understanding and the conceptual, there is a “double adventure” in which the conceptual is imposed back on the sensible: the schematism. In Kant this was the modes that allowed the mind to organize the chaotic input of reality. And much of Deleuze’s D & R is about his attempt to revamp the model in the context of Kant’s later book: Critique of Judgement. Furthermore, it helps to recognize that Deleuze, unlike Kant, saw this process as failed and therefore aleatory in nature: a roll of the dice.

And jumping to Anti-Oedipus, we start to see a lot of overlaps w/ the D & R model and D & G’s 3 syntheses of the unconscious (a clear result of Guatarri’s psychiatric background and influence:

The connective in which the mind takes in data and forms connections.

The disjunctive in which conflicts and dichotomies emerge.

And the conjunctive in which an uneasy and volatile (therefore tentative (understanding is reached that is destined for collapse.

And I use the term “understanding” as a purposeful reference to the previous synthetic process. This is because this, as D & G describe it, is the point at which an active self emerges (an I (then collapses back into the passive process: the barbarian hordes of the unconscious. And in this process, we see how the concept of schematism emerges in new form in the overcoding D & G attribute to Freud’s Oedipus complex.

PS: could go on; but this shit is straining my brain.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:18 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/6/21:

Reading Joe Hughes' reader guide to Difference and Repetition, in my study point at the "library", I came across a point on which I may have to depart from Deleuze. It describes the idea of univocal being (all things that are are in the same way (as ending in a Metaphysics of Power: the notion that if all things are in the same way, the only way to distinguish them is in terms of the power they have to affect other things. For myself, I tend to think of univocal being as a democritizing force as described by Rorty who talked about the pointlessness of talking about ontological status.

Of course, the main reason this is problematic for me is that I stand by what I call a Metaphysic of Efficiency: that focused on the distribution of resources in relationship to the expectations involved. And it seems to me that Deleuze's ubiquitous difference serves that metaphysic in ways that I have yet to define.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just misunderstanding Deleuze's point. Still, it feels like he is stuck in the Metaphysics of Power that we have to get beyond if we are to survive as a species, that is by moving on to a Metaphysics of Efficiency.

But then maybe I'm reading him wrong.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:07 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/12/2021:

As I start on this immersion in Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition starting w/ Joe Hughes’ reader’s guide then on to James Williams’ and on to the original text (I’m thinking about adding Levi R. Bryant’s Difference and Givenness due to a comment by Hughes), after all this scratching at the surface of it, I’m starting to worry that I may be reaching that ineffable (asphasic even: new word I learned today (depth at which I can no longer actually comment, in which all I can do is name-drop as I have shamelessly done here.

PS: has anyone noticed how the how most commentators on Deleuze’s books (w/ and w/out Guatarri (are always conditioned by the network of other books they have read by, about, and influential to him? Doesn’t it seem like the rhizomatic network of other books, other texts (the Derridaian diffe̕rrance ( is what purposely determines the interpretation? It’s as if the text itself doesn’t matter as much as the path by which you arrive at it.

As Deleuze suggested: multiply differences.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:56 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/13/2021:

Today I want to break down and elaborate on a passage in Joe Hughes' reader guide to Difference and Repetition and hopefully get at the profound experience it was. But as I have said before: philosophy (especially of the continental kind (is a little like someone on LSD trying to explain their high. There is every reason to expect that my points will fall short of their intended goal. Okay:

“Deleuze directly adopts this notion from Husserl in his terse definition of passive synthesis as one which 'is not carried out by the mind, but occurs in the mind'.”

In this, we get a deeper and more subtle understanding of how it is the unconscious works. And we get at it by understanding the distinction between something that the mind carries out (as if the mind is an independent agent manipulating the content of the unconscious (and note how this must of contributed to Freud’s literary description of dreams that made it seem as if the unconscious was consciously creating these symbolic narratives: that which resulted in the silliness of dream dictionaries (as compared to the unconscious working in the same way mechanical rooms do in a building. This, of course, is influenced by my own experience as a maintenance tech. But the description of ‘occurring in the mind’ does delegate the unconscious to the role of supporting the activities of the mind without actually fixing them in any way. This is because as Hughes further points out:

“The fact that these syntheses is not at all what is most interesting about them for either Deleuze or Husserl. What is far more interesting is that they are not rule -governed syntheses. They are essentially transgressive.”

