The end result, which is really not an end but is only and extrapolated and onto the beginning’s of any situation, of D and G project is to see that they are actually talking about, referring to, and referring from what, if we take the meaning of their terms and clauses the heart as meaning what they say from a macro perspective, is nothing.
I would challenge anyone who thinks that D and G has something to say that is significant, to bring about an aspect of what we could call the universe or the world that D and G’s project does not address.
The meaning of that challenge then is to refer to the totalizing nature of the project, and to suggest that where there is a totalizing nature of any discourse there by we have a split that must be enacted. And this is exactly due to the fact that someone may not, on one hand , understand them, and on the other hand, never encounter them or their proposals. So if we consider that D and G are indeed addressing the totality and wholeness of all that is possible, then we have to wonder how something that is included in all this possibility may not of even heard of their proposals. The philosophical route then is to automatically in axiomatically shove the works of D and G into bracketed systems that include other philosophers ideas and basically the differences in peoples ideas etc.
so really, we find in order to understand what D and G are really saying, we have to consider the very way that it is possible to understand what they are saying.
The philosophical route is to make D and G in the proposals into another object, as an analogy, to make the proposals of D and G (Dg going forth) say like a wooden chair, while say, Hume like a beanbag. The philosophical route that approaches D and G as just another set of ideas, necessarily segregate in meaning, and contain the meaning of what NG is saying as to suggest that they are not talking about all that can exist.
In so much as my challenge for adherence to DG proposal might be solute, we have to wonder than how it is possible that they are missing something.
It is the contradictions inherent in what I just laid out above that really must bring us to understand that Dg Are really talking about nothing because of the cyclical nature of their discourse. It is less a localized redundancy than the redundancy of conventional philosophical method, that refuses to apply the redundancy (a kind of Hegalian eternal reduction) to a member of its constituency,namely the glorious fraternity of philosophers. We inevitably must dismiss those congregants of DG, those proponents that would reduce everything back into a discourse of DG, as religionists. And this is not to say that they cannot continue on in the way they are, but rather we must draw a line and say that there’s a certain level of philosophy that is no longer considering the truth of philosophy but is rather upholding what Dg is actually talking about without the philosophers actually admitting it. There’s a certain area of philosophy that has left (true) philosophy behind for the sake of the (real) conventional objects, what D NG call territory. In other words the methodology of conventional philosophy often serves the religious order of re-territorializing, which is to say establishing while it maintains cosmological order of the universe (proper scaffolding of terms).
And so we find that while DG was never about any process that anyone needed to adhere to somehow, but is rather more about describing a situation that they thought they would be able to communicate to other people. But we find that they were also then relying upon the very fact that no communication was possible, and that it is the oddity involved in their very activity that has brought about the inevitable situation that they described…
Which is the deterritorialization of deterritorialuzation.
— Hickman has got a good one here:
Deleuze & Guattari’s Accelerationist Manifesto
The Real Accelerationist Manifesto (Non-teleological Permanent Revolution) of Deleuze & Guattari: “…the task of schizoanalysis is ultimately that of discovering for every case the nature of the libidinal investments of the social field, their possible internal conflicts, their relationships with the preconscious investments of the same field, their possible conflicts with these—in short, the entire interplay of the […]
Deleuze & Guattari