Rhizomes (w/ beer and shooters....

"Previously in Postcards:

“As Deleuze and Guattari point out in What is Philosophy: philosophy abhors debate. Walks away from it if it can. As they point out: it has better things to do.
This is because philosophy is more like poetry than popular doxa gives it credit for. It is a personal vision (a process (that doesn’t care if it is wrong or right (except to itself ( and can’t afford the distraction of listening to its critics.”

“Philosophers who debate tend to talk past one another. Deleuze makes this point in What is Philosophy, when he discusses why they must run away when someone wants to debate. Debating over a point is not productive (as anyone who has ever been in a debate will attest). Debates are more about affirming your own position, than productively engaging with someone else’s.”

“Debate is not a disease.”

“But what Deleuze is saying there is that philosophers always talk past one another, and that they never meet.”

This, gentlemen, is one of those instances where theory meets with reality –especially for us in that we’re talking about something we encounter a great deal on these boards: the distinction between debate and discourse.

To give an example from a recent experience of mine (the one that inspired the OP: I was posting a series of postcards regarding the utilitarian approach to ethics (which I saw as taking a rather bourgeoisie top-down approach to a clearly benign agenda (and the bottom up approaches (which I had gotten from the Harvard Review of Philosophy (of Rawls and Nussbaum. I was immediately assailed by someone who started their post with (and I am paraphrasing here:

“The notion that utilitarianism was Bourgeoisie is pure bunk.”

Now I would note here the use of the term “bunk” which, like such terms as “nonsense” and others I can’t recall right now, are terms that are the cornerstone of the debate (even if it isn’t exactly a disease (and have no place in a discourse. And while this person’s post might have carried some legitimate points concerning Utilitarianism, it wouldn’t have mattered to me since they had pretty lost me at the use of the term “bunk” which suggested to me that this person was more interested in a pissing contest than they were a discourse or even what Jasper’s referred to as: communication in the spirit of loving debate.

And, as I’ve experienced a thousand times before, when I told this individual to basically go fuck themselves, I was countered with the same strategy that seems popular among TlBs (Troll-like Behaviors: that of appealing to popular doxa: the appeal to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues about what constitutes intellectual inquiry (that which D & G undermine in What is Philosophy (and the assumption that my rejection of their enticement to engage in a pissing contest was a clear indication of a lack of faith in my own process. The notion was that in order for me to truly fulfill the potential of my process, I was somehow obligated to engage in what was clearly a futile attempt to convince this individual of my point of view (a debate (and put up with their snide little remarks in the process.

(Unfortunately, I’m not that subtle and suggested (after apologizing for calling them a prick (that they worry about their process and let others worry about theirs. This got me kicked off the board(

Later that night at work, I engaged in my usual self d.construction of wondering if I wasn’t a bit of a hypocrite in that, I myself, in the postcard for that day, had attacked the libertarians with:

“For instance, a libertarian will argue that they would prefer to be born into a world in which they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor -that is out of some sentimental nostalgia for the good-old days of Adam Smith’s Capitalism where everyone engages in their talent and the free exchange of their labor (which, BTW, no longer exists and is every bit as saccharine and sappy as the Christian longing for the days of the Walton’s. Goodnight John-boy.”

I mean it seemed as mean spirited as my assailant’s approach. And I’m quite sure they would have used it had they of caught it: once again: the TlB appeal to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (much as we see in the constant references to my use of the one-way parenthesis while also responding to the content of what I’m saying. It didn’t take long for me to see through the weakness of such an argument in that there was a big difference between what I was doing and what my assailant was doing.

I was doing pretty much what every writer does: attacking a position they despise. It had nothing to do with the individuals that hold that position. And it involved a certain third person perspective detachment. And I will continue to express my contempt for the Libertarians in any clever and witty way it takes to rally the troops. I have no problem which preaching to the choir since trying to change the mind of the other-side is ultimately futile. Why waste the time? But what I will not do is go on a Libertarian board and heckle them, not because I’m afraid they’ll prove me wrong, but because it would be a wasteful use of my energy and resources and thereby a disruption (that which cuts off the flow of energy (in my process.

And that is the very big difference between what I did and what my assailant was doing which pretty much amounted to heckling. Everyone has a right to their perspective. But this comes with the understanding that everyone equally has a right to not have the perspective of the other crammed down their throat. For instance, Fox News has every right to engage in the nonsense they do. But I equally have the right to not watch it if it offends me. However, my assailant walked into my space with the explicit agenda of dominating my process. They made it personal. And that is, as far I’m concerned, fascistic in nature.

Anyway, stayed tuned for scenes from the next episode of Postcards in which I will hopefully (that is if undistracted by you guys: love ya, man! (elaborate on points made here and finish up with my points concerning Nussbaum’s Capability Theory and its common ground with Efficiency."

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=182423&start=300

Rhizome 12/1/14:

Previously on Postcards (which hence forth will be referred to as Rhizomes:

“As Deleuze and Guattari point out in What is Philosophy: philosophy abhors debate. Walks away from it if it can. As they point out: it has better things to do.
This is because philosophy is more like poetry than popular doxa gives it credit for. It is a personal vision (a process (that doesn’t care if it is wrong or right (except to itself ( and can’t afford the distraction of listening to its critics.”

“In What is Philosophy?, Deleuze is clearly talking about the conventional use of the term ‘debate’, that is to say, when two or more people attempt to argue over a disagreement.”

“Funny, because the original post is about debate. Deleuze’s famous passage about philosophers running away when they hear someone declare “Let’s debate!” appears on page 28-29, not 93.”

“One has to take in account the “padagogics” of notions, with reference, while philosophy itself is inventing notions and making knowledge out of pure notions. Real knowledge.”

“To give an example from a recent experience of mine (the one that inspired the OP: I was posting a series of postcards regarding the utilitarian approach to ethics (which I saw as taking a rather bourgeoisie top-down approach to a clearly benign agenda (and the bottom up approaches (which I had gotten from the Harvard Review of Philosophy (of Rawls and Nussbaum. I was immediately assailed by someone who started their post with (and I am paraphrasing here:

“The notion that utilitarianism was Bourgeoisie is pure bunk.”

“Now I would note here the use of the term “pure bunk” which, like such terms as “nonsense” and others I can’t recall right now, are terms that are the cornerstone of the debate (even if it isn’t exactly a disease (and have no place in a discourse. And while this person’s post might have carried some legitimate points concerning Utilitarianism, it wouldn’t have mattered to me since they had pretty lost me at the use of the term “bunk” which suggested to me that this person was more interested in a pissing contest than they were a discourse or even what Jasper’s referred to as: communication in the spirit of loving debate.”

