Probably a mix, but he is definitely capable of writing clearly; I read a (lecture? article?) by him that was very significantly easier than the marginal amount of his book-length work I've tried.
99% of continental philosophy is writing in obscure way because they don't truly know what they are writing, just word salad. Truly a wordcel dream of appearing inteligent without saying anything at all
Reminder that if you have to resort to describing something as word salad, it means you’ve either never engaged with the material to formulate an actual rebuttal, or you gave it a go and became frustrated by your limited reading comprehension.
No, it means that one's naive to think it couldn't have been expressed incomparably better. These are the consequences of mental turpitude, not self-clarity.
So you guys realize that Deleuze is basically describing in philosophical terms the speculations that even a bright high schooler, who's never read Deleuze, etc, might make about the physical-cum-psychological experience of anal sex for a girl?
If I say "the sphere spectrum is the monoidal unit in the category of spectra" it will seem like this sentence lacks logic and sense, but the reader knows that he doesn't know mathematics and he isn't supposed to understand any of this.
But for some reason, in philosophy, people expect to be able to understand anything that has been written on philosophy, even if they never read the basics.
You won't learn the spectral theorem for operators in Hilbert spaces if you never went through calculus, why do you expect to understand Deleuze before reading what is necessary to understand him?
Contemporary mathematical texts are also hard as fuck to read and understand, but no one seems to care.
>But for some reason, in philosophy, people expect to be able to understand anything that has been written on philosophy, even if they never read the basics.
This
I'd imagine that nu-LULZ would also cry about Deleuze and Guattari talking about anuses with no recognition that it's deeply Freudian
Isn't that what the guy above is referencing, "So you guys realize that Deleuze is basically describing in philosophical terms the speculations that even a bright high schooler, who's never read Deleuze, etc, might make about the physical-cum-psychological experience of anal sex for a girl?"
The difference is in your sentence I can break it down into its technical terms and then look up what each technical term means. Those terms will be defined in terms of other technical terms, and so on, but ultimately I can break it down into explicit and intelligible pieces to be reassembled into a comprehended form of your sentence.
With the passage in picrel, I cannot see that such a process is possible and therefore doubt its intelligibility. For example, "a paradoxical element traverses the series". What is a "paradoxical element"? Are we talking about a falsidical or versidical paradox? If so in what way does it present a falsehood or become unintuitive? In what sense does it "traverse"? Are we talking about a spatial motion?
A better structure would be: >Define this element we are calling paradoxical >Explain how and why is traverses the series >Explain what is meant by "traversing the series" >Explain in what sense it is paradoxical
If that structure sounds verbose, it shouldn't; it could be done in a sentence or two. By clear and explicit writing, I imagine a large amount of that extract could be rendered redundant.
Just to follow your example, a "paradoxical element" can be broken down into its etymological basis (and you'll have to do a lot of this with philosophers; this is philosophy): consider paradox down to its core, "From παρά (pará, “beyond”) + δόξα (dóxa, “expectation”) + -ος (-os). Contrary to expectation, strange, incredible. Synonym: παράξενος (paráxenos)". A paradoxical element then can be inferred to be a contradictory element, a strange element, a freak element that brings with it what then Deluze explains. Innately understand the word (which is no problem for anyone who knows French, seeing how often the word is used) and the phrasing becomes clear. Follow "traverse" in context and the image in its entirety becomes even clearer. Deluze isn't unintelligible (yiikes anglos??) as the qualialess pretend if you actually read him in context, which that simple sentence suffices to prove: "...a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast". What a beautiful way to expose chaos!
The trick with translated philosophy is to follow your process but for the words themselves and their etymological value, then synthesize from these ideatic-meanings the argument at hand. And for fuck's sake, you're in a literature board, get yourself accustomed to Logos.