This is the dice roll and aleatory point that Deleuze refers to throughout his process. The unconscious (the passive syntheses), not having the kind of controlling mechanisms that the mind has (the active synthesis), tend to be chance in nature. And here we can see the roots of desiring production that Deleuze (in collusion with Guatarri (would evolve to. In the Anti-Oedipus, these barbarian hordes are shaped into acceptable thoughts through social production.

Or did I fuck this up?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:56 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/19/2021:

Watching Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ the other night, I saw, yet again, how a lot of our more secular heroes (or how we see them (can be rooted in Christian mythology: the very archetype (Lewis? (of the Christ-like figure. This can be really seen with Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guatarri (and his insistence on personal revolution as compared to the revolutionary action of groups. This, of course, can also be seen pervasively throughout philosophical history which may well be why Spinoza is considered “the Christ of philosophers”.

In fact, if we think about it, philosophy is primarily about a personal revolution.
*
“Revolution moves beyond the dichotomies of historical determination or human freedom, and physical determination or dumb systemic luck. The catalyst is neither individual or group freedom, nor blind chance. Instead, every event is revolutionary due to an interaction of signs, acts and structures through the whole event. Events are distinguished in terms of the intensity of this revolution, rather than types of freedom or chance. Intensity is itself only decided, and then only temporarily, by a further counter-actualisation.” -Williams, James. Gilles Deleuze's Difference and Repetition: A Critical Introduction and Guide . Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition.

Nowhere was this more relevant than in the two US festivals put on by Steve Wozniak of Apple fame. The idea, of course, was to recreate the glory of Woodstock. And in the second, this criterion was approached on heavy metal day when the audience was numbered at the crucial goal of around 500,000 people.

Still, it was no Woodstock. What Woz (for all his investment (and we failed to recognize was that Woodstock was the result of a lot of chance elements that made it as important as it was, most notably that rock and roll as manifest in the 60’s was still seeking legitimate status as an art form as well as the whole hippy/counter culture. That wasn’t the case in the early 80’s primarily (and ironically (because of Woodstock.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:44 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/20/2021:

I've come to realize, in my immersion in Deleuze's Difference and Repetition, a couple of things about his concept of the actual and the virtual. I've come to make a couple of connections:

To begin, his inclusion of the virtual may well be why he insists on univocal Being: that which accepts that all things which exist must be said to exist in the same way. And this can be said of our reactions to actual things: the becomings as Deleuze would describe it. And note the pragmatic overlap with Rorty who often showed his disdain for any attempts at establishing "ontological status". And we have to lend some credibility to this sensibility, and the existence of the virtual, given how important a role that ineffable (non-actual (factors play in the various events we find ourselves negotiating. We begin to see (from an evolutionary perspective (that our capacity to adapt to a given but changing environment may well depend on our capacity to employ the virtual.

This, of course, can easily be interpreted as a dismissal of science from a continental perspective -that is since the actual is what science primarily focuses on. This hostility can be seen in the Sokal hoax which many took as a condemnation of post-structuralism and Postmodernism. But all it really exposed is what we already knew: that philosophers are not scientists and, therefore, have to depend on the authority of scientists when it comes to scientific matters.

All Deleuze was trying to establish (as many of his continental peers were (was that we have to keep the authority of science in perspective. That we have to recognize that science is limited by its focus on the actual (and indifference to the virtual (while being perfectly useful in that capacity. All the continentals were trying to do is assert the role of the virtual in our evolutionary adaption.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:30 pm

Dear Diary Moment 9/26/2021:

This week on Real Time, Bill Maher talked to Tristan Harris who is apparently part of some kind of watchdog group as concerns social media. Harris revealed that Facebook had flagrantly utilized an algorithm that pushed posts that managed to generate more conflict because they happened to generate more revenue. And no doubt, this is a questionable thing to do on Zuckenberg’s part (once again: his techno-libertarianism), and this is why we need watchdog groups like that of Harris’. It was also brought up how Facebook users are more statistically likely to experience depression and body image issues.

Maher, of course, was all over this and railing against the evils of social media. He does as much with non-vegetarian diets and religion. It’s as if he doesn’t do it, no one else should either. And as much as I love Maher and religiously follow everything he does, it can come off as a little sanctimonious at times.

The problem with the argument is that while it does establish a correlation between social media and mental health issues (including hostility), it might actually be reversing the A & B of causality. Tristan and Maher’s argument makes it seem as if Facebook is creating hostile and depressed people when, in fact, in it may actually be attracting them due to their lack of social skills, that is when mentally healthy people can simply use it as one tool among others –including going in to real world social situations- and come out of it still mentally healthy.