“What is the best way to follow the great philosophers? Is it to repeat what they said or do what they did, that is, create concepts for problems that necessarily change?

For this reason, philosophers have very little time for discussion. Every philosopher runs away when they hear “Let’s discuss this.” Discussions are fine for roundtable talks, but philosophy throws its dice on another table. The best one can say about discussions is that they take things no further, since the participants never talk about the same thing.” –Deleuze and Guattarri, What is Philosophy, pg. 28 (and thanks Borna for directing me right to it….

[participants (and I do this for technichal reasons: Borna Radnik , Whitman Debate, Joseph Patrick Martin Foster, and Harald Helmut Wenk]

And I would also note here a couple of quotes to the point. First of all, there was D & G’s humorous aside also in What is Philosophy (one I think Rorty would have been amused by:

“Dinner and conversation at the Rorty’s”

I would also add a dialogue from the movie Fight Club:

“When people think you’re dying, they really listen to you, instead of…. instead of….”

“Instead of waiting for their turn to talk?”

“Yeah.”

Now I did a lot of venting in the last postcard (which is now a rhizome (so I feel obliged to pull this back to Deleuze. In terms of the pissing contest this individual was attempting to engage me in, we have to compare the possible gains of my going along with it with the losses that would be incurred. Now first of all, thanks to a lot of the discoveries in neuroscience, we can assume that neither of us would have changed the other’s mind since our sensibilities are pretty much hardwired into our brains –that is with the understanding that brain plasticity allows for change: but that is a slow evolutionary process. And I failed to see how this individual’s assertion that my assertion was pure bunk would compel me to change my position: to push my brain plasticity in the direction he was hoping for –that is when my primary reaction (that is to the immediate environment my brain was adapting to (was to retreat into my own position.

But the bigger issue for me is what this individual thought they had that was so important to my process that it would be worth expending the energy of engaging in the pissing contest they tried to pass off as some weird form of tough love when all they were really interested in was stroking their own ego at my expense. They, of course, as TlBs (Troll-like Behaviors (often try to do would try to pass it off as me getting a balanced perspective (and note the appeal to popular doxa with the term “balanced perspective”. But why would I HAVE to get that from them when I could as easily get the same from a book by someone who shared their sentiment (and that is with the advantage of 3rd person detachment (or even someone on the board that shared it but wasn’t interested in pissing contest, but sincerely just wanted to add their take to the mix; in other words, someone who didn’t feel it necessary to deflate my ego in order to inflate theirs? Why, for instance, would I need to turn to FOX news to get a balanced perspective, when I, as a progressive, could turn to progressives I respect (who have gotten further down the path -such as Reich), and who respect me, to get a perspective that takes both sides of it into consideration. Or even a conservative that holds their position without feeling like they have to be at war with the other. And I have seen that happen.

In other words, there was nothing this common heckler had to offer me (no balanced perspective (that I couldn’t get elsewhere under less strenuous (with less exertion of energy (circumstances. In terms of Efficiency, whatever he had to offer through his so-called “tough-love” was about as inefficient as inefficient could be.

So let’s balance that against the losses incurred and, hopefully, bring this closer to the point D & G were making in What is Philosophy. And I think Harald Helmut Wenk gets to it (that is if I understand his translator app right (when he says:

“One has to take in account the “padagogics” of notions, with reference, while philosophy itself is inventing notions and making knowledge out of pure notions. Real knowledge.”

Once again: if I get him right: he is referring to the point right at the beginning of What is Philosophy: that philosophy is about conceptual play with the hope of creating new concepts. Now this is not to say that any concept will do. It is only to say that in order for philosophy to fulfill its role, it must act in a kind of brainstorming function (the jam (that produces new thought that must, in turn, be vetted through the process of the natural selection of ideas through a continually becoming environment. It is about pushing thought further than it has ever gone before and seeing if it lands on something like solid ground.

And that requires that we generate flows of energy (between us (once again: the jam (that can create a momentum and inertia that could carry us beyond ourselves: beyond the next creative hymen. And all my assailant (my heckler (was offering me was a blockage of the flows of energy in my process: a territorialization that is symptomatic of a paranoid/fascist center.

Anyway, the arbitrary center that can never be a center in the vast rhizomatic network we exist in:

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249&p=2510874#p2510874

PS: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs.

"I was recently reading one of my graphic guides on political philosophy and come upon the concept of Utilitarianism. And having the refresher (along with the reminder (I realized that one of the reasons it had the problems it did was that it stayed within the Capitalist perimeters of thinking in terms of “more”. And it would make perfect sense for people in Bentham and Mill’s (as well as Marx’s (time, given the advancements being made in technology (via Capitalism (to think in terms of sharing the fruits of it. Hence the Utilitarian motto: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And given the rather bourgeoisie nature of it (the emphasis on more (and despite the noble desire to share the wealth (we can see how this attempt at justice was doomed from the start, as was expressed in one of the main arguments against it: that the presence of slavery at the time suggested that the greatest happiness for the greatest number did not assure a just society.

I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering. This seems to me low hanging fruit in that it does not subscribe to the unnecessary egalitarianism of allowing everyone to “share the wealth”. I’m not sure anyone really wants that anyway: except, perhaps, for the petty and arrogant. It’s not a matter of stripping the rich of all their assets and distributing BMWs in the ghettos. It’s merely a matter of knowing that no matter what low position an individual finds themselves in, they have enough to keep themselves going until they can pull themselves up again: that is outside of things that can’t be avoided like terminal illness. And all this involves is the wealthy being wealthy as long as they don’t create unnecessary suffering and misery for others.

But as we know, Capitalism, in its ongoing effort to maintain the notion that the market is the solution to everything, has failed miserably in this matter. This is because it has managed to maintain the utilitarian notion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number by continuing the Calvinistic alibi that poverty is not a result of IT, but rather some kind of moral failure on the part of the individual. Note, for instance, one of the catalysts of reality TV as we know it today, C.O.P.S., which gives us the privilege of patting ourselves on the back while watching white trash and minorities get theirs: in other words, a whipping post for those that fail to fulfill their role as producer/consumers. And let us note here how the show fulfills the criteria of the utilitarian by giving the greatest happiness to the greatest number.

That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept. Unfortunately, my window ran out. Look at this like a painter laying down an abstract and general ground from which they can draw out the details.

A real cliffhanger, huh?
*
As Deleuze and Guattari point out in What is Philosophy: philosophy abhors debate. Walks away from it if it can. As they point out: it has better things to do.

