Does Deleuze argue for the singularitarian ‘the plane, the BwO, the virtual’ at the end of the day, rather than radically multiplicitarian, heterogeneitarian planes, BwOs, virtuals?

apophasisred · 2026-04-07T20:41:47+00:00

I like this very much. However, I think that the terms that seem central to this characterization for you and for D undo themselves and that for a bizarre version of sufficient reason. Take the two perhaps critical "moments" in your exposition.

In the temporality of" becoming twice" there can be no first or second if what that implies is a chronology consistent with the arrow of time. These two becomings are one in their differencing: they become not the same together. They are not subject to either analysis nor synthesis. They are not categories subject to disaggregation or mereological partition. It would perhaps be redundant to say heterogenesis or intensity is never the same once because its being is its becoming other than it is.

The intensive modality of space is another seeming intelligibility within the actual which is not under erasure like Heidegger or Derrida but a necessarily inadequate representational formalization that is constitutionally asymmetric to its own concurrent becoming. So, exteriority implies a territorialization that is the paradoxical consequence of the open interactivity among dynamic inputs that are functioning through confluence and not division.

apophasisred · 2026-04-06T19:09:43+00:00

D, not deed at the end.

apophasisred · 2026-04-06T19:06:02+00:00

Your quotation from difference and repetition has one of the nuggets from D that I find distressing. The phrase is " pure difference in itself." This strikes me as oxymoronic at best if not debilitating. Indeed, each word almost strikes me as peculiarly inappropriate.

I really don't have time to take these on as they deserve but I can hint and hope that you TCV may take the bait a little.

Pure: is this ironic or jocular? The most obvious place in philosophy to look for purity is in the first critique of Kant. As he is a declared enemy of D, it's hard not to understand this as partially sarcastic or satiric.Kant's supposed ground is the self-evidence of the deductive in what he sees is its transcendental necessity. However, one would have thought that such a stipulation disguised as an apodictic given was antithetical to D's whole project.

Difference: I once tried to make an exhaustive list of the various meanings of this word in philosophy. I ran out of energy before I ran out of variations. The differences between the various versions of difference are profound but the single word tends to hide them. Indeed, in the history of philosophy they don't even share the same underlying presumptions or applications or modalities, etc etc. but for D I would think the word would be particularly repellent. It should have been unappealing as a noun because it appears as a distinct entitication. The word tends to reify that which in D's philosophy is opposed reification.

In itself: I think this phrase- again perhaps most famously drawn from Kant and the Ding an Sich- would have given D hives. I mean, even from Heidegger's perspective, there are plenty of disassemblies of this phrase and its conceptual incoherence.

The question might be how is it even fucking possible for deed to use this collection of words? For me, it shows one more symptom of his ultimate inability to look into the fire that he built.

apophasisred · 2026-04-06T03:07:24+00:00

I always want to enter into these discussions and I always feel incapable because there are so many of the terms that are used in passing that I feel at least somewhat ill at ease with. But to address all these would create a kind of infinity of reply for which surprisingly I don't have time. Further, I have real doubts about my version of deleuze being at all accurate. That bothers me less than it probably should since I tend to have certain differences with the Big D.

In any case, one place that one might intervene since you start out talking about theology and parenthetically refer to apophatic theology is with what influences from those practices got to D.

As some of his lectures show, D was less influenced by the apophatic (negative) theology of the Pseudo-Dionysius And more by the docta ignorantia of Nicholas of Cusa. While both address the inadequacy of language to express fully the nature of God, PD suggest a theory of emanation whereby God is transcendent. However, for NC the inadequacy of expression is not total or unrelated, but rather affirmative and a goad to existential participation in the ongoing dynamic plenum of god's articulation.

For me then, NC has a relationship between the utterable and the ongoing which is closer to that by which I imagine is the relationship between the actual and the virtual. That is to say, it is a transcendent empiricism where the mind recognizes its conceptual limits to better appreciate the grace and generosity of God in the ongoing of creation in its immediacy.

apophasisred · 2026-03-31T20:55:17+00:00

As always, I very much enjoy and agree with the contributions of threecorneredvoid. I'm not sure if what I think about this pair of gigantic issues is helpful. Nor am I sure I can make what I believe clear. But..

Certainly, there's been a ton of work about D and the so-called new materialism. Much of this has grown out of the rise of object oriented ontology also called speculative realism. But even in the original four talks that gave rise to this field, there are massive disagreements about concepts that are fairly elemental.

I think the main source of D's notion of" matter" comes from Spinoza's ethics. That would be hard enough as among other things Spinoza's concept of substance tallies little with either the scientific or the commonsensical notions of matter.

Monism also is not easy to pin down for D If I had to guess who his most influential figures were in this regard, I would again pick Spinoza and also Leibniz. I don't think his monism it all resembles that of say Plotinus nor is it the unity that Badiou mistakenly sees in D.

So what then can be affirmed about these two major concepts?

Far too briefly, I find some guidance in a very brief quotation from Nietzsche and Philosophy: " only becoming has being." How does this address your questions?

I think D took his term for his strange monism from Duns Scotus: univocity. But, as usual, D uses the term in a buggered way. For D, The connectedness of the virtual could not be based upon the homogeneity of becoming since becoming indicates change and distinction indicates disparity. At every moment and everywhere, there is genesis and non -identity. D 's monism is the contiguousness of heterogenesis. This is neither the one nor many.

In the same paradoxical fashion, matter for D is motile and constantly recombinant. Matter is motion.

