-2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZjMKGTYfK4

I don't get this guy, from where does he justify his point? Can anyone give facts about this, principally I would be interested in some facts here, as they are soaringly lacking, and this accounts for the shabby nature of my understanding about this important matter.

Why is a capacity or potency essentially separate from its properties or substantive characteristics? Facts here please! Please answer this question factually and we must , factually, move from every part of the factuality found proximaly and for the most part by the horizon form which we will (in fact) take our approaches (and sorties) to all and every peak of a possible factual answer, and not so stray into existential facticity.

He claims, apparently with the facts in steady gaze, and in mind, nothing changes in the knife, wrong, this I claim is a fact, i.e, his wrongness,(that might be looked upon as a value, but I hold the fact value distinction is primordially fixed in a kind of wonderful factual ground, so, principally it is not a value judgment, but a fact), our evaluation of the knife (factually) and its possibilities changed, now we speak of new properties (now facts about the knife), after all, we are the ones who invented the demarcation (I mean, of course, that we factually, as a fact, invented it), 'property' in the first damn place.

Anyways, if anyone can understand my crude objection (in fact, it is rather crude), which is totally complete and feels repulsed (factually repulsed!) by 'great thinkers' like de Landa, who are really good talkers (factually this is demonstrable, and we know this is a fact by the fact of his many acolytes and listeners globe-wide and everywhere on the net, and that's no barzelletta)..., if anyone can explain this (useing facts and an objective method if you please) I will be shocked (actually and factually shocked!). But I mean what is the strength of such claims (of course, here, I am referring to the factual strength, and no other), where do they get any power to convince in the world, seems empty in the extreme, astoundingly and unbelievably. But does she (here I take the liberty of noticing, that factually, gender markers are faulty and so have no potency and so I conclude that they are factually impotent and so interchangeable without doing violence to the facts of a pronoun based sign that refers with undiminished strength, in this case to de Landa) mean thinking about it like this is supposed to be more useful for us, if false (factually)?

closed as not a real question by Joseph Weissman Nov 8 '12 at 2:17

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Just in passing (for future reference) -- it's definitely better to repair/revise the original question rather than post another on the same topic/concern. – Joseph Weissman Oct 9 '12 at 0:07
  • I'm putting new answers on hold for the time being to give you some room to maybe specify this a bit more. Keep in mind we have a shared ethos with Wikipedia and so we need to try to frame things from a neutral point of view. Closing pending some cleanup (and ideally a somewhat more neutral presentation of the concern.) – Joseph Weissman Nov 8 '12 at 2:20
1

If I had to say it was anything i'd comment that your difficulty is really an extension of you thinking that Deleuze's thought somehow has to be accountable to a positivistic conception of facts and states of affairs. I think Delanda presents a fairly orthodox interpretation of Deleuze. Graham Harman describes this perspective well by noting Deleuze's formulation of truth or fact goes by way of

his critique of the false alternative between formless chaos and supreme individuation, the distinction between singularities and individuals, the role of irreducible inequalities in the actualization of beings, the idea of the individual as a product or result, resonance between divergent series, and so on.

this is fairly uncontroversial interpretation of Deleuze, and is close to Delanda's, and does amount to a departure from a mode of thinking which has Aristotle at its beginning.

I'm not sure how one could explain this

(useing facts and an objective method

also in saying

I hold the fact value distinction is primordially fixed in a kind of wonderful factual ground

what do you mean? Like Platonism?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.