This is because philosophy is more like poetry than popular doxa gives it credit for. It is a personal vision (a process (that doesn’t care if it is wrong or right (except to itself ( and can’t afford the distraction of listening to its critics.
*
Previously on D’s postcards:

“Hence the Utilitarian motto: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. “

“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering. And given the rather bourgeoisie nature of it (the emphasis on more (and despite the noble desire to share the wealth (we can see how this attempt at justice was doomed from the start, as was expressed in one of the main arguments against it: that the presence of slavery at the time suggested that the greatest happiness for the greatest number did not assure a just society. “

“That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept. “

First of all, this is my first encounter with this particular issue of the Harvard Review, so it would be immodest (if not downright arrogant and deceptive (of me to claim that I’m working from any position of expertise as concerns the articles I’m quoting. At the same time, I can take some pleasure (bragging rights (in finding some common ground and validation from them as concerns my bottom-up variation of the utilitarian approach. I would start with a point made in Sheffler’s article concerning Rawls:

“The theory he develops comprises two principles, the first of which assigns basic equal rights and liberties to all citizens, and the second of which governs the distribution of economic goods within the society. The second principle holds, roughly, the economic inequalities are permissible only insofar as they serve to maximize the position of the worst-off social group.”

Now this one, contrary to my above admission to my awkward relation to the articles, feels a little more comfortable to me in that Sheffler’s interpretation of Rawl’s is explicitly implied in Rawl’s Original Position thought experiment (that which I was familiarized with in my Philosophy 101 days: the idea of imagining oneself before one’s birth deciding which kind of society they would choose to be born into –that is putting in mind that one could be born crippled or with some other kind of physiological disadvantage or in an impoverished environment or of a disadvantaged race. The idea, of course, goes to my bottom-up approach to utilitarianism in that Rawls assumes that the society chosen by the individual will necessarily look out for the situation of those born into the worst possible situation.

And it is that assumption that makes Rawl’s experiment a mixed package for me in that it assumes too much. For instance, a libertarian will argue that they would prefer to be born into a world in which they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor -that is out of some sentimental nostalgia for the good-old days of Adam Smith’s Capitalism where everyone engages in their talent and the free exchange of their labor (which, BTW, no longer exists and is every bit as saccharine and sappy as the Christian longing for the days of the Walton’s. Goodnight John-boy. And when it came to their being born into a disadvantaged situation, they would either resort to their fantasies about their personal will to power or write off their demise as the right and just the result of natural selection which they look to as a higher principle. (I mean it: these people are that ignorant while considering themselves to be above the common fray. As Scheffler also points out in his article: beware the cutting edge.) But while it does not serve Rawl’s intended effect, it does (for those who are honest enough to follow it through (face us with the absurdity of our position in life:

I might ask myself why I am the creatively and intellectually curious and, yet, compassionate person I am who despises intellectual arrogance; to which I will answer that my father gave me the intellectual and creative curiosity (and the distaste for intellectual arrogance (while my mother gave me the compassion as well as my distaste for my father’s intellectual arrogance. But then I have to ask, since none of us exist in a vacuum and have to be the result of some influence in our life, why my mother and father became who they were. And we can continue this line of questioning into infinite regress: the chain of cause and effect that converges and trails into nothingness and leaves no solid foundation for who we are.

That said, in the next postcard (the next episode (I want to fumble (w/ a capitol F (with Brook’s article and Nussbaum’s Capability concept which also goes towards my bottom/up utilitarianism.
*
Previously on Postcards:

“That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept.”

“The theory he [Rawls] develops comprises two principles, the first of which assigns basic equal rights and liberties to all citizens, and the second of which governs the distribution of economic goods within the society. The second principle holds, roughly, the economic inequalities are permissible only insofar as they serve to maximize the position of the worst-off social group.”

“First of all, this is my first encounter with this particular issue of the Harvard Review, so it would be immodest (if not downright arrogant and deceptive (of me to claim that I’m working from any position of expertise as concerns the articles I’m quoting.”

“Hence the Utilitarian motto: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. “

“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering.”

“That said, in the next postcard (the next episode (I want to fumble (w/ a capitol F (with Brook’s article and Nussbaum’s Capability concept which also goes towards my bottom/up utilitarianism.”

Unlike my points with Rawls, I find myself having to fumble (given that this is the first time I have encountered it (with Nussbaum’s Capability concept in that the following will be based purely on my initial instincts. As I understand it, Capability is primarily about the potential for an individual to find satisfaction in 10 possible categories: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s political and material environment. And it is important to note here that the diametrical opposite of Capabilities is Functionings.

For instance: the building and stocking (w/ content: books (of libraries would fulfill the Capability criteria by assuring that everyone can have access to books and other learning materials (which would cover the categories of imagination and thought (through public funding. And were we to accept the Capability criteria, such a policy would be immune to the Functionings criteria of the bean-counting conservative who would argue there is no point in building libraries and stocking them with taxpayer money since no one would use them anyway. Put in mind here that the main point of Capability theory is freedom of choice. So the argument that no one would use the library fails (which is based on an unlikely prediction, anyway (since all that really matters is that the individual has the option available to them in order to fulfill the relevant categories of capability.

And I would offer as another, more personal example, the expansion of public transport which would make automobiles what they should be: a luxurious option as compared to the necessity they have become in many cities in America. And once again, the argument against this by the Functionings criteria of the bean counting conservatives who think the market is the only answer we need is (and I have heard it made: why build it if no one will use it? But once again, the only function (the only result (of import to Capability Theory is that it offers the option: the potential of fulfilling the relevant category.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode in which I make the connection (in a complimentary way (between Capability Theory and my own invention: Efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources we put into an act and the energy and resources we get out of it.
*
Previously on Postcards:

“That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept.”

“The theory he [Rawls] develops comprises two principles, the first of which assigns basic equal rights and liberties to all citizens, and the second of which governs the distribution of economic goods within the society. The second principle holds, roughly, the economic inequalities are permissible only insofar as they serve to maximize the position of the worst-off social group.”

“First of all, this is my first encounter with this particular issue of the Harvard Review, so it would be immodest (if not downright arrogant and deceptive (of me to claim that I’m working from any position of expertise as concerns the articles I’m quoting.”

“Hence the Utilitarian motto: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. “

“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering.”

“That said, in the next postcard (the next episode (I want to fumble (w/ a capitol F (with Brook’s article and Nussbaum’s Capability concept which also goes towards my bottom/up utilitarianism.”

