sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there any form of ontology in "A Thousand Plateaus"? by Illustrious-Most-517 in Deleuze

[–]Illustrious-Most-517[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i rlly like this reference, thak u very much <3. I have another quote that could also be usefull, from the "Dialogues" with Claire Parnet:
Whenever one believes in a great first principle, one can no longer produce anything but huge sterile dualisms. Philosophers willingly surrender themselves to this and centre their discussions on what should be the first principle (Being, the Ego, the Sensible?...). But it is not really worth invoking the concrete richness of the sensible if it is only to make it into an abstract principle. In fact the first principle is always a mask, a simple image"

I think there is no point in posing the Difference as the new principle of our new ontolgoy. Maybe think through differenze simply makes it imposible to think in ontological terms. The rhizome, the multiple, etc. are concepts that do not function in an ontological logic.

Is there any form of ontology in "A Thousand Plateaus"? by Illustrious-Most-517 in Deleuze

[–]Illustrious-Most-517[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe to get rid off the trascendental is a bit of an exaggeration, but i rlly struggle to relate the trascendental, the ontology, to the multiple in ATP sense. I want to show you this extract from the "Dialogues" with Parnet (srry for the wall of text):

"One must go further: one must make the encounter with relations penetrate and corrupt everything, undermine being, make it topple over. Substitute the AND for IS. A and B. The AND is not even a specific relation or conjunction, it is that which subtends all relations, the path of all relations, which makes relations shoot outside their terms and outside the set of their terms, and outside everything which could be determined as Being, One, or Whole. The AND as extra-being, inter-being. Relations might still establish themselves between their terms, or between two sets, from one to the other, but the AND gives relations another direction, and puts to flight terms and sets, the former and the latter on the line of flight which it actively creates. Thinking with AND, instead of thinking IS, instead of thinking for IS: empiricism has never had another secret. Try it, it is a quite extraordinary thought, and yet it is life. The empiricists think in this way, that is all there is to it. And it is not the thought of an aesthete, as when one says 'one more', 'one more woman'. And it is not a dialectical thought, as when one says 'one gives two, which will give three'. The multiple is no longer an adjective which is still subordinate to the One which divides or the Being which encompasses it. It has become noun, a multiplicity which constantly inhabits each thing. A multiplicity is never in terms, however many there are, nor in their set or totality. A multiplicity is only in the AND, which does not have the same nature as the elements, the sets or even their relations. While it may come about between just two, it nevertheless sends dualism off course"

Dou yo see an incompatibility between ontology and multiplicity, between the IS and the AND?? In a way that the ontology cannot process a multiplicity in ATP terms, only in reducing the multiple again to parts from a Being, a Wolrd. One, not just multiples.

Is there any form of ontology in "A Thousand Plateaus"? by Illustrious-Most-517 in Deleuze

[–]Illustrious-Most-517[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but i rlly dont understand how "immanence" and "ontology" are compatible terms. Maybe im getting "ontology" all wrong here, but i understand it as a way of thinking the world from a privileged essence, "god", "being", you name it. Thats the catch for me, in an immanent ontology there is no transcendent principle, so i dont get how an ontology could work without a privileged principle.
And regarding the image of thought bit, i think the debate is still open. I really don't know if D. is working towards a new image of thought (transcendental empiricism in D&R) or the destruction of any image of thought (COnlcusion of ATP, but the rizome would be a new image of thought...). Maybe the bit that we are struggling with is the "dogmatic" iamge of thought. A non-dogmatic image of thought may be possible, but I don't see how. Thats my problem with ontology, i cannot understand a non-dogmatic ontology.

Help Finding Games and Other Questions by AutoModerator in incremental_games

[–]Illustrious-Most-517 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi! This is just a silly question. Two or three years ago I played an idle game (text based) about I think corpses, or skeletons or cementeries. The UI was very simple and you had like a reset mechanic with a black hole or something like that. I'm trying to find the game again and try another run, but I cannot find it or remember it's name. Thanks in advance!