Terence Blake at his AGENT SWARM has posted a discussion we had last Saturday in Facebook –with the special apparition of John Mullarkey–, that was launched by a critique I made regarding non-philosophy as a fad of false radicality –i.e, the same old critique I wielded last year in another discussion I had with John [here]–. I do not want to write and repeat again all what I have said about the question, because I do have made myself clear with respect to my position and objections, and I am happy to see that this is also reflected in Terence’s response to John, which not only considered my arguments but also introduced the important theme of experiencing/experimenting with intensities as a philosophical condition to think life and its immanence. In his response, Terence asked John two very interesting and extremely well posed questions as to invite him to go further with the discussion in a more Deleuzian even schizoanalytical fashion:
“(1) when an academic philosopher thinks he is making the leap into immanence (remembering Deleuze’s expression of “making the movement” or staying in reflection) is he deluding himself or is this, as both Deleuze and Guattari suggest, a real possibility. Is being critical and temporalising and democratic enough to make the leap? (2) when a non-academic thinker thinks he has made the leap, is he being over-confident in his intensities, or is he expressing and incarnating an important part of the immanental process?” Continue reading
The revolution of thought can only happen from the small revolutions or changes that occur both at the level of the symbolic structures that feed the representation of the world, and at the level of the ethical experience of those who signify and are signified by such structures. It is then the philosopher who is forced to break with the epistemological subject that history has granted him by default and that is meant by these structures, in order to construct an ethical subject that would be no less epistemological regards to life and the experience of living it. While experimentation is a line that escapes from all what these structures signify, and while it involves a sort of change or transformation, this change or transformation cannot happen without the affirmativity of an event that allows the philosopher to effectuate a rupture within his existence so to reveal himself before the gravity of history. Philosophy is an event susceptible to happen in the life of the philosopher despite of his existence: it is something that materially happens in life, something unobjectable that impacts and threatens it in order to break with all its transcendencies and to connect the experience of living it, the experience of life, with its immanence: the immanence of life. Continue reading
There should be no doubts that Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalytical project offers a very appropriate terminology and a whole thoughtful conceptual apparatus to understand the pathological implications of any possible ‘planetary thought’. It would not be excessive to say that the object of the whole schizoanalytical project is to introduce life itself as an event that develops this kind of thought, though, in the heart of Deleuze’s philosophy such a vital task can only be grasped ―philosophically and epistemologically― through a very concrete empirical experience mediated by a sort of nihilism that would produce its own manifested event, meaning an epistemological rupture of the self and implying the death of the ego as an effectuated fact of life. With the ‘planetary thought’, what is conceptually uprising is not ‘earth’ but life itself, life ‘in person’, or more concretely: life and its plane of immanence. It’s because life means the plane of immanence that this break is inevitable, and it’s certainly the ‘flow’ of a non-organized life what means this event as involving ‘planetary thought’ in experience. Thus, while the epistemological break is always a break-through the plane, experiencing ‘planetary thought’ means that this plane has irrupted existence, fulminating its intensive relations.
‘If nothing truly exists except for the Absolute, the Absolute is nothing; if nothing truly exists but myself, I am nothing.’