Unlike my points with Rawls, I find myself having to fumble (given that this is the first time I have encountered it (with Nussbaum’s Capability concept in that the following will be based purely on my initial instincts. As I understand it, Capability is primarily about the potential for an individual to find satisfaction in 10 possible categories: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s political and material environment. And it is important to note here that the diametrical opposite of Capabilities is Functionings.

For instance: the building and stocking (w/ content: books (of libraries would fulfill the Capability criteria by assuring that everyone can have access to books and other learning materials (which would cover the categories of imagination and thought (through public funding. And were we to accept the Capability criteria, such a policy would be immune to the Functionings criteria of the bean-counting conservative who would argue there is no point in building libraries and stocking them with taxpayer money since no one would use them anyway. Put in mind here that the main point of Capability theory is freedom of choice. So the argument that no one would use the library fails (which is based on an unlikely prediction, anyway (since all that really matters is that the individual has the option available to them in order to fulfill the relevant categories of capability.

And I would offer as another, more personal example, the expansion of public transport which would make automobiles what they should be: a luxurious option as compared to the necessity they have become in many cities in America. And once again, the argument against this by the Functionings criteria of the bean counting conservatives who think the market is the only answer we need is (and I have heard it made: why build it if no one will use it? But once again, the only function (the only result (of import to Capability Theory is that it offers the option: the potential of fulfilling the relevant category.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode in which I make the connection (in a complimentary way (between Capability Theory and my own invention: Efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources we put into an act and the energy and resources we get out of it."

Rhizome 12/2/14:

Previously on Rhizomes:

“I was recently reading one of my graphic guides on political philosophy and come upon the concept of Utilitarianism. And having the refresher (along with the reminder (I realized that one of the reasons it had the problems it did was that it stayed within the Capitalist perimeters of thinking in terms of “more”. “

“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering. This seems to me low hanging fruit in that it does not subscribe to the unnecessary egalitarianism of allowing everyone to “share the wealth”.”

“That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept.”

“Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode in which I make the connection (in a complimentary way (between Capability Theory and my own invention: Efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources we put into an act and the energy and resources we get out of it.”

While there are, in Brook’s article, criticisms of Nussbaum’s Capability approach, I present my own take on it, Efficiency, not as an attempt to dispel hers, but as a complimentary perspective. Whatever differences my approach might have with hers, I see no reason to dispel that which actually works to my ends.

Anyway, while Nussbaum’s approach seems to have the kind of center I tend to associate with Neo-Classicism, Efficiency requires that we take on the more Deleuzian sense of reality as a hyper-version of the Brownian universe which starts with an atomistic definition of Efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources put into an act and the energy and resources gotten out of the act. However, while we can think of the Efficiency (or what we can also refer to as an Expectation (as the basic unit of the model, we have to see it as that which is enfolded while also enfolding in levels upon levels within levels.

For instance, we as individuals can be looked at as instances of Efficiency/Expectations. At the same time, we have to look at ourselves as the composite of a lot of sub-instances of Efficiency/Expectation that, in turn, also have a lot of sub-instances of Efficiency/Expectation. This, in turn, makes us, the always supra-efficiency of the coexistence of various sub-efficiencies that constitute our makeup and that, in turn, serve as supra-efficiencies to their various sub efficiencies. But the plot thickens. On top of that, we, as individuals, are sub-efficiencies to our various social situations that are, in turn, sub-efficiencies to the bigger efficiencies: for instance, the relationship between the individual, their community, the state within which it resides, the nation the state resides in that is, in turn, the sub-efficiency of the world we live in.

However, while this seems to, at a superficial level, advocate a hierarchical structure that moves from the individual up to the world, what I am actually suggesting here is that the instance of individual efficiency/expectation is every bit as important to the efficiency/expectation of the nation/state. The important thing to note here is the always shifting residence of the always supra-efficiency of the coexistence of efficiencies. To put it another way, the efficiency of the supra-efficiency can always be minimized by the minimizing of the various sub-efficiencies that constitutes its makeup.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode of Rhizomes in which I will hopefully be able to draw out more concrete examples from the vague abstract background (the wide swipes (I have laid down here.

Speakers gotta harness the power of discourse before peeps gonna stay the right side, you know?

Rhizome 12/3/14:

Previously on Rhizomes:

“As Deleuze and Guattari point out in What is Philosophy: philosophy abhors debate. Walks away from it if it can. As they point out: it has better things to do.
This is because philosophy is more like poetry than popular doxa gives it credit for. It is a personal vision (a process (that doesn’t care if it is wrong or right (except to itself ( and can’t afford the distraction of listening to its critics.”

“Now I did a lot of venting in the last postcard (which is now a rhizome (so I feel obliged to pull this back to Deleuze. In terms of the pissing contest this individual was attempting to engage me in, we have to compare the possible gains of my going along with it with the losses that would be incurred. Now first of all, thanks to a lot of the discoveries in neuroscience, we can assume that neither of us would have changed the other’s mind since our sensibilities are pretty much hardwired into our brains –that is with the understanding that brain plasticity allows for change: but that is a slow evolutionary process.”

“I would agree, Raan and Steven, that there is a Zen element at the heart of my particular philosophical process: including my focus on Deleuze (w/and without Guattarri (and Rorty: which might seem strange given Rorty’s kind of conventional academic feel.”

“While I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you might encounter on these boards, I do see, close to the heart of my process (which from a rhizomatic perspective only seems like a heart because it is the particular rhizome I am focused on right now (is the Zen Nihilism of what I usually refer to as the nihilistic perspective: that which is tapped into the underlying nothingness of it all (the ungroundedness (and can never be looked at directly, but can only glance the corner of the eye: hence, the term “the nihilistic perspective”.

“ D Edward Tarkington That is reminiscent of Earnest Becker’s seminal work “The Denial of Death” an existential psychological work of no small stature. However in this context I highly recommend a reading of the following where the central issue of the human condition is not the repression of death but rather the denial of emptiness. Keeping in mind that emptiness must not be considered a nihilistic concept when understood correctly.”

(viewtopic.php?f=25&t=182423&start=300)

“That is pure bunk I tells ya lol.”

“?: a survey if you will: who here needs a guru…

…Raan is looking for disciples.

LOL!!!”

“Disciples? Anyone who would follow me is unworthy of following me for that very reason.”

Now despite the apparent tension between me and Raan Joseph (and I only turn to a 3rd person detachment for the sake of not escalating that tension (I generally consider him a worthy jam-mate. However, I can’t help but think this is a residual effect from a disagreement we were having on the Zen board that I walked away from and that goes towards the boundaries that D&G’s assertion suggests we should maintain.