A paradoxical element that traverses the series means the opposite itself is contained within a change or series of like or continuously related events. For example, a girl has anal sex with a guy. Sex is generally held to be natural, social, at least associated with the germination of life, procreation, and biological reproduction of species. But anal sex, although it is doubtlessly a form of sex, involves an act that produces direct sensations that are exceedingly similar, indeed augmentative of the sensations of defecation, which is overwhelmingly held to be literally a highly private, personal, and non-social, if not indeed antisocial matter. Obviously there's no risk of procreation in anal sex per se, as the moment sperm enters the vagina, that ceases to simply be anal sex, it becomes something more. So during the entire process of anal sex sex is both occuring undoubtedly but the most paradoxical sensations are likewise literally being generated by the act itself. The sensations of a desire, indeed an almost overwhelming desire to expel, instead of receive and maintain. Indeed the pleasure of anal sex is precisely derived from the physiological contradiction itself: the contradictory desire (and concomitant sensations) to expel and the near simultaneous desire to hold and prolong are of the essence to the most common pleasures associated with said act. From the very beginning the act is characterized by a desire to expel, while in the case of paradigmatic sex—the procreative kind, the kind that singularly allows for species to exist and have sex—is fundamentally characterized by an initial instinctual desire not of expulsion, or even of retention, but reception, certainly from the perspective of the female receiver, for whom the dynamic of expulsion is predominantly associated not with sex itself but with the consequences of it. E.g. obviously birthing, but also female ejaculation, or indeed the expulsion of inert matter: meaning the opposite after effects of consumption itself.
With that push I was able to process that extract in its proper register and can now see its meaning, value, and beauty. Thank you.
A paradoxical element that traverses the series means the opposite itself is contained within a change or series of like or continuously related events. For example, a girl has anal sex with a guy. Sex is generally held to be natural, social, at least associated with the germination of life, procreation, and biological reproduction of species. But anal sex, although it is doubtlessly a form of sex, involves an act that produces direct sensations that are exceedingly similar, indeed augmentative of the sensations of defecation, which is overwhelmingly held to be literally a highly private, personal, and non-social, if not indeed antisocial matter. Obviously there's no risk of procreation in anal sex per se, as the moment sperm enters the vagina, that ceases to simply be anal sex, it becomes something more. So during the entire process of anal sex sex is both occuring undoubtedly but the most paradoxical sensations are likewise literally being generated by the act itself. The sensations of a desire, indeed an almost overwhelming desire to expel, instead of receive and maintain. Indeed the pleasure of anal sex is precisely derived from the physiological contradiction itself: the contradictory desire (and concomitant sensations) to expel and the near simultaneous desire to hold and prolong are of the essence to the most common pleasures associated with said act. From the very beginning the act is characterized by a desire to expel, while in the case of paradigmatic sex—the procreative kind, the kind that singularly allows for species to exist and have sex—is fundamentally characterized by an initial instinctual desire not of expulsion, or even of retention, but reception, certainly from the perspective of the female receiver, for whom the dynamic of expulsion is predominantly associated not with sex itself but with the consequences of it. E.g. obviously birthing, but also female ejaculation, or indeed the expulsion of inert matter: meaning the opposite after effects of consumption itself.
A paradoxical element that traverses the series means the opposite itself is contained within a change or series of like or continuously related events. For example, a girl has anal sex with a guy. Sex is generally held to be natural, social, at least associated with the germination of life, procreation, and biological reproduction of species. But anal sex, although it is doubtlessly a form of sex, involves an act that produces direct sensations that are exceedingly similar, indeed augmentative of the sensations of defecation, which is overwhelmingly held to be literally a highly private, personal, and non-social, if not indeed antisocial matter. Obviously there's no risk of procreation in anal sex per se, as the moment sperm enters the vagina, that ceases to simply be anal sex, it becomes something more. So during the entire process of anal sex sex is both occuring undoubtedly but the most paradoxical sensations are likewise literally being generated by the act itself. The sensations of a desire, indeed an almost overwhelming desire to expel, instead of receive and maintain. Indeed the pleasure of anal sex is precisely derived from the physiological contradiction itself: the contradictory desire (and concomitant sensations) to expel and the near simultaneous desire to hold and prolong are of the essence to the most common pleasures associated with said act. From the very beginning the act is characterized by a desire to expel, while in the case of paradigmatic sex—the procreative kind, the kind that singularly allows for species to exist and have sex—is fundamentally characterized by an initial instinctual desire not of expulsion, or even of retention, but reception, certainly from the perspective of the female receiver, for whom the dynamic of expulsion is predominantly associated not with sex itself but with the consequences of it. E.g. obviously birthing, but also female ejaculation, or indeed the expulsion of inert matter: meaning the opposite after effects of consumption itself.
