I was just readingthis post over at The territory realize Seshan unit (lol Voice dictation) about D and G and other commentators.
And just goes to show that there’s really nothing new being said, that what is new is really based in a denial of that it’s already being said. At that a rhetoric of a certain type of faith that I talk about in my works.
Because I have not read that much of D and G, but I’ve read enough to know that they are just saying what is Obvious, that is, once the point of contention and issue at hand is understood. If you do not understand the point of contention and the matter at hand then you are really thinking that you’re finding out something by reading D and G and making further commentary upon it; in essence you are taking part in the faithful appropriation of capitalism at its various ideological components.
The example and the proof that are use is that what they’re saying so far is what capitalism does is no different then what I describe as a conventional usurpation of meaning; as I say convention usurps all meaning unto itself. It there deTerritorializes what one could call a certain innate territory, what for other terms we might call an object in itself. For the Mark that has been made in the late 20th century is really an ending such that D and G the meaning of their work will play out upon itself, insomuch they’re really saying nothing and indicating nothing at all. At some point I will put out an analysis of the NG that shows how they are really talking about nothing indicating nothing and arriving there discourse from a nothingness that is really the object in itself, which is to say for the conventional reality, a nil subject, a place a void. So we find a condition of discourse for anytime can only yield certain meanings for reality, and we that’s can talk about orientations upon objects such as I discuss.
But it is indeed the mark of nothing and the effort to derive truthful reality out of D and G discourse through analysis of it that shows orientation; it is a mark upon which we can designate that indeed conventional reality usurps all meaning unto itself. In fact what is been Deterritorialuzed, thus, finally is D and G’s ideas in themselves; We are completing their work in so much as what they have described, which really indicates nothing, is it self being deconstructed and removed from its territory that is supposed by the people who would analyze it into a current truth real state.
But keep in mind this is not to say that such real analysis is wrong or incorrect; it is a mistake in analysis only in as much as we can make a distinction between orientations upon objects. But we will also find thus two types of analyses, end it is the effort that continues of the same as difference which will be found to clarify what is otherwise a conflation of disparate discourses, One that is real and one that is not real.
The clarification that will occur between these to cook discourses those marks religion to his esotericism and intrinsic two extrinsic mythology.
Likewise and further, The point I’m making is that D and G are no prophets, that they possessed no special intelligence or special ability to have an in-depth analysis towards the future. It is not a conventional intelligence that they are exhibiting. Rather that they understand the point of contention and so use that particular perspective in order to say things about the condition around them. So what is that one cannot understand the point of contention and then look to past arguments by which to make future arguments as if there is some running scheme of intelligent people making these proposals and coming to these conclusions through in-depth study of people’s words. Indeed that is a real method. But the point I’m making here is that a concerns ones orientation upon objects in that one cannot learn through the banking theory of education how to change one’s orientation upon objects. One merely becomes aware of the situation, and is there by able to describe situations instead of proposing arguments. Which is to say they propose description under the guise of real argument, and at this method has been the Segway of enlightenment thinking. Yet because of D and G and other post modern thinkers, we can now describe the situation where is this type of enlightenment thinking can be seen in such a way to itself be described. This is the project that François Lorelle non-philosophy is calling science, but is likewise the same condition by which I propose a science is able to arise.