/lit/ - Literature

>>13002141
of course, at this point i rapidly begin embarrassing myself...so might as well begin revealing myself to be a massive pseud sooner rather than later. obviously to describe the Deleuzian universe as a 'void' is misleading, it's anything but. it's the Mechanosphere, it's intensely active and positive, and this is the way in which he undercuts the foundations on which Lacan makes his arguments (and in which to call the Lack a void is also to misrepresent him). yes, philosophy really is fun. so many ways to show the fathomless depths of one's own ignorance.

but i felt i should probably add this too, and it has to do with my own mutable feelings about the nature of the affirmative, and probably the haphazard way in which i have made my own way through these texts. a relentless affirmation or positivity can kind of drive you mental, or at least that has been the case for me. that capital as machines can represent a kind of crystallized desire or manifestation of some drive in the world, and that that in turn serves this anti-entropic function is a powerful and convincing argument. Land kind of demolished my own cozy Heideggerian feels about Dasein, Being and authenticity, and also a lot of the joyous affirmation that comes with Deleuze also. but he also revealed the profundity of Deleuze's thought: after all, God is in the tapeworms and the fungal blooms also. and all of this stuff is laughing and loving life also, which causes the ultra-hygienic cops and clerics in our heads to squirm uncomfortably and react in all kinds of horrible ways...but that is probably how it is. Badiou has found some ways of trying to persuade himself that there is a built-in relation between communism and set theory, and if i understood his math at all i might be inclined to agree. but i am a complete brainlet when it comes to math, and so i do not.

all i can seem to do is just ask myself if the requisite paranoia, dread and anguish that i feel is actually something i really understand, and if i do understand it if it is actually indicates something i want more of or not. there's no doubt that capital pays me no need either way, and that's fine, this is part of what i like about Land's philosophy: it works regardless of my attitude towards it. all of this. but not only does it have a tendency to make me profoundly miserable and crusty where i might be...well, something else, i also have to wonder if said miserableness is even conducive to intelligenesis in any form, as it may not be. not that it really matters all that much, i'm comfortable in my total insignificance v/all of this. but it also requires me to dedicate more time to thinking about car crashes on Twitter than are probably helpful.

and because dialectics are annoying, and language in continental philosophy is everything. most of the time i suspect we are very much like pic related, playing a kind of Binocular Soccer. and with the audience also wearing the binoculars, and the referees also.