Of the multiple.

The reason why authors are heard to say that the issue is “of the two”, is because once the issue becomes “of the three” we must then consider what this third might be or in what place this third must reside. Of the two we do not need nor do we have an ability to consider where either must reside because it occurs already. Once the issue becomes the place that the one or the two occurs (identity) then we have ultimately made the issue “of the three”, because then we have begun to decide and choose where we are to place these conceptual identities.

This is the reason why Deleuze is so prominent nowadays: because reality, what is common of humanity is what is real. And by this simple statement most people who consider themselves thinkers will have to ask into these categories that I have just set out there so plainly. They would have to ask what do you mean by “real”, or what do you mean by “humanity” or any of the various terms that I set out in that very plain statement they would ask into because they’re coming upon those through “the three”, which is to say of the multiple, the impossible situation of reality.

Everyone is so overly and insistently concerned about reality, or more properly, what reality is. The aggregate of people base themselves by discerning what is true with what is real as a common category, A common basic foundation. And when we begin to understand how not only this situation becomes defined but how it is already undefined, we have this situation of the two and we have the situation of what Delueze call’s “the schizophrenic”.

The schizophrenic is a being that must partition off identities. And yet it is by this real imperative that the “instigator” or perhaps “catalyst”, or maybe even “impetus”, or any sort of non-that we Might want to or feel obligated in attaching to those terms due to this real imperative of definition – it is by the insistence for the concern of real things and the question of what is reality that we find the first category set aside, that is the issue of the two, in the “body without organs”.

The body without organs relied upon is what allows for the concern with real identity; it allows for a certain organization of real categories that we generally call metaphysics. This is why D called himself a metaphysician.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s