Some Wild Deleuzian Thoughts

Concepts need not lay claim to truth in the absolute/universal/comprehensive sense if they relate to the fictive element which remains in communication with them. To sever the bond connecting illusion and reality is one danger, another being that they do not differ at all, still another being that they relate in a specific way pushing the subject in one defined direction. To dance with the oppositions, play with the terms is to demonstrate the relation/link true & false have together without determining that relationship as subordinate (master/slave).

Without an authoritative role as above or ahead or encompassing the other, the concept and its opposition can be fazed out, left behind, or broken away from. Legitimacy is lost not when the master is attacked, but when one creates a new role outside of a (+ -). Such would be a refusal to take a position since the game is rigged from the start. Instead moving in between the opposites until a new path is found without a pole in plain sight. So a certain wavering and indecision accompanies a radically new approach, but this logic looks different every time it is acted on for difference (something outside of the available means to act) is the object sought: an object always existing elsewhere.
This is meant to be weird, obscure, and non-specifically helpful: to prescribe tangibly or theorize about action concretely/systematically would only reinforce the established norms by giving only one other option for action which can be prepared for and rejoined with. Every act is new in a sense, but to harp on an opposition for too long, to give only a concept and it’s negation will expand the whole without ever breaking it. Connections of another kind, outside of the whole yet without complete disregard for the ground upon which one was thrown bypasses a pure negation which only seeks to destroy that from which it came. Latching onto other systems and assemblages in a light and playful manner of incessant motion increases the chance of being caught in the gravitational pull of the center. Playing the game to have a good match vs. dominate the game and set up a dynasty: the underdog, the rouge, the joker.

Not ’one and it’s negation’ but ’one and the multiple’. To leave the next step, the future open to multiple outcomes instead of its perpetuation or its opposite (it’s annihilation) is to do something new (a universal new that repeats only by being different). The fiction in truth (you never get their but learn anyways), the truth of fiction (message to interpret). The only novel way to deal/relate to these binaries is with wavering until something “else” appears; then go for it.

Emphasizing plurality refuses to bring a belief or an opinion back to center. We need less circles, for the center remains strong as it applies the techniques for reordering trajectories into concentric circles. To demonstrate circularity is to damage an argument (it has no “base” or ground to stand on), but that’s not all: a circle does have a center (imagined or whatever) and so a kind of order in constant motion, albeit a predictable and infinite motion.

To refuse speaking and articulating under a topic or category where the options are easily foreseen, where the motion that compels – the will of desire (without an object attracting it) – is to refuse the current (current as present and as electric flow). There is always motion, synergy, growth, and energetic trajectories; the movement of negation and dissent is allowable yet not unsettling so long as the movement flows according to the logic of the negative against a positive it never can rid itself of. A single, linear movement can be made of this. The two, though opposed and irreconcilable, form a wave relationship that become predictable, calculable, etc. upon shifting the perspective from the actor within the debate to the spectator of the debate. Not that such a position can remain self-satisfied if the shift is possible at all.

To prevent the destructive force of the negative now conceived as rage against “the system” (as the bearer of a forced choice between the positive and the negative, channeling either choice in a controllable direction) a connection must be made with an outside. Another open-minded actor to form a bond that resembles a tentative alliance. Should the bond become too tight and predictable whereby the differences which brought it together crack it open and set the actors against the other, then the bond has become dense or heavy and forms its own system.

A certain urgency compels the bond to remain and the differences required for the bond to come together (rather than being reunited) comes from the mutual rejection of a centered gravitational attractor. This tangled web grows tighter and tighter to the extent that is required to keep a distance from the dense object organizing everything else around it. The bonds may fail, but the center will explode. The bonds may crystalize, but another relation will slip through. Repeat.


Author: billrosethorn

(Geo)Philosopher, Occupier (until there is a better idea).

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s