And, once again: the thing everyone neglects to mention is the Facebook block which is complete (you don’t see them and they don’t see you (as compared to the block you got on old social media such as MySpace.

And let me be very clear on this: I do not give a flying fuck about Zuckerberg (he’s just a rich guy to me (or Facebook. I am not out to defend their honor. I am simply making the argument that, like a lot of other things in life, they are mixed packages that require something more subtle than outright negativity.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:18 pm

Dear Diary Moment 10/1/2021:

I’ve been dealing with, for some time now, Deleuze's conceptual dyad of common and good sense -both of which he is clearly critical of. Now common sense seemed pretty easy to get a grip on in that the word "common" suggests that it is about a way of thinking (that which comes with common assumptions (that is common among most people. And we can see why Deleuze might be critical of it to the extent that it can lead to doxa: generally accepted responses to generally accepted cues.

Good sense was a little more elusive to me. But now I'm starting to see that it may have to do with what it is practical to accept as true. And I can see where this might be problematic for Deleuze to the extent that it can succumb to what I refer to as "the tyranny of the functional".

At the same time, this could also prove problematic for the pragmatic overlap I see between Deleuze and Rorty. But it’s not surprising given Deleuze’s French propensity for radical critique. And in my defense, where I see the overlap is in their method: that of democratically letting people think what they think free of dogmatic criteria and just letting everything come out in the wash.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:58 pm

Dear Diary Moment 10/9/2021:

Am presently reading the latest edition of New Philosopher. And today I came across Patrick Stokes’ “To Boldly Go and Not Come back”. It basically brought me back to the Philosophy 101 conundrum of the teleportation problem: that once you are disassembled for sake of transport to somewhere else, you more or less die even if the person that arrives at the other point is an exact replica of you with all the memories you have up until then.

Reading it, I suddenly realized there may be a more realistic, practical, and less sinister way to approach this technology. And I bring this up for any aspiring ScyFy writers out there as an old ScyFy fan myself. It seems to me that the best way to avoid the teleportation conundrum is for the body of the original subject to remain in place in a sleep state while the technology creates an exact replica of it with all its memories (an avatar (up until then that, in turn, creates other memories that are transmitted back to original subject.

But then this creates another problem. What happens if that replica/avatar recognizes that they’re being used by the original subject and that their existence is short term? What happens if the replica/avatar rebels against the original self?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:03 am

Dear Diary Moment 11/11/2021:

I have, throughout my process, pimped what I call the nihilistic perspective that recognizes that there is no solid criteria by which to judge action. And today, while reading the latest issue of Philosophy Now, I came up against the one argument that presents a legit counterpoint to my position: that the criterion of not killing or robbing or raping (etc., etc. (anyone seems solid enough. And it does seem solid. But the term “seem” or “seems” is an important qualifier here. It just all came to me today.

The problem with presenting the prohibition on killing, robbing, rape, or even torture as anything more than a human construct is that it tries to present such moral assertions as if they had the same objective status as the laws of physics. The problem, with this, of course, is that while we can easily violate a social norm or moral criteria, what we can’t violate are the laws of physics.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:10 pm

Dear Diary Moment 11/14/2021:

Just started today on my second immersion in Levi R. Bryant’s Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence. And already it has proven a real walk down memory lane in that, it having been years since the first run, this immersion has brought back a couple of understandings that I latched onto, but have either forgotten the source of or completely forgotten due to disuse.

For one, there is Deleuze’s recognition of aesthetics as not being just about the nature of beauty, but a study of the sensible (how the mind commandeers raw reality (as well. This one stayed with me. But I had forgotten the source of it.

The other is the three means by which we analyze any given proposition: the syntactic, the semantic, and the existential. And these are important to understand. And I, in my excitement, use to cite the model all the time. Unfortunately, I got distracted along the way and it got buried –which is what makes it such a pleasure to see it resurrected.

But it is important to the extent that we utilize all three. The syntactic is the domain of symbolic logic in which the only thing that matters is if one argument follows the other. The semantic is the domain of the analytic in which the only reality that matters lies in an exact understanding of the terms we are using to define reality. The existential, finally, is pretty much what most of us are utilizing day to day as we deal with the day to day.

And let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the existential is the only approach that matters. None of us are beyond utilizing the semantic or syntactic to make an argument, regardless of their limitations.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:09 pm

Dear Diary Moment 11/19/2021:

Reading Fredric Jameson's foreword to Layotard's The Postmodern Condition, something crystallized for me today as concerns the continental tradition that centers around its Marxist roots: that it has been haunted by a dialectic between French based radical self creation (think Deleuze and Guatarri's schizo-process (and Hegelian totality: Žižek’s 'the truth is out there'. Radical self-creation succumbs to the apparent futility of trying to beat the Capitalistic system from the outside (while trying attack it from the inside (while Hegelian totality attempts to beat it from the outside through transcendent de-ontic assertions that seem to be right, even to the point of seeming perfectly founded.


