This now is more close consideration of Blake’s recent comment in my previous post, and his later post. ..
I did ask for a ‘why cite’.
I cite, of course. And it is a kind of support for an argument that Im making, and it is, as you say, also, participating in specific dialogues, to show that indeed not only am I saying such and such, but here is someone else saying the same thing, albeit, in different terms. And often, they are saying it better.
I see yours, Terrence, as seeing this commonality, and drawing parallels between authors. Far from shutting down discussion, yours is to spawn interaction. I think. For sure.
Your ‘little Deluezians’ do not share your Badiouian (multiplicity) or Larurellian (democratic) motion, I think you are pointing out. My experience with this is that they tend to want to reduce everything to Delueze, as if (they, D and G) said it all. I think thats what you are saying.
And I can understand that. I understand how it is possible to apply Deluze and Guattari to every corner of experience and theory. But people want to be religious in their philosophical adherence. they think because some guy said it really well, that they must be right, and then compare everyone else to that one figure. But for me, I likewise see this all over the place; Derrida. and Zizek, and Kant, and Kiekegarrd, and Nietzsche, Hegel, Hiedgger, Lacan, and Adorno…you get the picture.
I see this is because they are all not only addressing the same thing, but merely using different terms to talk about it. Each instance of reading I find that I whole heartedly see that they are not only granting me the total picture, but then offering something else based upon this total picture; I call this the issue of the subsequent. One question I have not begun to address is how the subsequent arises; perhaps it is a kind of Badiou injection in a real sense. The question is how it is that I may read an author and know exactly what he is talking about? Is it because we are Rhizomic sprouts of individual desiring machines? Each stemming from a common universal source, of which we each have our own individual view? Each occupying or otherwise manifesting ‘voids’ within a filed of multiplicity? Each of us historical agents of some larger cosmic motion? Each our own window of parallax through which we express momentary conflations of objective being?
Every author has their own ‘individual’ manner of expressing the same thought. The problem arises when we are supposed to have to show how whatever two of three or more authors ideas might conflate. But of course it can’t be done at once, but rather unfolds over multiple atemporal periods, such as, the thought, the writing down of it, the verbally expressing it, the discussion around it, the reading of it by another, et cetera. It is the dependance upon this True and unquestioned method that allows for perpetual mistake and debate, the reliance upon that this mode of being expression is the infallible and true manner of coming upon truth.
Many authors I read I find that they ‘do it’ for me. They verify not only that I have come across the significant issue, but that they did too. And reading them is like reading a tape recording of myself talking about whatever moment they happen to be talking about, if I knew whatever particular terms and manner of structuring. (personal flare and style). That is the only way they can possibly make sense to me, if they indeed are expressing something akin to Plato’s remembering — but then I have to be careful about even expressing that because some one else who is so offended in their being that I might suggest me as opposed to them, or that they indeed are coming up with new ideas, and being taught through the banking model of education, and as well that their particular moment-agency isn’t unique to their communion with the immanent transcendence, no matter how they want to talk about it. I can just as well say that I get my inspiration from this petrified piece of dog-doo in front of me, that its folds and scent move my words to express the existential presence of parallax immanent multiplicity. The terms only relate real objects in reality and tend to create want for a common meaning, such that I defer what makes sense to this common sourse. But this is not to say that nothing exists outside of the reality. It is only to say that reality is defined by a particular cadre of individuals invested in their real identities who are oriented upon this common objectival source to gain their truth. But this likewise is not to say that somehow I am not real, but only that the entirety of my being does not reside in reality. Is not this what many authors have indicated in a number of ways also? Is this not the meaning of ‘nil’ or ‘nothing’, that I am incapable of reckoning beyond a certain point? I say that some people have reckoned beyond this point but are constantly having to try to prove it to people who have not; that this is the philosophical problem, and specifically Laruelle’s problem, the problem that he can’t get over.
So I say lets get out of the capital important ideological discussion of political social justice and let that governmental discussion do its thing.
My question is then how can this be possible? As well, How is it that the thing may make perfect and total sense to me? What is it I am seeing that everyone is talking about, this common object?
What is the issue? Surly not some relative individual expression of essential free will. Some setting aside the given.
