Delueze Study:

I suppose one of the main appeals of Deleuze to me is that, when writing about him, I’m always writing at the edge of what I know: it’s always a dice throw that can take me places I’ve never been before. In this sense it’s always an act of experimentation or Play.
I would first add an inquiry made by xhightension appropriately titled Rhizome Meditation:

“Hey, I’ve been reading through your posts about Delueze. I have the book “Anti-Oedipus.”

How do you apply the the artistic flow, that you learn from Delueze or Derrida, and make it practical for daily life?

From what I remember from your posts, you said something along these lines: we believe in things like afterlives, higher powers and higher principles. The point from A to B is a given, so we should Play with our minds. Given that the results are an import of individual experiencing them, why would it matter who happened to be having the superior experience?

I don’t remember exactly where you said it or I would have quoted directly. “Finding the flow,” as you say, "because anything else is a block to the flow of energy.

?: isn’t that our main issues with analytics

Is there a mantra for Play, like some kind of meditation that joints one into the now? Or is it feeling or instinct that one coils into?”

I bring this into this rhizome because it shows a deep understanding of what I’m approaching with Deleuze as well as to illustrate its connection with today’s rhizome and as a segue to tomorrow’s more detailed and focused response to their points. As Deleuze encourages us: connect and forget. Anyway:

“He wants to show how real learning and teaching involve a search for signs and a creative experimentation with them that triggers learning as radical change in another or in oneself, as opposed to the concepts of learning by rote or acquiring knowledge of facts and procedures associated with correct moves on those facts. This explains the relation between critique and the search for conditions, followed by an experimental and creative work with signs. He criticizes learning through the repetition of the same, in order to clear the way for learning as the triggering of intensities. The only way we move towards a complete learning is by expressing the intensities locked up in a situation in a new way (How can I make the industrial revolution live for them?).” -Williams, James (2013-01-15). Gilles Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition: A Critical Introduction and Guide (p. 21). Edinburgh University Press. Kindle Edition.

Now I have spent a lot of time here working at the more superficial social/political level of Deleuze’s agenda. And I’m hoping, given William’s reasonably clear explanation of it early in the book, to drive deeper into the metaphysical/phenomenological aspects of it. (And I’m hoping my response to xhightension’s inquiry tomorrow will facilitate that.) But William’s quote allows me to tie up some loose ends before I do.

What we see in Deleuze’s point concerning learning is his general manifesto for how to live a life. We see in it a mandate to treat our intellectual and creative processes as experimentations that (via the dice roll (that can land us somewhere exciting at the risk of landing us somewhere less so. And I’m guessing that he would agree that the risk of landing us nowhere is minimal to the point of being irrelevant. Still, we have to consider William’s following point:

“An interesting paradox is worth pointing out at this point. It may be that forcing someone to repeat and learn by rote is the best way of setting down signs for a more intense learning.”

What Williams is pointing to here is the important role that repetitions can play in the intellectual and creative process: how we can embrace order for the sake of embracing chaos without succumbing to it. Think, for instance, of Einstein’s wardrobe. Deleuze, himself, describes 3 types of repetition: habit, memory, and creation. So isn’t it possible that the habits of Kant was more about how he managed the creative acts he did as compared to expressions of character limits to Kant’s philosophy that Deleuze and Nietzsche described them as?

I mean I, myself, am all over and excited by Deleuze’s manifesto. But that could prove less an endorsement and more of a vulnerability in that Deleuze’s critics could easily point to me and argue that Deleuze’s philosophy seems perfectly accommodated to my psychedelic/70’s addled mind as well as my middle aged propensity towards AADD.

Still (at least to me (it has value. At the same time, we have to recognize the value of repetition even if it is illusory. We have to recognize the value of the momentary stay against confusion (the aborescent as compared to the rhizomatic, if for nothing else, as a resting place. Once again: Deleuze’s agenda has the ability to excite, especially the creatively and intellectually curious. At the same time, you have to look at how unappealing it might be to people, today, who are feeling the pressures of constant change (becoming (under producer/consumer Capitalism. We have to ask how appealing Deleuze’s agenda could be to people who are already experiencing speed smear.

“Where Fichte had lectured: ‘Act like nobody!’, Stirner replicated: ‘Do what you can do alone on the world: Enjoy yourself!’” - My translation of: “Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit” by Peter Sloterdijk, 2014, S. 461.

“»The rhizome is an anti-genealogy. The rhizome passes through conversion, expansion, conquest, catch and stitch … The rhizome is about … ‘becoming of all kinds’.« (Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Rhizome, p. 35.) The invisible underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting, striving upward tree …” My translation of: “Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit” by Peter Sloterdijk, 2014, S. 472.

Against any past and future - the anti-genealogy - that is one of the main aspects of the modernity, when fashion replaces customs (morals).

In Habermas vs. Adorno/Lyotard, which presentation of rhizomes offer a more acceptable scenario?

Is modernity, in it’s self indicative of such
interpretation? On what ground?

