Temporary but Unrepentant Umbilical to Furthur Thought-Insanity, Part VII
The last thing I want to do is assassinate Orla’s larvae:
Admittedly my initial reaction (my approach to the larvae)is critical. It’s as if I want to inspect the foundation before I begin to build a house on it; I want to make sure the house won’t topple after I have invested time and energy building it.
However, larvae are not foundations.
The consideration of time and energy being wasted, of an “investment” being wasted, doesn’t need to arise. The time and energy devoted to taking larvae through their metamorphoses can’t be wasted because expending time and energy in larval metamorphosis is its own reward, as living life is its own reward (should be?)
Note: the larvae and the “time and energy and investment” of “building” larvae is not exterior to me (or to Orla-Yusef-Carlos-Christoffer, if this were a collaborative “building.”) The metaphors of “foundation” “time and energy” (as used in paragraph four, above) “build” and “invest” reinforce an idea of exteriority which subtly shifts the use of the larvae away from how a larvae can be used. (I have problems with the metaphor “use”, too, as this also implies an exteriority—it as if the larvae were or could be a tool which I buy at Home Depot to use on a DIY project…as if the larvae were pre-existing manufactured fixed object for something else which is also conceived as pre-existing manufactured, fixed and objective….Reality.) Exteriority as attached to the concept of larvae assassinates the larvae...Building the larval object builds the subject…Metamorphosis of the larvae is metamorphosis of subject-object. Be larval.
PLATO: The master of dualisms. The first computer programmer of binary thinking. 0-1. Why is he still relevant? He has never been more so. As the king to revolt against.I want to go along with Orla's larvae. I want to use them as I believe Orla intended them to be used. (See part VI for my interpretation of what this use is.)
Admittedly my initial reaction (my approach to the larvae)is critical. It’s as if I want to inspect the foundation before I begin to build a house on it; I want to make sure the house won’t topple after I have invested time and energy building it.
However, larvae are not foundations.
The consideration of time and energy being wasted, of an “investment” being wasted, doesn’t need to arise. The time and energy devoted to taking larvae through their metamorphoses can’t be wasted because expending time and energy in larval metamorphosis is its own reward, as living life is its own reward (should be?)
Note: the larvae and the “time and energy and investment” of “building” larvae is not exterior to me (or to Orla-Yusef-Carlos-Christoffer, if this were a collaborative “building.”) The metaphors of “foundation” “time and energy” (as used in paragraph four, above) “build” and “invest” reinforce an idea of exteriority which subtly shifts the use of the larvae away from how a larvae can be used. (I have problems with the metaphor “use”, too, as this also implies an exteriority—it as if the larvae were or could be a tool which I buy at Home Depot to use on a DIY project…as if the larvae were pre-existing manufactured fixed object for something else which is also conceived as pre-existing manufactured, fixed and objective….Reality.) Exteriority as attached to the concept of larvae assassinates the larvae...Building the larval object builds the subject…Metamorphosis of the larvae is metamorphosis of subject-object. Be larval.
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 1:34 PM
2 Comments:
My initital reaction (approach) to this metaphor, Deleuzianly termed "larvae" here, is how poor it is.
A poor metaphor should not be excused as poor on basis that "we get the point anyway". If it is poor, the argument it supposedly supports might very well be poor!
So what is poor about it .. Computer programmers dont think in binary, nor do they program in binary. They use high level languages, that are abstract from binary code. Binary is not a way of thinking, it is a way of counting. Secondly, at Platos time there were no computers to program, so suggesting that Plato was "the first computer programmer" doesnt work factually either.
To build a house, a stronger foundation is needed.
To build a house, a stronger foundation is needed.
I wasn't excusing Orla on the basis "we get the point."
Assume Orla is working from a different concept of philosophy, a non-foundationalist conception.
I refer to this different concept by calling it "larval." ( You are correct--that's a deleuzian conception.)
If we place Orla's PLATO back within the traditional foundationalist conception, it is indeed subject to all sorts of harsh (foundationalist) criticism.
If we take it as larval--well, we have to see what happens.
--Yusef
Thanks for the comment, BTW.
Post a Comment
<< Home