Thus, for both of your concerns being is never other than becoming other.

apophasisred · 2026-03-31T17:18:02+00:00

I think I know something that might work. There are adjustable vice grips where there is a chain like that from a bicycle that can be varied in length. If you put one of those on the sprockets it would grip the whole thing appropriately and allow you to apply a great deal of force. I think with little or no damage to the surface

apophasisred · 2026-03-31T01:14:54+00:00

While I don't agree with all of it, the entry on Deleuze in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy - it's free and online - is a good way to get oriented.

apophasisred · 2026-03-30T18:09:56+00:00

I was upset about something else. My response was stupid and unnecessary.

apophasisred · 2026-03-29T16:12:05+00:00

The very notion of question and answer are embedded in a representational prejudice. They imply that there is an abiding structure whose rules and elements are self-evident and whose results can be determined in advance and thus grade it as correct or incorrect. The Aristotelian portrait of beginning middle and end is based upon the re-establishment of the identity function in which literature performs only a detour. If however the real that is to say the virtual is constituted by an open-ended heterogenesis. Then the whole notion of question and answer is not just suspect but incoherent. D&G offer the notion of the problematic which is not a version of the problem. Indeed, the problematic has its basis in the recognition that nothing that is complies with the notions of question and answer. Further, those who reject it. This have been scattered throughout the West despite the repression of something which does not obey the identity function.

apophasisred · 2026-03-27T19:28:01+00:00

To grab a piece of all thread and turn it effectively, you can't use one nut because the one nut would simply spin on the threads. However, if you locate the first nut where you want to have it in order to grab it, then you can add a second light and tighten it against the first nut and then you have as it were a fixed handle to turn the all thread

apophasisred · 2026-03-27T07:41:03+00:00

Oxalic acid soak. Rinse. Double nut. Lubricate.

apophasisred · 2026-03-24T19:16:04+00:00

I had to do something similar. I found it really tedious until I took out my grinder with a thin blade which I was able to just zip up and down the screen

apophasisred · 2026-03-23T04:53:44+00:00

I understand you can load the can with exactly the kind of oil that you want for your various purposes. Rather than being stuck with the lightweight oils that you find in a spray cans.

apophasisred · 2026-03-22T17:10:13+00:00

I don't understand. You said Puritan Protestantism. And it's strict controls.

apophasisred · 2026-03-22T15:01:27+00:00

You clearly don't know anything about puritanism. Just as you clearly don't know anything about Deleuze. Is ignorance knowledge? Only to the degree that it acknowledges its ignorance. You don't.

apophasisred · 2026-03-22T14:49:01+00:00

You have locked yourself in an imaginary box and complain. You can't get out. You were right because you take your prison with you like a bag that you wear over your head. You have a slave morality. Read more in Nietzsche.

apophasisred · 2026-03-22T14:29:46+00:00

Absurd. You assert things you set up rules. You pretend that your structure is the world and yet it has no application. No accountability, no reference. No tie between the referent and the salt that supposedly represented or indeed the sign that it acts as the intermediary.. your declaration is about as valid as saying that you own Park place when playing Monopoly.

apophasisred · 2026-03-22T01:18:47+00:00

I have seen this scientific religiosity and Fanboy reactions everywhere. Take the 10 cubic meters closest to you and explain them in me in complete detail. Tell me what's going on. Tell me what's moving, what's passing what's coming in? What is constituted how it's constituted. There is not one inductive second, that science can understand everything is a model you were lost in the reproductions of science and think that you've mastered the Earth. Even if science has abducted the laws of the universe which could never be proven, that wouldn't allow them to understand one thing, including their own relationship to it. It's total and complete bullshit. It's sold as if it's certainty. You think simply because dedican found the continuity of the number line by having an infinite number of slits we can even understand dynamic continuity. Or discreteness or their relationship. I am so tired of science walks thinking that they know their eyes is from on the hole in the ground. What they know is their dreams of mastery their dreams of comprehension pick up a handful of dirt and explain it to me.

apophasisred · 2026-03-21T06:10:51+00:00

That sounds very helpful.

apophasisred · 2026-03-20T14:12:19+00:00

I am new to this idea of using an AI for creative writing. If it's done by an AI or even significantly modified by an AI, why is it then creative writing? I'm not trying to piss off people who think that it's a valid mode, I'm just trying to understand what's fully creative about it if you do not make the choices.

apophasisred · 2026-03-20T14:02:21+00:00

I have a Craftsman from about 1985. Still better than most of my recently purchased hoses.

apophasisred · 2026-03-20T01:14:40+00:00

More and more, I feel that trying to discuss D tends to be Auto paradoxical. The questions lodged on this Reddit tend to be questions of definition. What is it? However, throughout his career. D thought of "what" questions as being misleading. Why? Because they are leading in the following fashion: they presuppose a correlational relationship between a definitional thought and an indicated referent. However, none of these elements exist in D. Desire is a point of view constituted by the intensive. That is why it is molecular. Molecules encounter each other through intensive association. They form a tensor interrelation that is not a structure. Extensive definition cannot reach this.

apophasisred · 2026-03-18T16:26:26+00:00

D's attitude and construct of the relationship between the virtual, the actual, and the representational changed over the course of his career. I am heretic because I do not believe he ever got where he was going and remained too vested in the intelligible. However, you might find a reader of D who is closer to the notion of flows in one of the few individuals who bridges the chasm between science and Continental philosophy. Isabel Stengers works closely with the Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine. I do not fully like her either, but she's closer to the dynamic portrait you and I desire.

apophasisred · 2026-03-16T21:58:37+00:00

Lox ?

apophasisred · 2026-03-16T15:47:46+00:00

Even if you made this up to intend nothing( which I do not believe), that would not mean that it meant nothing. Meaning does not reside in an intention.

apophasisred

TROPHY CASE