To summarize: it came down to my insistence that the nihilistic perspective and the Zen perspective are interchangeable while Raan insisted they are not. And once I saw there was an incommensurable impasse between our perspectives, I walked away because I, one, had better things to do than engage in the pissing contest I saw it escalating into; and two, I saw nothing to gain from it: we both had our entrenched positions; and all that could have resulted from it is the 2 of us wasting a lot of time trying to change the other’s perspective when the time and energy could be put to better use working on our own process. Once again:

Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs.

The tough love argument of asserting that you should accept the opinion of the other (especially as concerns the boards, regardless of how they go about it, is an appeal to common doxa that serves as little more than an alibi for the mean spirited and self serving tactics of common TlBs: Troll-like Behaviors. It argues that the only way we can achieve a balanced perspective is through conflict. This is, as far as I’m concerned, complete nonsense: bullocks for my UK friends. There is always a means of working towards that balanced perspective that doesn’t involve engaging in some pissing contest with an a-hole who is only interested in stroking their own ego at your expense. All you have to do is keep pushing beyond yourself by constantly questioning yourself.

I mean it: don’t buy into it: it is only the bullshit that wannabe gurus dump on you in order to bully you into accepting their assertions. Once again:

Take care of your process and others will take care of theirs.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode of Rhizomes in which I will hopefully get back to a fuller explanation of Efficiency or elaborate on the point I am making here: that is in elaborating on the distinction between discourse and debate.

Rhizome 12/4/14:

Previously on Rhizomes:

“That is pure bunk I tells ya lol.”

“?: a survey if you will: who here needs a guru…

…Raan is looking for disciples.

LOL!!!”

“Disciples? Anyone who would follow me is unworthy of following me for that very reason.”

“No it comes from a root misunderstanding of Zen. It is definitely not nihilistic. The supposed dispute is just a matter of education and information. Not really any kind of a debate. Zen is not the easiest subject to comprehend and many would contend that any comprehension is self defeating when it comes to Zen. But it is not nihilism. That is simply a fact. As far as any animosity is concerned I did not feel that at all and was merely correcting an error that does commonly occur as far as understanding Zen goes… So really is was a discourse not a debate.” -Raan Joseph

At the risk of using the second person perspective (that which centers around the use of the pronoun “you” (Raan, I want to note a couple of very subtle discrepancies in the latter post. Now while you from your perspective might have whatever reason for arguing that Zen is something quite different than nihilism, what is a matter of public record is that Zen is a matter of dissipating the ego. However, your ego shows itself clearly in a couple of points:

“No it comes from a root misunderstanding of Zen. It is definitely not nihilistic. The supposed dispute is just a matter of education and information.”

Now you contradict the first point:

“No it comes from a root misunderstanding of Zen.”

With:

“Zen is not the easiest subject to comprehend and many would contend that any comprehension is self defeating when it comes to Zen.”

Now the contradiction here is pretty obvious, Raan: if any comprehension is self defeating, as you assert, then who would you be to assert what comes from a “root understanding of Zen”?

But then you indict yourself even worse by saying:

“The supposed dispute is just a matter of education and information.”

By which I can assume you mean my “education and information”. Is this not a clear indicator of ego: a guru who candy coats it by saying:

“As Nietzsche said through his Zarathustra: “…I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves…”

Therefore: given the contradictions at work here and the fact that you, yourself, admit that Zen is beyond comprehension, what reason do I have for accepting your assertion that it “is definitely not nihilism”?

That said (and now that we’ve gotten past the part I hated to do (I still think your problem with my take on the nihilistic perspective is based on the popular negative connotations of it. But once again: I am going by the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy definition: that which is tapped into the underlying nothingness of things: that which cannot (nothing being nothing (have any fixed implications: negative or positive: that which, as Heidegger asserts, puts us in a reality in which everything lacks a solid ground: the ungrounded. And put in mind here that Heidegger, when he first encountered Zen, more or less said: well, there you go.

So I guess the best move I can make now, Raan, is ask you what you think nihilism is.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode of Rhizomes in which I will hopefully elaborate on the concept of Efficiency. On top of that, I am now faced with getting beyond the quagmire I presented Raan with by doing as any creative writing class will tell you: show and not tell.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

posting.php?mode=reply&f=25&t=187249#preview

Rhizome 12/5/14:

Previously on Rhizomes:

“Now despite the apparent tension between me and Raan Joseph (and I only turn to a 3rd person detachment for the sake of not escalating that tension (I generally consider him a worthy jam-mate. However, I can’t help but think this is a residual effect from a disagreement we were having on the Zen board that I walked away from and that goes towards the boundaries that D&G’s assertion suggests we should maintain.

To summarize: it came down to my insistence that the nihilistic perspective and the Zen perspective are interchangeable while Raan insisted they are not. “

““?: a survey if you will: who here needs a guru…

…Raan is looking for disciples.

LOL!!!”

“At the risk of using the second person perspective (that which centers around the use of the pronoun “you” (Raan, I want to note a couple of very subtle discrepancies in the latter post. Now while you from your perspective might have whatever reason for arguing that Zen is something quite different than nihilism, what is a matter of public record is that Zen is a matter of dissipating the ego. However, your ego shows itself clearly in a couple of points:”

“In other words to clarify to any literalist… I am NOT looking for disciples and I am NO guru. Saying that was all bunk was just a JOKE! Loosen up! And I would appreciate not being quoted out of context! Thanks.”

“Actually this is all in error. I said that “many” contend that comprehension of Zen is self defeating… I did not say that was my own contention. Otherwise why would I admin the Zen Philosophy Group? I said the apparent dispute (yours and mine) is due to a misunderstanding of Zen (on your part) thinking perhaps that emptiness (a less than accurate translation of Sunyata) is the same as nothingness. It is not. Perhaps you have heard of the middle path? It avoids the twin pitfalls of eternalism and nihilism.”

Now Raan seems a little defensive in the last quotes which suggests Ego to me: that which the Zen Master is suppose to be trying to dissipate. But, once again, I don’t see this as an issue of his character or intellect as that of trying to put the common ground with the nihilistic perspective (the underlying nothingness and ungroundedness of reality (into words: of trying to assimilate that which is beyond words into words: an expression of Ego if there ever was one. In this sense, I see his attempt as an expression of an internal conflict within the Zen approach to the ungroundedness that Zen embraces while establishing hierarchies that involve Zen Masters who will “show you the way” –that is when that ungroundedness is something we all share.