Literally just studying the inversion of two principles "giving" and "recieving" otherwise, in their higher metaphysical terms purusha and prakriti - understood as the cosmological forces that they are, the simultaneity of which in crude form is the human orgasm, unfortunately this is a study which starts from the lowest point, the libidinal-animal, it takes the leathery urinary organs as a substitute for the intellect and the soul,
Just a parody of tantra and nondualism in the east, most westerners are actually unconscious of the kundalini and so on, or about the immanence of these principles underlying their will, desire and life itself - truly malicious and nefarious to expose westerners to such content, considerinl the mental institutions are full of humans who have been unconsciously surrendered to these forces, your commentary comes across as some stale analysis of the initiatory rites involving sodomy in african tribes - and attempts to present and justify them as a compelling case to those who are under the strong influence of these forces, but are unconscious of their action or influence or relationship to their will -
God that the west is overrun with so much sexual chaos makes so much sense, I cant help but see these psychoanalysts and so forth except at the forefront of "black magic" properly termed, truly neferious,
Imagine this:
Some kid has been culturally conditioned his entirely life to think of homosexuality as extremely shameful, he is of a reasonable intellectual capacity and is inscrutable to his peers,
He then gets introduced to this sort of nonesense, and actually has some sort of native understanding of the immanent force aspect - and the logic and sense of it, under the influence of these impressions what happens? He becomes an addict to sissy hypnosis and such things and the shame and yet pleasure fuse into an atavistic hell which leads him to a mental hospital never to recover! Or he follows the opposite direction and becomes a sadist or psychopath, he becomes part of some golden dawn buttfucking club, or whatever it is
This pseudo-philosophy is literally just a human sacrifice to these atavistic forces which lie there latent in the unmanifest psychic potentiality of every human being, this is demonic philosophy
Or he can become like you who tries to groom others online by perpetuating this satanic rubbish.
While there is indeed a science to "transgression" and "duality" which grants one access to the forces of the cosmos, there is a reason this stuff was hidden away.
Have some compassion and do not try to pollute the mental continuum of another human being without gauging his or her qualifications to begin with
The internet is literally just increasing the rate at which these atavisms are diffused, jesus christ.
You might be the best poster I've seen in a long time.
Very few seem to understand the scope of the invasion of these powers into the western world.
Go into the demonology thread and look at the post about the demonic prophet in the furry gooning server. The lockdowns were like an incubator that finally allowed this egg to crack, I think. We've been marinating in it for so long
>egg to crack
There is much to be said about the egg symbolism - the relationship with the subtle state and the individuals claiming to be "reborn as females" whilst male and embodied - and the sorts of activities and impressions they were receptacles of from their physical birth up until that "second birth" that they tout as truly "Becoming who they are"
The new-agers are so prevalent today and the idea that, one must find their "true self" by becoming it that they dont even need to consciously affirm new age beliefs - the prevalence of drug use in the west - and the fact that those who repeatedly use drugs (the synthetic psychadelic types are indeed extreme catalysts) as intended in our culture fall into some form of black magic whether consciously or unconsciously is also something to be reflected on.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You ever read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future? Seems like it'd be up your alley.