Then you have a pragmatic like Rorty who recognizes the potential for radical self-creation in a writer like Derrida while recognizing a seemingly transcendent/founded criterion for truth: the question of if it works to further social justice. In a sense, even though Rorty is part of the Anglo-American tradition, he does seem to work as a kind of synthesis in the dialectic of the continental tradition.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby Meno_ » Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:23 pm

d63 wrote:Dear Diary Moment 11/19/2021:

Reading Fredric Jameson's foreword to Layotard's The Postmodern Condition, something crystallized for me today as concerns the continental tradition that centers around its Marxist roots: that it has been haunted by a dialectic between French based radical self creation (think Deleuze and Guatarri's schizo-process (and Hegelian totality: Žižek’s 'the truth is out there'. Radical self-creation succumbs to the apparent futility of trying to beat the Capitalistic system from the outside (while trying attack it from the inside (while Hegelian totality attempts to beat it from the outside through transcendent de-ontic assertions that seem to be right, even to the point of seeming perfectly founded.


Then you have a pragmatic like Rorty who recognizes the potential for radical self-creation in a writer like Derrida while recognizing a seemingly transcendent/founded criterion for truth: the question of if it works to further social justice. In a sense, even though Rorty is part of the Anglo-American tradition, he does seem to work as a kind of synthesis in the dialectic of the continental tradition.


hello d63:

We talked briefly a few years ago, so I may not need to introduce myself.

You bring on an interesting concept.
If I may indulge you for a moment, a few related questions:

Through deintological perspectives or, the de-ontic.
'Self created one(french) versus the Heglelian-dialectically transcend ones, does Derrida through Forty imply some sort of synthesis, which could effect Anglo-American -French-German agreements through some kind of 'continental divide?

It would befit a diplomatic tour-de-force, if such transcendence were deminstrateable.

Yet, the variability of shifting alliances world wide, has demonstrated more of the effectance through broken agreements.

Does the political rivers transcend that of ideologically provoked disagreements, or, are we heading to more understanding through progressive media and diplomatic communication?

Thanks .....for any feedback even better a series of comments on a continuum of associations.

It could augment the pre WW 2 view held that the scepter of potential conflict has not been solved
by WWI, .
This is Mr Hitler talking , in his famous opus 'Me in Kampf.

This observation is to denote the much larger conflict between two widely divergent views between pragmatic and idealistic/ ideologies, namely those that would rest on dialectical foundations.

So Dewey's pragmatism can forge an ideologycal synthesis with conti dental nationalistic ideology, in postmodern thought, meaning, the wars, harboring conflicts that never were substantiated , but by misrepresented ideological strategic thinking, prove only that the hystory of ideology was really based on rationalized revisions, which philosophy used as adaptive, defensive tools, and such nominal misuse can only result in a repetition of lessons that could not be learned.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:24 pm

Let me get back to you, Meno.

I apologize for my negligence.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Dear Diary Moments:

Postby d63 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:35 pm

Dear Diary Moment 11/25/2021:

On this particular broach of Deleuze’s Difference & Repetition (original text I mean), I came across something that I hadn’t noticed before that I thought might have been a conscientious aesthetic move. I could be reading myself into this. But then hopefully some of my fellow and more advanced Deleuzians might either confirm me or break my heart –especially those who write books about this kind of thing with extensive bibliographies: Ian? Claire?

What I had noticed was that Deleuze had titled his introduction ‘Repetition and Difference’, the mirror opposite of Difference and Repetition. And the effect this had while reading the intro was to be able to look to the top of the page (of both pages (and see both phrases mirroring each other like some ongoing repetition. And to me, it seemed to suggest the intertwined nature difference and repetition in the way Deleuze seemed to understand them.

Now once again: I may be reading myself into this. First of all, I have always argued that the creative act never seems that far from Deleuze’s mind. But then, as I have also pointed out before, this is coming from a guy who worked his way to Deleuze from a young man who thought it his manifest destiny to be rock star. Secondly, it looks exactly like the kind of clever avant garde move I would try to make, especially if I were working w/ my personal editor Mary Jane.

And of course, I have no way of knowing how the original French version was formatted. Still…..
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users