However, and in Raan’s defense, when it comes to the pitfalls of the Ego, embracing the Ego (to the point of narcissism (is pretty much a common and ubiquitous occupational hazard for the intellectually and creatively curious. And I have to give him credit for handling this a little better than I probably would have given my hairline trigger.

That said (and assuming for the moment a distinction between the Zen perspective and the nihilistic perspective (that which I still use (with perfect confidence (interchangeably with “Zen Nihilism” (I can’t help but see the contradictions I see in Raan’s arguments as the difficulties it faces in common with the nihilistic perspective: that which results from trying to assess the implications of the underlying nothingness of things: the sense that no matter what assumption (that which is made of words (we might be working from, it always floats on thin air.

Zen, as Raan seems to be expressing it, is faced with the same struggle that the nihilistic perspective is: that of putting into words what cannot be put into words: the implications of nothingness: that which may well emerge from the paradox of being conscious beings who know we will die, but cannot imagine ourselves not existing. And given the ambition of such a project, it seems perfectly natural that the Ego would rear its ugly head at some point or other. That is, of course, unless Raan can back his assertion:

“I said the apparent dispute (yours and mine) is due to a misunderstanding of Zen (on your part) thinking perhaps that emptiness (a less than accurate translation of Sunyata) is the same as nothingness. It is not.”

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode of Rhizomes in which I will either articulate on points made above or get back to elaborating on the concept of Efficiency. I’ll see how I feel tomorrow.

I’ve been delving deeper into D&G recently.

I understand the concept of rhizome and the plain of consistency fairly well. I find their concept of the multiplicitous ( schizophrenic ) self to be interesting, but as a right-winger, I find their philosophy to correspond too much to Leftism - same thing with Derrida; reeks of subterranean egalitarianism/marxism/etc; this will to deconstruct the strata, hierarchy, order into amorphous multiplicity.

Interesting to learn about, nonetheless.

Rhizome 12/6/14:

Previously on Rhizomes:

I have been engaged in a run with one Raan Joseph on the connection between Zen Buddhism and what I call the Nihilistic Perspective. While I insist that there is a clear connection between the Nihilistic Perspective and the Zen one, Raan insists that that they are two completely different things. In the process, I noted a contradiction in Raan’s Zen approach in that even though Zen, as a matter of public record, is a matter of the dissipation of the Ego it tends towards expressions of egoism as can be seen in the notion of the Zen master: he who we need to show us the way to what is apparently available to all of us. To quote Raan:

“Actually this is all in error. I said that “many” contend that comprehension of Zen is self defeating… I did not say that was my own contention. Otherwise why would I admin the Zen Philosophy Group? I said the apparent dispute (yours and mine) is due to a misunderstanding of Zen (on your part) thinking perhaps that emptiness (a less than accurate translation of Sunyata) is the same as nothingness. It is not.”

Now I would note the phrase:

“….) is due to a misunderstanding of Zen (on your part)…”

:that is after he admitted that there were some practitioners of Zen who: contend that comprehension of Zen is self defeating. And I would also point out what he said earlier:

“In other words to clarify to any literalist… I am NOT looking for disciples and I am NO guru. Saying that was all bunk was just a JOKE! Loosen up! And I would appreciate not being quoted out of context! Thanks.”

The problem with this is that he is, on one hand, claiming not to be engaging in the act of trying to dominate the discourse while also claiming that his interpretation of Zen has priority over the interpretation of those who claimed that the comprehension of Zen was self defeating. I would also note the last post Raan made:

“Out of context I’d have to explain the terms anyway so just skim over the articles, it’s not the Gettysburg Address after all - unless you are so secure and complacent in your notion of “Zen Nihilism” you do not need to back it up in appropriate contextual terms….

Or go to your own favorite stomping grounds and scroll down to Xabir’s response to the question of Buddhism and nihilism:http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=139971”

(And I would note here that having skimmed over Raan’s link, it seems like an excellent continuation on the issue. I thank Raan for putting it out there and encourage anyone who wants to pursue it further to check it out(

Now while the above seem like fighting words and a contradiction to the Zen agenda of dissipating the ego (and though it gravitates towards the sociopathic pitfall of the nihilistic (I need to be clear on something: while I have disagreements with Raan, neither his intellectual integrity, nor his embrace of Zen, nor his character is in question. While he says one thing while seeming to gravitate towards a pissing contest, I seriously doubt that what he is interested in is anything near the pissing contests I have engaged in with the average troll. And I still argue that the contradiction (as concerns egoism (are the natural result of attempting to define the indefinable (which cannot help but suggest Egoism in its dependence on the technology of language (the underlying nothingness or ungroundedness of things.

And in that spirit, my process (my rhizomes (has come around to a synthesis that will hopefully satisfy Raan as well. I still contend that both the nihilistic perspective and Zen Buddhism are tapped into the same underlying nothingness and ungroundedness and are therefore both subject to the same kind of “egoistic slips” that I note in Zen Buddhism as a whole along with Raan’s approach. At the same time, I will admit that there is a difference (as Raan insists (that involves the responses each make to that underlying nothingness and ungroundedness: the unanchored assumptions they work from.

For instance, even though it slips in ways I have described, Zen maintains a commitment to the dissipation of the Ego. The nihilistic perspective (that which I still confidently use interchangeably with a sort of Zen Nihilism (on the other hand, makes no such commitment. This is what makes it more susceptible (given its secular rejection of the spiritual implications of the underlying nothingness and ungroundedness (to the pitfalls of the psychotic and the sociopathic –that is even though I still argue that the Zen approach is still susceptible to them.

That said, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode of Rhizomes in which I will either elaborate on the above, respond to some of the points made on Raan’s link, or actually get back to my points on Efficiency.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=187249

Rhizome 12/7/14:

Previously on Rhizomes:

I was considering a point made in my graphics guide to Political Philosophy:

“I was recently reading one of my graphic guides on political philosophy and come upon the concept of Utilitarianism. And having the refresher (along with the reminder (I realized that one of the reasons it had the problems it did was that it stayed within the Capitalist perimeters of thinking in terms of ‘more’.

“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering. This seems to me low hanging fruit in that it does not subscribe to the unnecessary egalitarianism of allowing everyone to ‘share the wealth’.”

I then connected it to a couple of articles I had read in The Harvard Review of Philosophy. One on Rawls:

“The theory he [Rawls] develops comprises of two principles, the first of which assigns basic equal rights and liberties to all citizens, and the second of which governs the distribution of economic goods within the society. The second principle holds, roughly, the economic inequalities are permissible only insofar as they serve to maximize the position of the worst-off social group.”

