What is Deleuze?

[luka]

what the hell your problem

its ok dont worry he understands its not meant to be taken literally. you dont need to worry so much about this sort of thing. it operates on different levels.

 

[other_life]

that's so deleuzian 🚬

 

[other_life]

c'est tres abstrait, non?

 

[other_life]

Although I’m less about proper exegesis, and more about sifting and analyzing in the interest of finding concepts that work for you.
I still love much of this stuff as pure philosophy, but I would prefer to find applications.

this is what deleuze says philosophy is About in his abecedaire.

what do you think you are thinking about version? i mean, what is the fundamental problem you are absorbed in? there is nothing to think about. there are opactities but you wont make them transparent by 'thinking' whatever it is you think thinking is.

cautiously sympathetic to this idea but still think you coming into the thread and doing this is a bad iteration of a certain Dissensus Dynamic

 

[other_life]

or to put it more concretely not what philosophy is 'about' but what most philosophers are Doing, is putting names to concepts (which are real) and defining their parameters and searching out + refining their applications outside philosophy

 

[luka]

its partly laziness and my part and a reluctance to have to use my brain, particularly in terms of having to try and reach back and work out what i have thought at the limits of my understanding, that attempt to reconstrcut what you worked out when you worked something out

 

[other_life]

In more of a pure philosophy way, I do like the idea of colliding different sectors of logos that rarely see cross-pollination with each other, to see what may arise

this is the fundamental engine of midrash - base verse and intertext, often pulled from opposite ends of the biblical canon and/or on the surface dealing with very distant if not opposing topics or seeming to take opposing Stances on a question (ie, a verse of comfort and a verse of chastisement; a verse here from Genesis with a verse there from Ruth to explain a verse from Isaiah).

 

[luka]

but its also partly a way to say dont bullshit yourself.

 

[other_life]

reach back and work out what i have thought at the limits of my understanding, that attempt to reconstruct what you worked out when you worked something out

! this is also something that recurs in deleuze, ironically. he's very concerned with pushing at the limits of thought

 

[other_life]

it's really good to see clinamenic post shit that i can understand and resonate with. boy i sure hope luka doesn't try to artificially play us off against each other for his own entertainment

 

[luka]

! this is also something that recurs in deleuze, ironically. he's very concerned with pushing at the limits of thought

well this is what i would say, work to the limits of your thought, and try to push at those limits, but recognise where they currently are and be honest about it and dont bullshit. and admit to the frustrations of it, and the defeats and etc

 

[luka]

it's really good to see clinamenic post shit that i can understand and resonate with. boy i sure hope luka doesn't try to artificially play us off against each other for his own entertainment

not solely for my entertainment. its a good idea because theres useful tensions and divergences to draw out

 

[other_life]

why do you have to be the Ringleader for that to happen, though. step down.

 

[other_life]

literally it made me so uncomfortable to be like "why don't you be the instrument of the judgement of God against clinamenic's secular laissez faire outlook" or whatever it was. like it made it harder to just Talk to the guy without being like "i have to be stand off-ish so that luka plays with me." tensions like that get drawn out in conversation over time. you're not vince mcmahon

 

[luka]

stan needs to reincorporate critque into his framework that is to say the idea that god might not be good

 

[luka]

literally it made me so uncomfortable to be like "why don't you be the instrument of the judgement of God against clinamenic's secular laissez faire outlook" or whatever it was. like it made it harder to just Talk to the guy without being like "i have to be stand off-ish so that luka plays with me." tensions like that get drawn out in conversation over time. you're not vince mcmahon

i do understand and appreciate this but on the other hand it makes me laugh and its a really hard habit to break

 

[other_life]

stan needs to reincorporate critque into his framework that is to say the idea that god might not be good

God is good but it is the vintner who must be comforted when his vineyard is burned

 

[other_life]

read not "comfort, comfort, My people", but "comfort Me, comfort Me, My people"

 

[luka]

i can understand how stan gets to capitalism vis deleuze (via nietzsche) and it involves basically the jettisoning of the whole notion of against

 

[other_life]

what i'm saying is that the Liberal Optimist does not need to take God to court but needs to take seriously the disaster that is history and needs to take seriously that he, the Optimist, has no read on and can not answer for that disaster; for us whose hope is in Him the goodness of God is a non-question, it doesn't register