The ‘Little Deleuzians’ and ‘Burning (some kind of ) Guattari’ thingamajig. Some Comments. 

I am enjoying the description inherent in AGENT SWARM’s last few posts.

While his project works on a different plane, if you will, than mine, one of the issues I constantly address is why or what I am doing when I reference some ‘great Big’ philosophical names.

Am I referencing as proof, or am I referencing as verification?

I think Terrence at SWARM is saying, in a certain sense, that the ‘little Deleuzians’ are referencing for proof, whereas Deleuze himself was offering verification.

The difference to me is the difference that I talk about in my book “Non-philosophy and Aphilosophy“; namely, that which concerns what I term the ‘philosophical revolution’, as well as what my next book “The Moment of Decisive Significance” speaks more in depth about, again, what I call one’s ‘orientation upon objects’.

(Im sorry; Im finding I cannot help but plug my books because they talk and explain the issues involved, and I don’t really feel like having to spell it out all again. I mean; isn’t that at least one reason why we write books?)

All this is because Im not sure why I would need to reference authors I have read. Can someone tell me? Because (as I explain in “Nonphilosophy“), once we understand the issue then there is really nothing that anyone has not already said about it, and if there is something, then it is subsequent the ‘moment’ and likewise really only saying things that follow sensibly from their originating configuration of meaningful terms coupled with the vector implied by the originating clause. If I were to reference all that has been said about an issue that Ive read and all the authors that I have come accross that may have gone into myself coming to any particular meaningful juncture to be able write something down and prove my argument, the bibliography and notes section of the book would surely be many times longer that the piece in which Im trying to say something. In fact, it is very possible I would need the length of book just to justify a small  6 paragraph blog post; to truncate it would necessarily be a lie and largely false; it would be false to say that any one person proved to me such and such to allow me to make an argument in the attempt to prove what Im saying is correct. In this sense, I may not reference Zizek, say, to necessarily prove anything, that is, unless I am attempting to prove that indeed he said such a thing; the fact that Zizek said something particular, it is referenced because the particular reference verifies that the issue at hand has been spoken about before as well as is continually being talked about in various ways.

The issue also thus indicates a divergence in the appropriation of discourse because then all the ‘little’ people can indeed reference the same parts of Zizek to prove that they have a valid position in the real discussion, just as the ‘little Deluezians’ might reference Delueze to stake their claim in the battle of identities (which ironically would be then the ‘greater’ vehicle).

Part of this whole thing  thereby is the manner that the issue is made to be distant yet in the same move viewed as talking about something intimate and close. Theory is used in place of talking about the issue in a manner that appears to be addressing something intimate. Here is an example. Granted, there is a certain artistic dinension there, but What occurs in such theory often functions at once for a ‘bringing into the fold’ of identities such that the agent of transcendence (the real human subject) understands that his or her particular intelligence or educational privilege has been communicated to. The agent is thus reified in its reality through the displacement of the experience to that of a transcendent significance, which is to say, that they have ‘been chosen’. The agent does not see this move as involving any transcendence due to the already made investment in real estimations, this is to say, their individual identity. The true nature of consciousness is of no concern to them; even while they will read some nice phrases by their authors that surely are talking about significant issues of Being, existence, humanity and consciousness, they thus will often miss the meaning as they as involved in establishing their identity, the identity ‘chosen’ by the transcendental state, of the transcendental communication of intimate communion across the unitive ontological scheme, even while such a transcendence is debated pro and con.

This is not to say that conventional theory does not have its place.

But here (above) is the issue showing itself for those who would indeed be involved in developing a science of the human phenomenon. A necessary divergence is indicated. Not as a reductionist resort or default to the common argument of proof; rather, first as a development of what is being verified in the investigation as facts apart from the common never-ending real mythological negotiation of relative True Objects. (Again, some of these terms I develop in my books. Sorry.)

 

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The ‘Little Deleuzians’ and ‘Burning (some kind of ) Guattari’ thingamajig. Some Comments. 

