luka
Well-known member
its ok dont worry he understands its not meant to be taken literally. you dont need to worry so much about this sort of thing. it operates on different levels.what the hell your problem
its ok dont worry he understands its not meant to be taken literally. you dont need to worry so much about this sort of thing. it operates on different levels.what the hell your problem
this is what deleuze says philosophy is About in his abecedaire.Although I’m less about proper exegesis, and more about sifting and analyzing in the interest of finding concepts that work for you.
I still love much of this stuff as pure philosophy, but I would prefer to find applications.
cautiously sympathetic to this idea but still think you coming into the thread and doing this is a bad iteration of a certain Dissensus Dynamicwhat do you think you are thinking about version? i mean, what is the fundamental problem you are absorbed in? there is nothing to think about. there are opactities but you wont make them transparent by 'thinking' whatever it is you think thinking is.
this is the fundamental engine of midrash - base verse and intertext, often pulled from opposite ends of the biblical canon and/or on the surface dealing with very distant if not opposing topics or seeming to take opposing Stances on a question (ie, a verse of comfort and a verse of chastisement; a verse here from Genesis with a verse there from Ruth to explain a verse from Isaiah).In more of a pure philosophy way, I do like the idea of colliding different sectors of logos that rarely see cross-pollination with each other, to see what may arise
! this is also something that recurs in deleuze, ironically. he's very concerned with pushing at the limits of thoughtreach back and work out what i have thought at the limits of my understanding, that attempt to reconstruct what you worked out when you worked something out
well this is what i would say, work to the limits of your thought, and try to push at those limits, but recognise where they currently are and be honest about it and dont bullshit. and admit to the frustrations of it, and the defeats and etc! this is also something that recurs in deleuze, ironically. he's very concerned with pushing at the limits of thought
not solely for my entertainment. its a good idea because theres useful tensions and divergences to draw outit's really good to see clinamenic post shit that i can understand and resonate with. boy i sure hope luka doesn't try to artificially play us off against each other for his own entertainment
i do understand and appreciate this but on the other hand it makes me laugh and its a really hard habit to breakliterally it made me so uncomfortable to be like "why don't you be the instrument of the judgement of God against clinamenic's secular laissez faire outlook" or whatever it was. like it made it harder to just Talk to the guy without being like "i have to be stand off-ish so that luka plays with me." tensions like that get drawn out in conversation over time. you're not vince mcmahon
God is good but it is the vintner who must be comforted when his vineyard is burnedstan needs to reincorporate critque into his framework that is to say the idea that god might not be good