Posts on Twitter:

Learning to recognize the not only as fixed and , but to get aware of the growing flexible and share, means and , however not black and white or just with the brain.







Here is an idea that just might save the world: science, properly understood, provides us with the methodological key to the salvation of humanity. More in Karl Popper, Science & Enlightenment:
















All kinds of books are available. DM or WhatsApp for book orders and inquiries. RT could help me reach out to readers! Please help me expand WhatsApp: 0311-0570519 and much more books for you.










All kinds of books are available. DM or WhatsApp for book orders and inquiries. RT could help me reach out to readers! Please help me expand WhatsApp: 0311-0570519 and much more.













The fish may dreaming to be a bird , but how could this dream ever come true? - Just give the fish wings










« L'amour fait plus de victimes, que n'importe quel autre crime » { Alami Loine } - Écrivain









Posts on Tumblr:

« Pourquoi se soucier de la goutte, quand on peut avoir l’océan ? »
—  Jean-Claude Carrière, La Conférence des oiseaux
instagram

“wheresoever you find yourself, there you are.”

• A concept I am thinking about a lot lately is the power of living in the present. Thich Nhat Hanh is the one who really influenced my thinking on this topic.

• Everything happens in the present moment. The “past” was once the “present”. The “future” will someday be the “present”. So then, living in the present allows you to reconcile the past and create the future.

• The past is dead. What happened, happened. How you feel about it is irrelevant. The past is dead.
• The future is not born yet. What happens, will happen. Your worries are baseless. The future will never arrive.

• The present moment is everything. It is healing. It is happiness. It is forgiveness. It is freedom. It is spontaneous. It is alive. We who are also alive, must live in the present moment. In this moment, you create your reality 🌈💻✌🏽😌✨🌏
-
-
#thichnhathanh #monk #buddhism #religion #philosophy #Japan #art #love #positivity #anime
https://www.instagram.com/p/B0IoavHl84M/?igshid=1n9pktg1h6pmk

Made with Instagram
youtube

We may not fit right there, but it doesn’t mean we aren’t able to fit elsewhere ♥️

#thoughtsofsteel

if u wondering what kinda person i am 

i twisted my ankle three days ago being clumsy because i was nervous af because i was going to this new hairdresser for the first time and then i insisted it was fine even tho i felt like my foot had been ripped from my leg and then the next two days i spent rolling around ridiculously heavy loaded wheelbarrows around my garden because reasons and long story short now my foot is in a plaster cast and i’m reading Kant’s Kritik Der Urteilskraft

[The fable is what is related, fiction the narrative system - cont’d]


[2. “Fiction” is the various systems according to which a fable is “narrated” - cont’d]


c. [E.g.] a discourse [of] events [either]
- [the repeating of them] after the fact
- dubbing them as they unfold


And so on.

—  Michel Foucault, Behind The Fable (L'Arc 29 [May 1966], pp. 5-12). Robert Hurley’s translation.

The Staniforth Philosophy

If you are a soldier, you are either:

(1) at home or (2) at the Front.

If (1), you needn’t worry.

If (2), you are either (1) out of the danger zone or (2) in it.

If (1), you needn’t worry.

If (2), you are either (1) not hit, or (2) hit.

If (1), you needn’t worry.

If (2) you are either (1) trivial or (2) dangerous.

If (1), you needn’t worry.

If (2), you either (1) live or (2) die.

If you live, you needn’t worry: and – If you die, YOU CAN’T WORRY!!

So why worry?

capitalists are deleuze-rs

Honestly, I don’t even know why I’m bothering to write this, especially since the very point of Deleuze and Guattari’s work is to be not understood. This is an exercise in futility but whatever LOL.

SO. Hi. Deleuze and Guattari were a couple of neo-Marxists who agreed with Marx and Engels only in the part that capitalism was fucked up. They critiqued Marx because orthodox Marxism said that there had to be a discernible hierarchy during the revolution. However, they believed that’s bad because, in their opinion, such a fixed structure would be easily co-opted by the state; the revolutionaries would de-leuze to capitalism.

They used a couple of metaphors to describe the ideal structure of a revolution (which is a revolution without a structure). In my opinion, the easiest one to understand is the tree-crabgrass metaphor. 

If you have a tree (which is what represents the Orthodox Marxist revolution) that is vertically structured, it is very easy to kill it by uprooting it. Moreover, since it is so rooted in the ground, it is unable to move, so the state can easily target it. 

On the other hand, crabgrass is a rhizome, which basically means that even if you destroy a part of it, you won’t kill it. It expands horizontally, without much vertical structure, so it can spread anywhere. To get rid of it, you have to destroy all of it. That is what they want the ideal revolution to be like. 

Deleuze and Guattari say that this can be achieved by becoming part of an assemblage. They believe that bodies, objects, and ideas come into being only when in relation to others. We are affected by and affect others, and these relationships are called assemblages. “Affect” is a special term because it describes the capacity to affect others or to be affected. 

Sometimes, those effects territorialize/striate what bodies desire and can do. Territorializing/striating is how people try to “staticize” something/make something rigid. For example, in people’s attempts to understand everything, they will strictly define an identity in one way, like they try to define sexuality as homosexual/heterosexual. This is bad, though, since there is a whole range of sexualities, and by staticizing the definition as homosexual/heterosexual and bisexual (defined as the lack of either category), it becomes that much harder for people to be more fluid and find what they truly identify as. 

Another example would be the categories like race, gender, or sexuality, that lead to being oppressed by others. These strictly defined identities prevent us from easily making connections with each other. It’s the ultimate striation. 

Depending on what is in an assemblage, though, in an ideal world, we would be able to change our identity. Take, for example, a bicycle. Usually, it is defined as a mode of transportation. However, if you give it to an artist, they would make the bicycle into art. If you throw it out, the bicycle becomes trash. So, the bicycle would change based on the assemblages they are in. 

Deleuze and Guattari think that everybody should try to find ways to create different multiplicities (which are the different potential ways for us to create relations with each other). However, because the institutions and the capitalist structure define identity in a static way, it limits the way people are able to interact with the world. 

Thus, people have to be revolutionaries through assemblages. They have to resist the system in assemblages that are spontaneously made. For example, if you try to tell people about a funny situation that you saw, and they don’t find it as funny as you did, you would say, “You had to be there.” The revolutionary assemblages would also be instantly made. That means that it is harder for the state to commodify or co-opt it since you have to experience it to be part of it. 

In a world without capitalism or huge institutions, people would constantly strive to deterritorialize every place they find themselves in. Rather than a strong government, Deleuze and Guattari prefer a more communal based one, where it is more flexible. Even so, there would never be an “endpoint” where everything would be deterritorialized since that in and of itself is a striation. Instead, it is the journey that matters more.

Sorry for 1) this blurb not making a lot of sense and 2) for the late post. I’m on vacation right now and I haven’t quite adjusted to the time zone. I meant to post this yesterday, but I had no internet and I just crashed. 

As always, thanks for reading!

“A God who is ‘beyond good and evil,’ can be “no fitting object of worship to men who wish to become good, just, merciful. If the cosmic process be indifferent to these ethical considerations, we had better (with honest Agnostics like Professor Huxley) make up our minds to defy it, whether it call itself God or not.”
—  Philosophy and religion- Hastings Rashdall