It might be a ground of intertransferenced ethical-moral, aesthetic and political consideration. The

three dimensional bubbles also resemble Bucky

Fullers’ geodesic domes.

The semantic unity at the price of more literality of meaning. Fuller’s domes were meant to house the increasing world populations’ underclass, by constructing affordable, and using cheaply manufactured materials.

Most of the buildings Richard Buckminster Fuller constructed were built because of his and other’s interests. So the increasing of the dense of the cities was merely his excuse.

In the third part of Peter Slotredijk’s “Spheres” (especially in chapter I) Fuller is often mentioned, yes, but his buildings are primarily representation buildings.

For the modern human there is only consumption, no past, no future, no children, no parents, thus no familiy, no genealogy but only consumption, enjoy-yourself-ism. So there is also no sacred thing for the modern human, because for the modern human there is only consumption, no custom (moral) but fashion that has replaced all customs (morals), no sacred things, unless they are consumable. The modern religion (ideology, consumistic manifesto) is consumption, enjoy-yourself-here-and-now-ism, anti-genealogy, the devil-may-care-attitude.

The main mistake of the modernity is to put the “social question” in the in the foreground and to forget to ask the genealogical question.

Thanks for the rhizomes, Arminus.

My pleasure, D 63.


The fact is, that Fuller grew up in abject poverty as a young man, and his primary starting point was exactly, the elimination of poverty, homelessness, in the construction of geodesic domes. Academic circles may have overlooked here.

If you have solved it, why not share it with us? Boy, d63 has solved all the mysteries of the universe, but his mind is no match for Deluze.

Seems like a bunch of meaning making anyway. Difference and repetition…can easily be explained with the aphorism of a splatter painting. A splatter painting is repetitive chaos, the mona lisa is ordered intelligent chaos. If deluze’s book doesn’t explain consciousness, it just seems like a social commentary, something a girl would write. I don’t see what the purpose of it is, id rather see a movie, they are closer to the truth than words.

Delueze’s claims about order and chaos, seems rather “deluezional” to me.

Clarification of the above:

It was not that Fuller grew up in an impoverished household, in fact his family was prosperous, affording him a Harvard education, but that the Great Depression caused him to suffer intolerable poverty. Further, it was not the geodific structures, which were to solve the problem of poverty related homelessness, but his concept of the Dymaxion, 4D type structures, which were applied in a limited way.

The geodesic dome was invented by a guy by the name of Victor Norquist, and built by Walter Bauersfeld. The concept originated with Zeiss Optical.

There are levels of congruency here, regardless of specific shapes. So You are right, to a large extent, but motive is clearly present. The domes were thought up when USA was already a booming, prosperous economy.

The fact that Fuller grew up in poverty is not so important when it comes to the other fact: Fuller’s buildings have nothing to do with poverty.


This is why the Frankfurt School directly opposes this chaos. But such opposition is retroactive , categorically, bringing back the focus on the post Kantian dilemma, whether all of modern philosophy since then, may be suspect as unfounded. The genealogy of modern philosophy is missing in this sense,the implication goes.

Not all of them, the 4D buildings are a precursor, and
They show motive. The character of the man shows an inclusiveness, outside of which perimeters can not be constructed as linearly, as that implies, motives aside.

How is modern philosophy unfounded? It had a founder, therefore it is founded.

Now you are saying that Fuller’s “family was prosperous, affording him a Harvard education” - that contradicts what you formerly said: “Fuller grew up in an abject poverty”.

Fuller was born 1895 - so he was already an adult during the Great Depression you mentioned.

Metaphors overrides Sloterdijk’s bubbles, so the references to poverty, and growing up, need not to do so linearly. The Great Depression shocked him, and in a timeless sense, the poverty permitted him even more so, if he was not raised in poverty. People used to poverty can cope with it, those unexpectedly thrown into it, feel it much more dramatically. He was still very young at the time, trying to raise a young family. The metaphors encompasses both men in both dimensions.

Yes, some say it was Descartes, but I would really start with Kant as reactive to Hume.

But I understand Your doubt, and I raised the foundation in reference to the thought, that, modern philosophy was genealogically finished.

You raised the foundation in relation to the thought that modern philosophy was genealogically finished? I don’t understand what you are trying to tell me.

Please see my annoyances topic.


They ref goes back to The notion which was raised in the page before this, which Deleuze raised, that modernity is anti-genealogical. He took this up from Nietzche’s Critique of genealogy of morals.
The modern philosophy ends before Nietzche, and most consider him an interloper between modern and postmodern philosophy, per Heidegger. Modern philosophy is supposedly un-founded by this lack of genealogical process, which has come about
. Postmodernism suffers for lack of this unflinching, meaning it once had foundation ,significance, but the signifiers are all chaotic, lost the central signifier to unify genealogical significance. Soldjernic also wrote a critique of it.

I understand Your frustration, Ultimate, but some of the word salad we are finding ourselves are not merely a splash of color here and there, of sights, but actually of sounds. This is the critique Habermas makes of the whole affair, categorically. The foundation is there, but can not be seen.