The worst part of this "become who you are" line, to me, is that it's always a restriction of human potential. It's always some set of characteristics they latch onto that are a subset of the aesthetic range possible for man, and not the fullness of man's spiritual analogy to the cosmos. It's a demonic circumcision of the image of God.
And they don't generally seem to catch, at least the groomed, that it's an arbitrary ego-image being planted into them from outside. They don't get that it's just a convenient psychological device for transformation at a spiritual level
What hes doing is essentially like a reverse-engineering of the ovum-semen coming together, trying to decode the generative force of nature
But it exists in an intellectual void so it doesnt work
Philosophy begins by an act of the noumenal will, with the stabilization of that special synchronization of actuality and potentiality, a state attended by eros
An orgasm to infinity,
To infinity and beyond!
Name and form, imputed concepts, the knower, knowing and knowledge are nowhere to be found, change in anything no longer remains, beyond the waker (external), the dreamer (internal), the sleeper (neither external nor internal), beyond that which is said to exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, and not exist - not exist
Everything to be rejected, accepted and made ineffective are mental projections coexistent with empirical existence only what is realizable is of value
This is what happens when swine (materialistic porn-addicted fetishist) contact metaphysics he perverts it and sees it purely from the lowest point of view, almost as if his mind is hardwired to think in terms of the inverse and lower, probably because of his absolutely disgusting and degenerate life up until this point - and his egotism and materialism makes it impossible to shake off the rot and decay of such views inhering for so long and ruling and driving your life and actions.
I cant believe this absolute trash passes for wisdom in the modern west. Of course I see delueze in some way as a writing a shattered mirror which simply is reflecting the even more exaggeraratively grotesque image of his reader (like you) and the rest of the modern western philosophical academy in line with you.
So, um, Foucault didn't have such images in mind in much of his theory and praxis? My understanding is he had big plans in mind for the human body and its pleasures.
>A better structure would be:
this element we are calling paradoxical
how and why is traverses the series
what is meant by "traversing the series"
in what sense it is paradoxical
The thesis that Deleuze is obscure by necessity would equate to this structure being insufficient to express his ideas. I think often what happens is he never gives explicit definitions of terms, rather he just starts using them in conjunction with other undefined terms, and gradually as you progress you can elucidate some kind of underlying meaning for each of the terms and especially their relation. There could be a legitimate argument for this if the terms are so interdependent that it's basically not possible to give a clear definition of one without defining all the others, which might be impossible due to cyclical dependencies. Then obviously Sokal cannot see any depth in the fragment because it's taken out of the context on which it depends for getting depth and to which it gives depth.
Another much more basic point is that much of this philosophy is about the human mind and the human mind is complex and messy. There's little point in being this autistic about "what is an event anyway" in terms of particle physics or something, the actual question is "what is an event anyway *for humans*".
Also this guy's site is quite nice
https://www.arasite.org/logofsense.html
> might be impossible due to cyclical dependencies
Even so, it would still be a more convenient program. If it was made explicit which terms are cyclical or depend upon ineffabilities, analysis would be greatly simplified.
Yes but presumably in doing so something essential to what The Leuze wants to express might get lost. I'm not sure if it is so and I'm not sure what it would be, but that is surely his motivation for his style (other than to keep the plebs out).
>The difference is in your sentence I can break it down into its technical terms and then look up what each technical term means.
Well, yeah. But philosophy by its nature and the nature of questions it addresses cannot have the same degree of rigour as math has, in fact any it applies to any discipline other than math. So in order to understand what's going on knowing the context in all those disciplines is of higher importance than it is in math. You can more or less understand that definition of the sphere spectrum only with miniscule knowledge of homotopy and category theories. However simply breaking that definition down into its technical terms won't bring you a lot of insights, you won't see what's going on, why would anyone come up with such a definition and where to use it, those are all metamathematical questions already and they're not subject to breaking down into terms. So the fact that you can technically understand the definition doesn't mean that you 'actually understand it', to 'actually understand it', you have delve into homotopy theory for a while.
