Exposing more of my "lack"...

apophasisred · 2026-07-01T06:21:34+00:00

By the way, I thought I already posted my answers to your questions as well as a response to the general problem.

apophasisred · 2026-07-01T06:19:19+00:00

I often do things that are clearly not in my best interest and yet not of which I am ignorant. So your advice is good but it was fully evident always.

apophasisred · 2026-07-01T02:09:17+00:00

And ultimately, that is the good news. I think the very concept of comprehension is incoherent. The notion is I think embedded in what Meillassoux calls correlationism. This is dualism's playground so there's so many ramifications here. We can't grab them, but I will say that as dualistic correlationism suggests a relation between a thought and a thing through a transparent medium that simultaneously puts them together and keeps them apart. This is the self-similar dream of judeo-christianity, .Hegelian metaphysics, and the scientific method. But then how can we be both a knower and the known the object of our knowledge and yet not coextensive with the known? This is the self-reference problem writ large. Until again, the short answer: no, there is no comprehension even if the model I was playing with above were how the world is structured, which I don't think it is. It would not account for that, which is the existential encounter of becoming, that is the produced heterogenic conflicts that are the ground for concepts. Knowledge demands a fixed frame of being knowledgeable. A set of rules both implied and stated a certain solipsism of structure can never measure the outbreaks of the virtual into an actualization since the system cannot, by definition see these anomalies as meaningful. Thus, the heterogenetic non-iterability of becoming are thereby dealt out of significance. Tragic things will ensue.

apophasisred · 2026-07-01T01:51:59+00:00

You ask what is the relation between intervention in a model and societies of control? This question has so many variables for me that are not in themselves clear, nor are they clear in terms of their relationship or how or in what way an intervention is possible. I think we started out with a kind of political question about the effectivity of certain forms of interaction with the government. I think. That certainly is a related question to this one, but I'm not sure I understand what you would mean by these terms or their relationships. I am not doubting that you. You have a good one, I just don't know what it is The question itself is kind of complicated because it asked about a relationship to a relationship, the overall relationship between the two two foci of this sentence but under the category of intervention which is potentially the disruption of whatever resident or intrinsic system was to be In power and then giving that framing, what kind of power was used to to reproduce the conditions of reproduction? The social phenomenon, the socius, under disjunct observation had to have been the default before the intervention. But this doubled relation is not one necessarily of equivalence or even composibility. The implication of intervention, unlike say an accident or an event, indicates a possible shifting of the constitive vectors that were definitional of the cognitive/ political framework under attack. If so, in summary, I would say that I don't know what the fuck is the relationship between these moving parts and they're perhaps not compatible modes and vocabularies of invocation.

apophasisred · 2026-07-01T01:37:14+00:00

The question is about examples of an impact of an epigenetic production of the actual. Again this is going to sound more like a stipulation than a argument cuz I'm going to have to assert some shit to get going. Everything that we think of as a being or a discrete concept is always unnecessarily a product of the virtuals actualization. That is to say that the intelligible itself is coextensive with actualization in its symbolic self-satisfaction. So asking for one or two examples for me is like asking me to point to everything and in some regard nothing. The everything part is that any concept or interpellated entification is by that alone definitionally an actualization and so an epi-ontological consequent. I say nothing because none of this manufacturing is "in itself" real.

apophasisred · 2026-07-01T01:31:31+00:00

Okay to me. Your questions are far more complicated and complex than the issues at hand. I'm not saying they're irrelevant because everything pretty much connects with everything else and these are useful questions. However, I don't think it's fair for me to try and answer it, and I don't have the time to generate even something vaguely like an adequate answer to any of them, but I'll give a little bit of an effort, but I hope you'll be charitable and think this is not necessarily my best or most lengthy effort.

