The reason for the philosophical book

it is sad the anglo saxons invaded as they destroyed the

briton way of life. The britons already knew how to live and
they were doing fine.

Thinking
Is it reasonable to see the Britons replacement by the Anglo
Saxons as reasonable? Do the facts of the replacement
contain ethics of the situation.
Why is it sad that the briton way of life was lost?
why are the invades the Anglo Saxons seen as bad but the
britons as victims?
By categorising Anglo Saxons and Britons are we attributing
all said people to that group therefore by grouping are we
profiling and in a sense creating racial, nationalistic
categories.? (alternative was it one group of people
supplanting another group?)
Are categories in language racist? is racism implanted in our
knowledge system and in the language when we use it - (in
the substance or the utterance Lacan). History is racist,
linguists are racist, their discipline contain thought processes
which intrinsically contain the elements of race and division,

We always define by difference - is racism not a probable

creation. (Said, Focualt and Derrida)
Why do we love Racism? - We love the idea of origin, which
is tied to the idea of identity (how can these ideas be
replaced or removed from society). Have we always been
racist?
Are our concepts stable - such as racism - if reality racism
actually exists and then ceases to exist, does the concept of
racism continue to exist. Does the concept flash on, flash off.
Do we continue the risk of the Holacaust occuring again
because it remains in history? A reminder a presence of an
event happening again, is it deterred if its mythologised?
Racism is a by product of nationalism, one cannot exist
without the other, because one will always cause othering.
If the words race, racism, black etc exist then do they cauce
the reality through their existence.
If we are all racist we can be unified (the internationalist using the principles of the racist).
Is our thinking about categories racist? I.e. the grouping of
knowledge, the splitting of knowledge and the way of seeing
human's as groups?

racist categories

migration

invasion

difference

unity

culture

us

identity

seperation

immigration

Is categorisation a form of knowledge that a human can't

help but do or is there an alternative? (Locke vs Berkeley).
Hume - there are no abstractions just human creations.
Categorisation/abstraction is inductive (it is induced from the
occurrences of such things in the world). Is abstraction an
idea or concept or part of the human make up? Is abstraction
a historic concept or are there alternatives to abstractions?
Raciocentrism.
Is the naming of categories deductive?
Logic is deductive it doesn't belong to any inductive
reasoning, it is similar to racism? Is racism deductive.

How to stop thinking of the other, the difference, and start

thinking of similarities?

either to create a new category - all humans

or deny the use of categories for human study individual relationships - actual ways in which people
lived

Is capitalism the reason for the break down of marriages (as

we treat each other as products and look for something
better).
Does capitalism create racism through choice? By having
choice, products we create areas of difference from
similarity.
Do all universals act in the same way in different times, so
rather than saying knowledge, we should apply it to the time
- medieval-knowledge, capitalism-knowledge.
Do we have universals so that we can link knowledge - is the
linking of knowledge what is important - do some concepts
have priority? power, knowledge. time.
Chemotype- time affecting the narrative of the history, time
since the event happening and time in the situation of the
history of the event.

Philosophy is being written all the time in word and images Lacan in language - the substance vs the utterance

Main
Deleuze presents a form of thought which creates
reevaluation. Values can't sit, ideas can't become
entrenched they must be overturned, uprooted, sprung
against each other.
'theory is practise'
'non fascist life' all history (the deliberation of it and
creation of it) is facist - it is held up in hierarchy

'Free...action from all unitary and totalising paranoia.

Develop action, thought, and desires by proliferation,
juxtaposition, and disjunction, and not by subdivision and
pyramidal hierarchisation.
Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative
(law, limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which Western thought
has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to
reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple, difference over
uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over
systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but

nomadic.
Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant,
even though the thing one is fighting is abominable. It is the
connection of desire to reality (and not its retreat into the
forms of representation) that possesses revolutionary force.
Do not use thought to ground a political practice in Truth; nor
political action to discredit, as mere speculation, a line of
thought. Use political practice as an intensifier of thought,
and analysis as a multiplier of the forms and domains for the
intervention of political action.
Do not demand of politics that it restore the rights of the
individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is
the product of power. What is needed is to de-individualise
by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse
combinations. The group must not be the organic bond
uniting hierarchized individuals, but a constant generator of
de-individualisation.
Do not become enamoured of power.' Focualt preface to
Anti-Oedipus second edition English.
Focualt calls this book a book of ethics.
How do the different areas of philosophy relate - Ontology,
Epistemology and Ethics. Do all three relate, dominate,
subjugate, or does one move into the realm of the other one,
does ethics become knowledge does knowledge become
ethics?