  1. Rhetorical riff:

    What is our purpose on this planet beyond what sense data reports? Sense data reports being born alone between urine and feces, killing the other (or eating in Happy Land ignorance), eating the other (or being eaten by the other), defecating the other (vice versa), reproducing (or not, a combination of you and the other) and dying (alone).

    How does speculation about non-sense data (philosophical a-priori abstraction) help us answer (or give a shit, or remember through anamnesis the answer) to this question?

    What is the motive force fueling this process?

    And why should the world give a shit? Of course, one would have to be in a position of first earning a shit, of storing up a unit of shit, in order to have a shit to give.

    Sell one the sizzle. Then they might buy the over-priced steak. In a run-on sentence, would anyone be willing to offer their opinion, on why the world should be interested in this subject matter?

    I’m actually not being sarcastic. Perhaps the subject matter is obscurantist to a degree and does not lend itself to a sound bite (which I have yet to discover and digest).

    In which case I’ll understand no response in advance. Which is not a problem. And I don’t mean that in a bad way either.

    • Thank you for the response. It has elcited from me my nexr post, becase answering your question has indeed come up for me even before you asked it. 😜

  2. I see no big deal between explicitly citing big names and not doing so, as long as one recognises that it is impssible to speak outside problematics. There are no “issues” floating around alone, to be solved in some non-situated a-conceptual way. So I don’t think your typology of proof versus verification exhausts the possibilities – there is also participation. I am trying to participate in specific dialogues, and not in universal discussions, so I indicate my dialogic partners, even if the dialogue with Zizek and Laruelle is only virtual and not empirical, as I have no communication with them. I think that there is no rule to follow here. Further, one of the dialogues I am trying to participate in concerns the interpretation of the works of various philosophers and an attempt to create bridges between their problematics so as to see how their ideas shape up in comparison with alternatives. What may seem plausible when you are philosophising by yourself in a solitary monologue may seem quite different when you see and understand what other thinkers, working in similar problematics, have said. For example, many people who are sympathetic to Laruelle’s ideas do not even see the relevance of Zizek’s work to his discussions, and may be able to gain deeper understanding if I manage to elaborate a wider presentation that includes both in a way that permits inter-translatability and also an assessment of potential blindspots and creative heuristics.

    • Yes. Your plural view allows for a constant updating. So you appear to me very similar to me. But i say many authors are talking about the same issue 1)put in different terms, (the non philosophical object). 2) using their terms to assert subsequent results (that then taken as (true) philosophical objects aggravate the confusion by allowing for the objective appropriation to argue backward as if toward distinct positions of authors as if they are indeed talking about different things; which ironicslly point thus to the author as a real idenity, the center of which a sort of transcendental ‘blank spot’.

      Yet i say lets admit that they indeed are talking about the same thing, but using different terms. Then we might be able to found a science by being able then to identify facts that exist along a different teleology than that of the traditional philosoohical method.

    • …our present state of theorizing platform eqautes the human being as a thing among things without ever getting to what the human thing is in itself. It is always involved in reducing itself to an idenity of itself, pretending in its theorizing that it is getting to itself. But why then are there a perpetual theories, of all these authors ideas saying this and that? Surly not because they are getting to any facts of the issue. No; they are more Evidencing what humans do. They are evidencing ‘facts’ of how human beings manifest reality.

      So it is the only feadible way to address this is to draw a line, and admit that reality Is indeed the ongoing negotiation of such ideas, of such streaming of elusive objects,

      but the science then exactly is Not Real. Just as people want to argue over what the real color of a table is, the science of building a table agrees on certain true things innate to the sbility to have carpentry. But without having to prove it, because the carpenters already know and agree.

    • Thanks. Ill stop apologizing 👍🏽. ‘Non and A’. Is framed as a critique of Laruelles non-phil, but as such i presents the issue at hand of the philosophical effort in general, the problem Laruelle marks but really ends up creating more problem by his attempt at. reconciliation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s