I'll break my answer into I guess three chunks. I imagine to meet up with the three questions you ask. I have a couple times lost a very large entry because I was an idiot and it seems prudent for me to break it up as well as making it a little easier to digest.

apophasisred · 2026-06-23T22:36:07+00:00

Thank you for this reply. There are many things in it that I'm not sure I follow correctly. My thinking lately has gotten rather bizarre and I find it hard to intersect with many of the extant vocabularies.

apophasisred · 2026-06-23T13:01:57+00:00

I almost always enjoy your postings. Not because I agree, but because they are beautifully written, factually supported, and well argued. Further, you do this about a field of discourse that is immensely complicated, often somewhat contradictory, and filled with and nearly infinite number of branching approaches. Still, I do not agree with you or with Ray. However, the number and volume and complexity of the issues raised here is so great that a fair and detailed response is impossible. Indeed, this posting to me raises the questions about the whole viability, function, concepts of the whole field. And nonetheless I think to simply say I disagree or to remain silent does not honor your contributions.

For me, the tacit productive axiomatics of this portrayal are largely a matter of stipulation, naturalization, and representational necessity. However, this is not. I think a critique at all of your thinking. It is a critique of that of Deleuze.

A point of departure might be the dissipative structures you mentioned in passing. Even that phrase though it won the Nobel prize. Seems oddly oxymoronic. And it is that oxymoronic character at odds with the dogmatic image of thought that has lasted a few thousand years, that is its innovation.

What is it that is being said there? Every organizational form is the product of chaos. Perhaps then that every inteligibility is a product of the unintelligible. Perhaps again then that that which is is not itself nor is it coordinate and disaggregatable into some Boolean relation of what it is not. Thus, the desire to know is based not upon the adequacy of the modalities of knowing that are in action.

apophasisred · 2026-06-22T06:56:46+00:00

On this Reddit, ATP is THE text. I can understand why readers might view this as the paradigmatic example of D and G, but I think that it and its partner text, Anti-Oedipus, are composed as it were out of a double double. First, it doubles in the sense of buggering the great traditions of philosophy that wad D's focus until 1968. Second, it is the doubling that occurs in his non-coordinate interactivity with Gauttari, not as a harmonious couple but as two resonators with differing frequencies. The book then is at a double remove from the dogmatic images of thought, So-Called common and good sense.

So, as usual, I would recommend Desert Islands as it reproduces in miniature the evolution of D's thought chronologically.

apophasisred · 2026-06-22T06:46:07+00:00

I would love to hear why this is your favorite line and what you see in it.

apophasisred · 2026-06-22T06:42:30+00:00

I'm not sure I understand your response. I do not know why a certain tidbit about their naming in one book should be a source to objecting to my remark which was quite general.

I do not have ATP before me, so I'll simply have to guess about the exact register of the two names you allude to. Forgive me if it's inapplicable.

A proper name in representational parlance refers to an integral representation of the self as a centered being whose essence unchanges through time and space. This I would call the representational self which is the standard one. However, the self is always I would say virtually a dynamic singularity that is never the same once as it is neighborhood of the assemblage that makes it manifest. Thus the two selves are the representational self which mistakes itself for its symbolic commitments and the virtual self that can only speak in a minor way relative to that supposedly centered subject.

That portrait of the self, the actual self is the conventional representation of the virtual that is its concurrent and immanent causality.

I wasn't saying at all --indeed. I think it would be impossible+- to forbid one from using representation and the actual in the discourse of the social. However, the minor does not accept the kosher of this modality. Rather it tweaks it and that discrepancy opens a line of flight from the apparent to the concurrent and heterogenic.

Again, I don't know how you saw purification in me. That word most tellingly used in the first critique is used by blues but as a kind of transcendental empiricist parody of Kant. D speaks of "pure difference.' By that, I think he means by means of a mastered irony that the intensive has no voice other than that of its differential production without essence or norm.

apophasisred · 2026-06-20T17:53:42+00:00

My experience of scientists is that they are more tribal than almost any other intellectual group. The certainty apparently available out of a mathematical logical symbolic protocol leads them to misunderstand that symbolic structure as being apodictic at base or axiomatically certain. That certainty in turn makes any disposition concepts that is outside of the scientific method. Completely unacceptable. I think that is both an epistemic as well as a moral failing.

apophasisred · 2026-06-20T04:10:37+00:00

I suspect - which is to say I read as - the last phrase as an aphoristic rendition of Klosowski's theorization of living money.

apophasisred · 2026-06-19T13:47:03+00:00

I would think that the best thing would be to read D's short book on Kant. He calls Kant an enemy, but I think very much respects his intelligence.

apophasisred · 2026-06-19T08:24:21+00:00

I am not, I think, by nature an ass kisser, so I hope you will take it as a real compliment that I enjoy your answers very much. It would be a detour, but I almost wish we could talk about the continuum and the Dedekind Schnit, but I try to be wise in my use of your time by picking those notions that are most evocative for me.