Besides, even just talking about breaking it down into technical terms, very soon you will reach terms which are undefinable (and also lead to paradoxical results which go against our physical intuition), and it will already be more the realm of philosophy than math. The whole philosophical realm lies in addressing those 'undefinable' terms.
That paragraph is just Deleuze expounding on becoming as opposed to being. The entire thing is a metaphor. The cell and the exterior are the being while the skin is the becoming. He’s making the claim that the skin is the prized object of the body because between the cell of being and the exteriority of potentialities the skin is the process of becoming which synthesizes the two.
Probably a mix, but he is definitely capable of writing clearly; I read a (lecture? article?) by him that was very significantly easier than the marginal amount of his book-length work I've tried.
'the matrix'
yes, cave explorer is an adult thing if you think you can put bible on anything
99% of continental philosophy is writing in obscure way because they don't truly know what they are writing, just word salad. Truly a wordcel dream of appearing inteligent without saying anything at all
Reminder that if you have to resort to describing something as word salad, it means you’ve either never engaged with the material to formulate an actual rebuttal, or you gave it a go and became frustrated by your limited reading comprehension.
No, it means that one's naive to think it couldn't have been expressed incomparably better. These are the consequences of mental turpitude, not self-clarity.
Filtered
So you guys realize that Deleuze is basically describing in philosophical terms the speculations that even a bright high schooler, who's never read Deleuze, etc, might make about the physical-cum-psychological experience of anal sex for a girl?
He’s French they dabble in nonsense
he's having fun, I wish the government would pay me to shitpost about Spinoza too
If I say "the sphere spectrum is the monoidal unit in the category of spectra" it will seem like this sentence lacks logic and sense, but the reader knows that he doesn't know mathematics and he isn't supposed to understand any of this.
But for some reason, in philosophy, people expect to be able to understand anything that has been written on philosophy, even if they never read the basics.
You won't learn the spectral theorem for operators in Hilbert spaces if you never went through calculus, why do you expect to understand Deleuze before reading what is necessary to understand him?
Contemporary mathematical texts are also hard as fuck to read and understand, but no one seems to care.
>why do you expect to understand Deleuze before reading what is necessary to understand him?
what is necessary to understand him?
start with the greeks
It's clearly sophomoric poetic nonsense, it's as if I say, "Everything I say is both necessary and arbitrary."
obviously did not read the necessary prereq, namely Hegel
>But for some reason, in philosophy, people expect to be able to understand anything that has been written on philosophy, even if they never read the basics.
This
I'd imagine that nu-LULZ would also cry about Deleuze and Guattari talking about anuses with no recognition that it's deeply Freudian
Isn't that what the guy above is referencing, "So you guys realize that Deleuze is basically describing in philosophical terms the speculations that even a bright high schooler, who's never read Deleuze, etc, might make about the physical-cum-psychological experience of anal sex for a girl?"
The difference is in your sentence I can break it down into its technical terms and then look up what each technical term means. Those terms will be defined in terms of other technical terms, and so on, but ultimately I can break it down into explicit and intelligible pieces to be reassembled into a comprehended form of your sentence.
With the passage in picrel, I cannot see that such a process is possible and therefore doubt its intelligibility. For example, "a paradoxical element traverses the series". What is a "paradoxical element"? Are we talking about a falsidical or versidical paradox? If so in what way does it present a falsehood or become unintuitive? In what sense does it "traverse"? Are we talking about a spatial motion?
A better structure would be:
>Define this element we are calling paradoxical
>Explain how and why is traverses the series
>Explain what is meant by "traversing the series"
>Explain in what sense it is paradoxical
If that structure sounds verbose, it shouldn't; it could be done in a sentence or two. By clear and explicit writing, I imagine a large amount of that extract could be rendered redundant.