And one on Nussbaum’s Capability approach:

“As I understand it, Capability is primarily about the potential for an individual to find satisfaction in 10 possible categories: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s political and material environment. And it is important to note here that the diametrical opposite of Capabilities is Functionings.”

I then added to the mix: the bottom-up approach to justice, my own notion of Efficiency which I described as a Deleuzian complex of expectation instances (the atomic elements (that are maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources put into an act and the energy and resources gotten out.

(Which, BTW, I cover, in more depth, in a ‘work in progress’ (and excuse the shameless self promotion:
[viewtopic.php?f=25&t=177727&start=175(](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=177727&start=175()

Anyway, to get to Efficiency at the atomistic and molecular level of the multiplicity, I find it useful to use an equation (an admittedly amateurish one (I came up with for individual instances of expectation:

E(pot)=R/e

In which E(pot) shall mean Efficiency potential;
R shall mean Resources;
And e shall mean expectation….

But before we get into the Deleuzian abstractions of it, it might help if I describe it at the more pragmatic level of how Efficiency works then gravitate to the mechanics of the equation:

To describe it in the most practical and superficial terms possible: it is a matter of distributing the energy and resources available in such a way that the various instances of expectation can maximize efficiency. It’s a kind of balance in that sense. This is a matter of prioritizing in that in order for it to work some instances of expectation must be lowered so they have the resources necessary to achieve maximum efficiency while allowing other instances to maximize efficiency through more resources –something I will cover in more detail with the equation. This is a matter of maximizing the always supra-efficiency of the coexistence of efficiencies that work at all levels: from the individual, to their various sub-systems of efficiencies and to their various levels of social connections up to the world as a whole that, in turn, must maximize the always supra-efficiency of coexistence with its natural environment.

For instance, we as the intellectually and creatively curious must, by definition, give privilege to the act of accumulating knowledge and creating. Therefore, we have to lower other expectations (such as a desire for material wealth (in order to focus our resources on satisfying our intellectual and creative curiosity. This is why (if Cronenberg’s movie version of The Fly is accurate (if you looked into Einstein’s closet, you would find a row of the exact same outfits. And the pictures you see of him testify to this. The reason he did this was so that when he woke up in the morning, he didn’t have to expend any more energy than he had to deciding which wardrobe to wear, thereby delegating his energy to complex mathematical formulas. And if we are sincere about what we are doing here, I’m quite sure we all have our own Einstein’s Wardrobes.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode of Rhizomes in which I’m pretty sure I have to elaborate on this so I can eventually move on to the formula for instances of expectation.

Rhizome 12/8/14:

Prelude:

The following quotes are from a discourse that, coincidentally, ran parallel to a discourse (or a respectful debate if you will (I was having with one Raan on the relationship between Zen Buddhism and what I prefer to call the nihilistic perspective. And contrary to my initial assumption (oops!!! (there was no connection between this and my discourse with Raan. But that made it all that cooler in that it suggested there were others out there that saw the connection I did –that is along with those who prefer to maintain a distance between the 2. Anyway (just the highlights:

“Could anyone please make me understand how Buddhism avoids nihilism? I love Buddhism, but it seems as if it believes that ultimately everything is pointless. Am I correct? How am I misunderstanding Buddhism?”

“It is my understanding, although I have not studied eastern thought in any great depth, that the attempt to define the “point” of “everything” is pointless. It seems to be more of a refutation of rationalism and the overinflation of our notion of reason. “

“Nihilism is AGAINST Buddhism. Buddhism is about the Middle Way, non-duality of all things. Shunyata or emptiness is not about nihilism, it is about the inherent existence as being false (reality not found in our own concepts and ideas), or an illusion. Non-ego does not mean our consciousness does not exist, it just means our ego is a mind-created illusion. Our ability to be aware is called the “Buddha Nature”.

“Buddhism is pantheistic. That is to say, everything is included in its theology and the harmony of all things matters.

How, on this basis, can it be in any way nihilistic?

It cannot.”

“The first thing to be clear is we need to understand what we meant by ‘nihilism’.

The essence of ‘nihilism’ is ‘nothing’.
‘Nothing’ can be used in the positive or negative sense.
‘Nothing of evil but all of good’ is the positive sense of nihilism.”

“ni•hil•ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.

1. Philosophy

a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.”

“Nihilism [Merriam-Webster].

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

my emphasis

Different dictionary, different shade of grey.

Of course some insist there is but one way in which to understand the meaning of a word like nihilism. And that perforce is the manner in which they do. It’s as though they are holding nihilism in their hand like a rock and saying, “this is nihilism”.

And the more abstract the definition the better.”

I would also add here the definition offered in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

“The theory promoting the state of believing in nothing, or of having no allegiances and no purposes. The term is incorrectly used to characterize all persons not sharing some particular faith or particular set of absolute values.”

Now from the nihilistic perspective, as I understand it, it would be pointless to argue about the level of authority involved in the three dictionary definitions offered. This would involve assumptions about what constitutes “authority”. And according to the nihilistic perspective (at least as I understand it (assumptions float on thin air. They’re ultimately ungrounded and have no solid foundation. This, in turn, leaves us no other choice than to think of the terms “nihilism” and “Buddhism” not as fixed, but as Ambig (an old ally when it comes to the nihilistic perspective –despite our differences (has insisted, as terms we carry with us in the actions of Dasein: the being in the world that projects out of its possible non-being.

As I was engaged in my debate with Raan, I eventually (thanks to his soft touch and repose (had to revise my position to the extent that while I still believe that the nihilistic perspective and the Buddhist one are tapped into the same underlying nothingness and ungroundedness, the responses to it are different. As I said to Raan:

“For instance, even though it slips in ways I have described, Zen maintains a commitment to the dissipation of the Ego. The nihilistic perspective (that which I still confidently use interchangeably with a sort of Zen Nihilism (on the other hand, makes no such commitment. This is what makes it more susceptible (given its secular rejection of the spiritual implications of the underlying nothingness and ungroundedness (to the pitfalls of the psychotic and the sociopathic –that is even though I still argue that the Zen approach is still susceptible to them.”

Perhaps athunley captured the impasse (based on the common connection between Buddhism and the Nihilistic perspective (when they said:

“t is my understanding, although I have not studied eastern thought in any great depth, that the attempt to define the “point” of “everything” is pointless. It seems to be more of a refutation of rationalism and the overinflation of our notion of reason. “

It seems to me that where the 2 depart from there are in the symbolic systems and agendas that emerge from that.