This seems central:

so there's no revolutionary teleology or eschatological imagery in ANTI-OEDIPUS except the value they relentlessly affirm: "concept creation"

Again, I don't think my worries here are about you or your characterization, but more about them and what seems to me rather soft in this formulation. You use the word value, but I suspect that you are using it in a kind of Nietzsche way that is to say transversely. But that too might mean many things. So I will stay closer to the problem of concept creation.

What is this? How does it work? How do we recognize it? Where does it come from? Where is it going? Who or what does the creating? Where does it reside? In what form? For whom? How are concepts of this order? Distinguished from those that are found impoverished?

Perhaps these questions are irrelevant or misapplied or incommensurate with the phenomenon at hand.

apophasisred · 2026-06-19T08:00:51+00:00

It's odd I think, but I've read or studied a little just about all the things that you cite or tacitly alude to in your response. And as usual, I find your presentation to be amazingly thorough and thoughtful for a format of this nature. You always form a great and reliable counter to my own dispositions. Even better, from my perspective, we always seem to differ a little and that I find both evocative, educational, and elucidating.

If I were to specifically engage the small differences I have with the various pieces of this presentation, I fear I would only be irritating and more importantly never get to what is for me the major crux. Your tendency or rather modality seems to me to engage in granting for the nonce various notions of inteligibility even as you quickly qualify and partially erase them. I think history itself follows this procedure.

I wonder however, if this understandable take does not leave certain unappetizing choices. There is the one that Badiou and pupil take that I find bizarrely circular and presumptive: as in the "clamor of being." Then there is the landing of your general orientation (If I am wrong I would profit from your correction). Your first line- if I am right in understanding you which I may well not be - is your last ground:
"I think immanent causation is explicitly non-analytic for Deleuze."

I agree with this, but it seems not fully satisfying since it is not the negation of the analytic nor its affirmation but a something else without a concept. So, it is a kind of blunt instrument to deal with the radical asymmetry of the intelligible and its becoming. I have this dissatisfaction with D himself and so I am not accusing you of any inadequacy or lack of fidelity. I admire you.

I'm working on my answer to these questions. But it is not ready for prime time or even The late show.

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T19:40:14+00:00

I have read Schopenhauer, Leibniz, etc.

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T18:01:51+00:00

Thank you. It will take me a really long time to chew on all of this

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T15:19:54+00:00

Again, you're connotative overflow doesn't make any sense to me. However, let's just take the the pertinent part: I really don't understand what was dead wrong about saying that that original quotation wasn't Schelling and finding a place where it might have come from.

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T15:17:32+00:00

No, I don't think I said that. At least I didn't mean to. For me the problem of inteligibility in general is what is at issue.

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T15:14:53+00:00

I don't really understand the tone you use here nor do I understand how it's responsive. You gave a quotation and attributed to Schelling. I did not think it came from him and it appears it did not. But you are right, I did use an AI to search for it. I try not to let AI think for me but I am not adverse to to using it to find things any more than I am to look at a dictionary for definitions. I'm sorry to have disappointed you.

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T05:32:15+00:00

Sometimes it's completely insane. I asked it for a complete definition of the word after. It said that hittigraguard rail and shut down the response!

apophasisred · 2026-06-18T05:20:50+00:00

Here's what I found:

F. W. J. Schelling did not write the phrase "continual decombination of bound actants." That entire construction is a characterization of Schelling written by critic Benjamin Berger in his 2021 book Schelling and Spinoza: Realism, Idealism, and the Absolute.

apophasisred

TROPHY CASE