Then I see all the discussion occurring, all the referencing, all the debate, and I wonder: If they are addressing the significant issue, then what is all the debate about? For the only way, it seems to me, that we can have differing opinions is to have a bunch of transcendental communing intuiting thoughtful agents in the attempt to establish themselves. Again: This does not mean that I am exempt from this situation. I am not arguing exclusivity. I am stating facts. So again, then someone want to argue with what I say are the facts. Suppose they say there is no transcendental agency. Then I say, well you are not understanding what I mean when I say transcendental. So we begin to fall into the conventional method of transcendental agency where I am inspired in my thoughts and so is this other guy; two agents who are ‘being inspired’ conveying their thoughts for the purpose of discussion.
Do we ever agree? Do we ever get anywhere?
In reality, we get than ever unfolding moment that denies the act proposed by the situation above. So then we return to the discussion. How long do we do this? How many beers do we have to have before we play darts? And then when we play darts, what happened to the philosophy?
It disappeared. That is unless we are proposing that it is like some sort of ever-present physics, a metaphysics, and we start the whole round again.
How is it possible that someone says I agree here with that dude, but he has it wrong there, and this is whats wrong about it.
Indeed. Badou I think would say that is the void injecting itself in reality, into the multiple. that this is how reality functions. The unfolding of process.
And I agree. Just as I agree with Laruelle that there is a Unilateral Duality. Just as Hegel. and many others. Husserl (what Ive read). All of it makes complete sense. (but the more recent SR authors are in a different category and fall under a slightly different rubric for addressing them. )
As likewise I understand how Zizek situates his version, what he is really saying about the situation.
But it is because each of these authors indeed are telling it like it is and not merely telling ‘a part’ of it, that I have to ask what am I referencing when I cite them.
For, they are not merely ‘having a particular view’, merely one view in a multitude of views, but indeed are explaining the totality of the world, indeed as I have said, in their own terms, in different terms.
So I say, the problem is in taking these different terms as if they are referencing actual objects in-themselves, as a retrograde appropriation of terms, instead of seeing that each clausal set is stemming from the same substrate, the same issue, the same object, which according the the regular philosophical method, what I call the conventional method, does not see. Instead, the conventional method sees only what stems from the given.
LAruelle’s ‘uniqueness’ is due to the fact that he must, and is well used to, justifying his ideas to people who do not understand what he is saying, in a manner of speaking. He is constantly fending off misappropriations of his ideas. This is what he expresses when he says (rephrase) ‘non-philosophy being made into another philosophical object’.
Same with Zizek. they are used to debating their identities. This is also why Zziek claims such difficulty to think out side capitalism: Because that is his world; his ‘immanence’, so to speak. It is the philosophical world where in he must justify his position. This is the conventional method. This is the evidence of the end of a particular philosophical paradigm. that philosophy has become ‘self aware’ so that the only way to continue in the same mode is to deny the self awareness for the sake of identities, but that of capitalized identities, or, agents who capitalize upon their commodified fetishized identity. This is not ‘our time’; only ‘our time in as much as we have faith that Zizek is some sort of ‘unique’ real individual, expressing ideas and thoughts that are essential segregated as real things, real distanced objects.
Laruelle’s ‘imminence’ is not different than zizeks conflation of objects. Only in the real estimation of capitalized identities does Zizek come up with idea that are ‘his own’, that can be debated with as if he somehow is incorrect. That occurs exactly in reality.
So the issue is not longer this unfolding process. that just gets us philosophy careers, rhetoricians, and politicians. Which is fine. that is real, that is how reality functions.
But if really want too get to a science about what is occurring, then I feel we need to stop attempting to make another metaphysical proposal in the unfolding dynamic multitude of relative creative intuition.
I feel we need get down to facts. And in order to do that, one needs already have played out all the arguments, but because they have already played. The only new philosophical arguments are ones that reside in the same denial by which real agency arises.
And again again: I am not arguing that somehow I am exempt from such real estimations.
I am saying that science is the long game. Each has his and her parts. All the facts are there, the evidence is in. Now the science can begin.
Similar to what latour advocates, we need an opening .Perhaps we could start with first closing the distance that theory maintains. Get to that which theory wants to hide.