Just to follow your example, a "paradoxical element" can be broken down into its etymological basis (and you'll have to do a lot of this with philosophers; this is philosophy): consider paradox down to its core, "From παρά (pará, “beyond”) + δόξα (dóxa, “expectation”) + -ος (-os). Contrary to expectation, strange, incredible. Synonym: παράξενος (paráxenos)". A paradoxical element then can be inferred to be a contradictory element, a strange element, a freak element that brings with it what then Deluze explains. Innately understand the word (which is no problem for anyone who knows French, seeing how often the word is used) and the phrasing becomes clear. Follow "traverse" in context and the image in its entirety becomes even clearer. Deluze isn't unintelligible (yiikes anglos??) as the qualialess pretend if you actually read him in context, which that simple sentence suffices to prove: "...a process of auto-unification, always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast". What a beautiful way to expose chaos!
The trick with translated philosophy is to follow your process but for the words themselves and their etymological value, then synthesize from these ideatic-meanings the argument at hand. And for fuck's sake, you're in a literature board, get yourself accustomed to Logos.
With that push I was able to process that extract in its proper register and can now see its meaning, value, and beauty. Thank you.
If this is a troll, good job.
A paradoxical element that traverses the series means the opposite itself is contained within a change or series of like or continuously related events. For example, a girl has anal sex with a guy. Sex is generally held to be natural, social, at least associated with the germination of life, procreation, and biological reproduction of species. But anal sex, although it is doubtlessly a form of sex, involves an act that produces direct sensations that are exceedingly similar, indeed augmentative of the sensations of defecation, which is overwhelmingly held to be literally a highly private, personal, and non-social, if not indeed antisocial matter. Obviously there's no risk of procreation in anal sex per se, as the moment sperm enters the vagina, that ceases to simply be anal sex, it becomes something more. So during the entire process of anal sex sex is both occuring undoubtedly but the most paradoxical sensations are likewise literally being generated by the act itself. The sensations of a desire, indeed an almost overwhelming desire to expel, instead of receive and maintain. Indeed the pleasure of anal sex is precisely derived from the physiological contradiction itself: the contradictory desire (and concomitant sensations) to expel and the near simultaneous desire to hold and prolong are of the essence to the most common pleasures associated with said act. From the very beginning the act is characterized by a desire to expel, while in the case of paradigmatic sex—the procreative kind, the kind that singularly allows for species to exist and have sex—is fundamentally characterized by an initial instinctual desire not of expulsion, or even of retention, but reception, certainly from the perspective of the female receiver, for whom the dynamic of expulsion is predominantly associated not with sex itself but with the consequences of it. E.g. obviously birthing, but also female ejaculation, or indeed the expulsion of inert matter: meaning the opposite after effects of consumption itself.
Literally just studying the inversion of two principles "giving" and "recieving" otherwise, in their higher metaphysical terms purusha and prakriti - understood as the cosmological forces that they are, the simultaneity of which in crude form is the human orgasm, unfortunately this is a study which starts from the lowest point, the libidinal-animal, it takes the leathery urinary organs as a substitute for the intellect and the soul,
Just a parody of tantra and nondualism in the east, most westerners are actually unconscious of the kundalini and so on, or about the immanence of these principles underlying their will, desire and life itself - truly malicious and nefarious to expose westerners to such content, considerinl the mental institutions are full of humans who have been unconsciously surrendered to these forces, your commentary comes across as some stale analysis of the initiatory rites involving sodomy in african tribes - and attempts to present and justify them as a compelling case to those who are under the strong influence of these forces, but are unconscious of their action or influence or relationship to their will -
God that the west is overrun with so much sexual chaos makes so much sense, I cant help but see these psychoanalysts and so forth except at the forefront of "black magic" properly termed, truly neferious,
Imagine this:
Some kid has been culturally conditioned his entirely life to think of homosexuality as extremely shameful, he is of a reasonable intellectual capacity and is inscrutable to his peers,
He then gets introduced to this sort of nonesense, and actually has some sort of native understanding of the immanent force aspect - and the logic and sense of it, under the influence of these impressions what happens? He becomes an addict to sissy hypnosis and such things and the shame and yet pleasure fuse into an atavistic hell which leads him to a mental hospital never to recover! Or he follows the opposite direction and becomes a sadist or psychopath, he becomes part of some golden dawn buttfucking club, or whatever it is
This pseudo-philosophy is literally just a human sacrifice to these atavistic forces which lie there latent in the unmanifest psychic potentiality of every human being, this is demonic philosophy
Or he can become like you who tries to groom others online by perpetuating this satanic rubbish.