Deleuze and reversed platonism, instead of totalising let us

divide.
'the phantasm exists on the level of the body, as well as
outside the body to the extent it exists between bodies, it
topologizes the body materialy.' The gesturing of hands and
fingers provides us with a new metaphysics that can replace
representation. The gesture, the event.
What about another metaphysics the relationship? Instead of
the gesture or the event. (Lebneitz monads).
Difference within its very repetition - 'an event is not a state
which creates a referant, it instead gives a logic of a neutral
meaning and a thought of the present infinite.
if we determine an event on the basis of a concept, we fall
into knowing, if we measure a phantasm against its
supposed origin of reality, we are judging.
The two conditions, the concept and the philosophy of
representation make up PHILOSOPHY, where as thinking as
an event is a representation without a model. Thinking in
events produces differences in representations. Thought can
be oercieved as the vertical dimension of intensities,
because intensity, well before its liberation of pure difference
leads to the abandonment of dialectics and a move to an
affirmative thought of disjunction and multiplicity Thus
thinking through the event cauces the abandonment of

categories and the move to an acategorical thought'

'the folding produces a philosophy that is not a concept but
an event, an ontology of the present that works against the
dialetic.'
What is translation? Is is the concept, or is it the forms of the
concept wrought with difference and similarity.
Deleuze suggests these philosophers use events rather than
concepts
- emperical
- stoics
- spinoza
- nietzchte
relationships - all philosophy can be seen in terms of
revolving relationships, interlinking in the matrix of thought far from any concrete concepts. This flux allows the posits of
new thought, thought to expand and contract, agree and
disagree, to remove itself from the pyramidal systemisation
enforced by Plato and Christality.
Are we subjective beings? Or do we in these terms condem
ourselves to an inadequacy.
what is difference - nothing is - what is the same - nothing is,

everything is different and nothing is the same. All similarity

does not exist only difference. Categories is the concept of
similarity, it distorts and conjourns phenomenon to create
phantom links. All that is similar contains that which is
different, all that is different contains similarity. The concept
of the Other doesn't realise the problems of racism or
xeonopobia but only contribute towards, the existence of the
Other posits the idea that the difference must be of a
significant standing to be larger than the similarity. There is
the problem, the recongnition of the Other creates the
difference, remove the Other completely then you have only
a different and a similar. Difference arrises out of the need to
create distinction to create category, only through the
removal of this way of thinking do we move away from the
difference towards similarity and towards unity. There is no
opposite only possible, no difference only multiudes of
difference/similarity.
Pataphysics is imaginary - it suggests all the possible
outcomes in all the possible worlds. In fact it is lucid as it
provides alternatives to an essentially homegonising thought
culture. As axioms become concepts which become concrete
and settle, the pataphyscian lucidily upturns the landscape,
turfing over and re adjusting the framework. The framework
is never settled, the concept is never still.
The historian creates the settled landscape and in it deposits
his gold, he is not able to think for the historian before him
has told him what to say.

We can never live the lived experience, we are in a constant

state of living every lived experience contained in our
families, cultures, histories, linguist, no sense data exists for
the human, he is already full of the innate ideas. The smear
of history inhabits his bones and blood. When we stop to
think we think we are inhabiting a new world, the world has
already been very much fixed, it has become apparent and
crept around us as a shell, how is it then I can't think of a
new idea, well the ideas are imprisoned in the lanugage and
the history of the age. Freedom has to come not in striding
but in rethinking from removing the heirachy by flattening.
To free ones system from the stain of racism, or the stain of
abstraction and concept is to take a hammer to it, crack it
apart, and realign, re negotiate, re work that very space. The
negative space where those concepts once stood does not
exist, there is no light and shadow, only lights and shadows.
How can I be free while I am shelled by what has gone
before.
a statement is an action? a choice of putting together that
which is not relevant which might become fully relevant
a word for an action which is also a statement
the one, the two or the three, four, five,

can I utter this in a different way? Which doesn't cause me to

fall into traps laid by those historical linguistic path.
it is sad the anglo saxons invaded as they destroyed the
briton way of life. The britons already knew how to live and
they were doing fine.
Biopolitics - the state becomes a more intrusive instrument
according to Focualt - Biopolitcis should include the capitalist
agenda which has cauce the politc to be swallowed by
comerce.
Blanchot philosophy - death, silence, unsayable, - Beckett
is abstraction a historic concept - are there any alternatives
to abstractions.
racio concepts - raciocentrism
humans always need a power ideology - a form which
shapes. decides directs the information, either an a or a
complex interaction which forms an a
a statement just is logic concept causation - a form of letters
which forms a fact, it does not exist as a preposition or a
phrase which can consistently form its negatives - there is no

binary opposition in statements but rather coexistence, they

are the last to exist in purity.
can there be a negative - non causation
are there phrases which exist outside the linguistic system
how to replace your thought system?
do we always need a comparative to understand?
do we know all our concepts?

Racism is a necessary outplay of inductive thought - through

inductive thought we reduce to abstract concepts,
imperialist 19th century racism started that process. - it is
imbedded in conceptual thought.
is Focualt's idea of statement replaceable.
is binary opposition redundant
we must work to move race, nation, historical concepts of
history into idealism or the platonic way of thinking away
from the aristolian - that way these topics are reduced to
that of the mind and not that of the real. The other option is
to through way conceptual ideas completely and use a

different way of registering what has happened - ie facts

are metaphysics conceptual - is metaphysics based on
reality. for us to say a sentence to utter a fact - we must first
have the concepts of that sentence which we believe to be
based on something - we believe when we say a fact that we
are uttering a reality. if the conceptuals are not real, but
ideas, then the ideas can be changed or may have come
from different points of view.
if concepts contain racism - you have to agree on whether
the concepts come from reality, are an idea, or even a faulty
system.

the world
our view of the world
our conceptual frame work of the world
why is it that we adopt a concept which has been fashioned
out of thin air and make it concrete as though it has always
existed (race), this makes the wonderful myth of human
nature a reality (as all concepts existed and do exist in all
possible worlds) how can we get creative if our hands are
always tied.