(continued)
42
42 is a reference to the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy where someone built a machine to compute the answer to "The question". The answer was 42. After this they had to build a bigger machine to compute the answer to another question: 'What's "The question"?'
By saying that my answer used to be 42, I was just saying I used to think that "The question" was non-sense and "The answer" absolutely irrelevant.
By using "used to be" I was assuming I was back into believing that the question was valid. But the big new book is under intense study. It's Gilles Deleuze and his Thousand Plateaus. He is convincing me that the question is indeed irrelevant. Is he? Or is he just reformulating the question? I still don't know...
Recipe
For now, I'll post a recipe that you can use.
- 0.1 Non-applicability
I'll ask you to detach from your reality, to get absolutely crazy (in a psychiatric way). So, you'll most probably not want to follow me, but rather watch me on this freak show.
- 0.2 Courage
"You need guts" said Nietzsche.
What I say, and this is where I think Espinosa fails round, is that, there are no inner born forces whatsoever. We are all about reaction. You are a sum of reactions, nothing else. Espinosa defines happiness as the control of exterior forces (affections) and the nurturing of inner forces (where freewill can be born). I see him annhilating himself. I guess this is simple Nietzsche: Espinosa is a nihilist.
What I do not agree with Nietzsche is about his pseudo power.
But let me keep it simple, I think you don't "need" any guts. You are a reaction, and as such, either you are a reaction that does it, or not. Don't try to change yourself (regarding this "will"/detachment subject).
I never knew why I always had these guts, this tendency for detachment. But, generally, I see it as a problem more than a virtue (I'm not agreeing with Aristotle, and all that "virtue is in the middle" stuff).
- 0.3 - Control Warning
The game will always be around control. Generally, I'll tell you to be in control or to let it go.
The most important rule is: however many times I tell you (I'm talking to myself here) to lose control NEVER leave your safety rope back! This is a very important warning, otherwise you'll lose the game (this is Deleuze talking).
- 1.1 Destroy your references
Be multiple! Play with yourself, do not be yourself, go around, change, come back. Kill yourself! Love! Insult! insult what you love. Love what you insult. Destroy your references. Lose control.
Do you truly believe your references are bullshit? That's not enough!
Do you truly believe All references are bullshit? That's not enough.
You will only be ready when you understand that everything everywhere in and out of you can be _TRUE_NON-SENSE_ (you should end up thinking about word meaning, and if you think with words, and words have no meaning, oh baby, get ready).
Then, start believing everything again. And repeat. And repeat. Until you master the process (Deleuze talks about desubjectivation and designification).
- 1.2 Body
You are an organic machine. Lose control. Jump. Fall. Overstretch. Do it as in 1.1.
- 1.3 Emotion
You are an emotion machine. Lose control. Love. Hate. Overlove. Overhate. Do it as in 1.1.
- 2.0 Other Axis
References/Body/Emotions are only some of the possible axis you can play around!
You should lose control about anything inside and around you.
But define axis. As I understood (most probably wrong), Deleuze calls these: plans of consistency.
Try understanding where are you... and memorize the spots or stages!
- Setups
I'll call these memorized spots "Setups". Points in your plan of consistency. As if you were drawing yourself a roadmap. Your roadmap.
- Time Evolution
After building your roadmap, I would have only one question for you: what are you up to today? Find new stops on the map? Go back to old routes?
Do as you will and enjoy the trip.
(to be continued)
On the next post of this series I will try to explain and make what I just wrote a bit more real. The following posts will be of one of these types:
- Practical consequences of all this (Sartre wrote novels to do this)
- Connections between what I wrote and the names I mentioned on the first post
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Luis,
Great post. Lots of subject for discussion. There are many things I agree but I could never have put it in the way you did. Some questions though:
I don't know if I agree with your statement that we are a sum of reactions. Do you mean by this that we have no values "a priori", no innate forces ?
Isn't that itself a nihilist approach ? because that would mean there are no absolute references rather than the ones established by your reaction to the system of values imposed to you.
What about what Jung called the collective unconscious (a more pragmatic interpretation of Plato's archetypes) ? I find that idea very attractive because it merges well with the concept of genetic heritage: the innate values are a biological heritage printed within the evolution of the human race. It implies that concepts exist a priori, and they are just waiting to be activated. Might well be that they never do.
Maybe I misunderstood the whole thing though.
Otherwise, fully agree with guts and getting crazy with a safety rope: Nietzsche knew it because I think he forgot the rope a couple of times :-)
But the real thing is 1.1. You got it there and I guess that answers the comments I had sent you.
I was suggesting: come to terms with yourself and you say rather: do not be yourself ! which is a way of overcoming your limitations.
That and the roadmap: very good. Is that Deleuze as well ? I would be interested in knowing.
Waiting for the next post.
cheers,
O Coxo
On innate forces I would just say to simplify: innate forces are... nothing special.
About Jung and Plato, I would say I totally dislike their ideas on this subject.
To summarize: ideas are not innate. Brains have working rules but there's nothing on those rules that makes something of you. There is no innate "essence".
I see Jung's collective unconscious as a linguistic entity (i.e. learned by language).
Anyway, I think this subject is not so important for my Ethical question. I mentioned it just to underline "the reaction": don't kill your reaction cause you ARE the reaction.
>> Isn't that itself a nihilist approach ? because that would mean there are no absolute references rather than the ones established by your reaction to the system of values imposed to you.
You got it. There are no absolute references, except the ones established by "your reaction".
But this is not nihilism! I see Nihilism as an Ethical position, no meaning, no sense, and thus, no morals (this is ethics).
I'm not talking about ethics, I'm talking about epistemology here, I'm talking about knowledge. There are no absolute references, means that there is no absolute knowledge or truth.
But meaning is everywhere! As we are "meaning machines", you can build yourself over non absolute references. Through most of my road map (where non-absolute references rule), I'm not a nihilist.
Summarized: the nonexistence of absolute knowledge does not take us to the nonexistence of meanings nor to the nonexistence of sense (sentido).
>>> But the real thing is 1.1.
I would extend this to point 1.2 and 1.3. For me, personally, point 1.3 is THE point (refers to emotional dimensions as 1.1 refers to intellectual dimensions).
Most of my post is copied from Deleuze :-)
Thanks for the comment!
Luís
Post a Comment