While there is indeed a science to "transgression" and "duality" which grants one access to the forces of the cosmos, there is a reason this stuff was hidden away.
Have some compassion and do not try to pollute the mental continuum of another human being without gauging his or her qualifications to begin with
The internet is literally just increasing the rate at which these atavisms are diffused, jesus christ.
You might be the best poster I've seen in a long time.
Very few seem to understand the scope of the invasion of these powers into the western world.
Go into the demonology thread and look at the post about the demonic prophet in the furry gooning server. The lockdowns were like an incubator that finally allowed this egg to crack, I think. We've been marinating in it for so long
>egg to crack
There is much to be said about the egg symbolism - the relationship with the subtle state and the individuals claiming to be "reborn as females" whilst male and embodied - and the sorts of activities and impressions they were receptacles of from their physical birth up until that "second birth" that they tout as truly "Becoming who they are"
The new-agers are so prevalent today and the idea that, one must find their "true self" by becoming it that they dont even need to consciously affirm new age beliefs - the prevalence of drug use in the west - and the fact that those who repeatedly use drugs (the synthetic psychadelic types are indeed extreme catalysts) as intended in our culture fall into some form of black magic whether consciously or unconsciously is also something to be reflected on.
You ever read Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future? Seems like it'd be up your alley.
The worst part of this "become who you are" line, to me, is that it's always a restriction of human potential. It's always some set of characteristics they latch onto that are a subset of the aesthetic range possible for man, and not the fullness of man's spiritual analogy to the cosmos. It's a demonic circumcision of the image of God.
And they don't generally seem to catch, at least the groomed, that it's an arbitrary ego-image being planted into them from outside. They don't get that it's just a convenient psychological device for transformation at a spiritual level
So basically you're saying my decipherment of Deleuze was right?
What hes doing is essentially like a reverse-engineering of the ovum-semen coming together, trying to decode the generative force of nature
But it exists in an intellectual void so it doesnt work
Philosophy begins by an act of the noumenal will, with the stabilization of that special synchronization of actuality and potentiality, a state attended by eros
An orgasm to infinity,
To infinity and beyond!
Name and form, imputed concepts, the knower, knowing and knowledge are nowhere to be found, change in anything no longer remains, beyond the waker (external), the dreamer (internal), the sleeper (neither external nor internal), beyond that which is said to exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, and not exist - not exist
Everything to be rejected, accepted and made ineffective are mental projections coexistent with empirical existence only what is realizable is of value
This is what happens when swine (materialistic porn-addicted fetishist) contact metaphysics he perverts it and sees it purely from the lowest point of view, almost as if his mind is hardwired to think in terms of the inverse and lower, probably because of his absolutely disgusting and degenerate life up until this point - and his egotism and materialism makes it impossible to shake off the rot and decay of such views inhering for so long and ruling and driving your life and actions.
I cant believe this absolute trash passes for wisdom in the modern west. Of course I see delueze in some way as a writing a shattered mirror which simply is reflecting the even more exaggeraratively grotesque image of his reader (like you) and the rest of the modern western philosophical academy in line with you.
So, um, Foucault didn't have such images in mind in much of his theory and praxis? My understanding is he had big plans in mind for the human body and its pleasures.
Of course he did
You are essentially correct yes.