Coda:
Anyway, it’s always one rhizome (enfolding (and enfolded within) other rhizomes) leading to another and the roll of the dice. I appreciate the diversion from Efficiency which has grown into a monster that won’t let me go: a simple idea that turned into a fucking book I haven’t got time to write. Still, I have to chip away at it (it is one of my golden eggs (but I hope to elaborate on this even further –especially since I worked at this feeling a little more fatigued than usual: I feel like I’ve stomped (heavy-handedly (through it.

It’s always a pleasure (and inspiration (jamming w/ the sincere….

PS: I especially hope to get back to Ambig’s point (since it says a lot about my take on it:

"It’s as though they are holding nihilism in their hand like a rock and saying, “this is nihilism”.

And the more abstract the definition the better.”

This, I think, gets at the interference that language (that which always falls short of the reality it is trying to describe (imposes on the discourse…

Anyway,

Only on Monday:

….

…

.
.

.

Rhizome 12/11/14:
Capitalism is control. We believe it is a choice. Yet everything we do is controlled by it. We soften the blow of this very truth by assuming that it is some kind of natural force in our lives. But it is not. It is the product of a human agreement. But then it’s kind of hard to not feel like it is a natural force on the internet.

Rhizome 12/11/14:
Capitalism is control. We believe it is a choice. Yet everything we do is controlled by it. We soften the blow of this very truth by assuming that it is some kind of natural force in our lives. But it is not. It is the product of a human agreement. But then it’s kind of hard to not feel like it is a natural force on the internet.

Capitalism is confluent with the way of nature, baby: Might is Right.

This D&G rhizomatic philosophy is left-wing propaganda wrapped up in pretty postmodern garb.

Rhizome 12/12/2014

I had, in a previous rhizome:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=181968&start=175

:noted (in a kind of epiphany (a connection between Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism (closely connected to the plane of immanence (and his admiration for the stoic sensibility: what I can only summarize as the courage to face brute reality while not succumbing to the security of denying the reality of the less tangible expressions of our subjective reality: I’m thinking extreme forms of materialism and Randian appeals to brute facts while making assertions that are anything but.

And my take on it got some juice from my recent reading of Sean Bowden’s The Priority of Events: Deleuze’s Logic of Sense:

“He distinguishes three such images – the Platonic, the pre -Socratic and the Hellenic…” -Bowden, Sean (2011-08-16). The Priority of Events: Deleuze’s Logic of Sense (Plateaus – New Directions in Deleuze Studies) (p. 15). Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition.

Bowden starts with a distinction reminiscent of the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy in first pointing out the intellectual hierarchy described by Plato:

“In Plato, following Deleuze, the ‘philosopher’s work is always determined as an ascent and a conversion , that is, as the movement of turning toward the high principle (principe d’en haut) from which the movement proceeds, and also of being determined, fulfilled, and known in the guise of such a motion’ (LS, 127).” –Ibid.

He then compares these “heights” to the pre-Socratics who found their depths in the natural world:

“Here, Deleuze is no doubt referring to the pre-Socratic ‘physicists’ or ‘natural philosophers’, among whom we can count Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. For these philosophers, the fundamental principles of all things must be sought in physical nature itself: Empedocles’ four elements and the forces of ‘Love and Strife’, for example. 4 Fundamental physical principles such as these were posited to provide an ‘immanent measure . . . capable of fixing the order and the progression of a mixture in the depths of Nature (Physis)’ (LS, 131).” –Ibid.

He then points to a kind of synthesis that Deleuze saw in the stoics who:

“….bring about ‘a reorientation of all thought and of what it means to think: there is no longer any depth or height’ (LS, 130).”

Philosophers that had the courage to see that it:

“is always a matter of unseating the Ideas, of showing that the incorporeal is not high above (en hauteur), but is rather at the surface, that it is not the highest cause but the superficial effect par excellence, and that it is not Essence but event. On the other front, it will be argued that depth is a digestive illusion which complements the ideal optical illusion (LS, 130).”

In this sense, we approach the same univocity of being that Rorty was getting at in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature when he worked to undermine claims concerning ontological status. A thing either is or is not: it doesn’t matter if it’s something you feel or the rock that stubs your toe (which is, BTW, something you feel.

To give a more practical/pragmatic sense of what I’m at getting here, I received from this post/rhizome:

“Capitalism is control. We believe it is a choice. Yet everything we do is controlled by it. We soften the blow of this very truth by assuming that it is some kind of natural force in our lives. But it is not. It is the product of a human agreement. But then it’s kind of hard to not feel like it is a natural force on the internet.”

:a couple of what I assume to be sarcastic remarks:

“ I like bold empirical claims.”

“Wait, what?”

Now I would note here the use of the popular buzzword (which both Deleuze and Rorty are opposed to: empirical. What does that mean? Does it, for instance, mean that the thing we are perceiving has, somehow, more ontological status than the act of perceiving it or how we react to it? And since these 2 goons seems to think in terms of brute facts (or claim to (how does 1 + 1=2 or the fact that water boils 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure tell us anything about how we experience Capitalism? I quite sure they think they can. But most arguments from their likes end up being as non sequitor as:

1+1=2, Capitalism is the only legitimate economic system on the face of the earth.

Deleuze and Rorty, on the other hand, ask us to look beyond the appeal to the in-crowd (the socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (of the above hecklers and recognize the import of what we’re experiencing as well as that of what we are experiencing.

Appeals to the Heights or the Depths (the tunnel vision (is for pussies. The courage of the stoic takes it all (the plane of immanence (into consideration. It does not flinch at the possibility of being wrong.

posting.php?mode=reply&f=25&t=187249#preview

A pretty boy who thinks he can convert that into intellectual currency.

Does nothing: just looks pretty. Invites you to be part of his personal in-crowd.

Welcome to Capitalism, Baby!!!

At heart: little more than a common sociopath who follows the motto:

I have power because I am right; therefore I am right because have power.

:which is based on his experience of having all the advantages.

Little more than a blowhard at a party trying to rationalize his own narcissism and his desperate need to be the belle of the ball.

Is this what you were looking for, Erik?

Good comeback

I see a lot of pathetic attempts at comebacks directed at me, but yours was good.

And what dictionary did you get the word “confluent” out of?

LOL

I was looking to keep it more on the topic of rhizomes, as opposed to my narcissism and need for attention.

Though D. was pro-rhizome, he wasn’t completely against the arboreal. You do realize that, yeah?

Edit: New Oxford American dictionary