>A better structure would be:
this element we are calling paradoxical
how and why is traverses the series
what is meant by "traversing the series"
in what sense it is paradoxical
The thesis that Deleuze is obscure by necessity would equate to this structure being insufficient to express his ideas. I think often what happens is he never gives explicit definitions of terms, rather he just starts using them in conjunction with other undefined terms, and gradually as you progress you can elucidate some kind of underlying meaning for each of the terms and especially their relation. There could be a legitimate argument for this if the terms are so interdependent that it's basically not possible to give a clear definition of one without defining all the others, which might be impossible due to cyclical dependencies. Then obviously Sokal cannot see any depth in the fragment because it's taken out of the context on which it depends for getting depth and to which it gives depth.
Another much more basic point is that much of this philosophy is about the human mind and the human mind is complex and messy. There's little point in being this autistic about "what is an event anyway" in terms of particle physics or something, the actual question is "what is an event anyway *for humans*".
Also this guy's site is quite nice
https://www.arasite.org/logofsense.html
> might be impossible due to cyclical dependencies
Even so, it would still be a more convenient program. If it was made explicit which terms are cyclical or depend upon ineffabilities, analysis would be greatly simplified.
Yes but presumably in doing so something essential to what The Leuze wants to express might get lost. I'm not sure if it is so and I'm not sure what it would be, but that is surely his motivation for his style (other than to keep the plebs out).
>look up what each technical term means
And what determines the meaning of the terms?
>And what determines the meaning of the terms?
Convention. Namely the convention that the author is understood to be using.
>The difference is in your sentence I can break it down into its technical terms and then look up what each technical term means.
Well, yeah. But philosophy by its nature and the nature of questions it addresses cannot have the same degree of rigour as math has, in fact any it applies to any discipline other than math. So in order to understand what's going on knowing the context in all those disciplines is of higher importance than it is in math. You can more or less understand that definition of the sphere spectrum only with miniscule knowledge of homotopy and category theories. However simply breaking that definition down into its technical terms won't bring you a lot of insights, you won't see what's going on, why would anyone come up with such a definition and where to use it, those are all metamathematical questions already and they're not subject to breaking down into terms. So the fact that you can technically understand the definition doesn't mean that you 'actually understand it', to 'actually understand it', you have delve into homotopy theory for a while.
Besides, even just talking about breaking it down into technical terms, very soon you will reach terms which are undefinable (and also lead to paradoxical results which go against our physical intuition), and it will already be more the realm of philosophy than math. The whole philosophical realm lies in addressing those 'undefinable' terms.
>I cannot see therefore there is nothing to it
that's your problem right there: hubris
hint: he's talking about life
it's like when the thing is you know like when you're in that place where you don't even know and it's like you know what I'm saying?
By stupidity and homosexualry
>all these people ITT complaining about Deleuze but they're reading a translation
DROPPED
Why would I learn French, letting the enemy's words overtake my vocabulary?
Best thread in years.
Why so?
That paragraph is just Deleuze expounding on becoming as opposed to being. The entire thing is a metaphor. The cell and the exterior are the being while the skin is the becoming. He’s making the claim that the skin is the prized object of the body because between the cell of being and the exteriority of potentialities the skin is the process of becoming which synthesizes the two.
Except he chose or was incapable of saying it with such wit and clarity.
He was high on drugs a lot of the time. Give the man a break.
Language is a method of communication. If people don't understand you: you're a retard.
Simple as.
Philosophy is shit. It's anti-literature.
Unironically, what's up with Deleuze and trannies? I've never met someone a non mentally ill Deleuze reader.
Bourgeois can't think, but they love to pretend to, exactly like women, weird huh?
just read simondon and it will make perfect sense.
Which is connected to a sort form or type of sexualization and vice versa.
Simondon is like 20% less confusing, what would be the point to the average person?
He's also too abstract, and if he has no scientific background himself, what's the point?