Fleshy Limitae

 

 

1 In a real sense, there is no sense to a body that does not impose limits of things.

 This is after all the root of desire, of making the world mine be needing or requiring something.

 

2 But it is also the point at which I assert my own right. Tickle a self merchant, and they will talk about how there own perceptions are their own; Which is very true, of the wrong way round (they are there perceptions…)

 

3 The body then works for us as we actually exist is such a way that that very difference creates echoes, its own differences within that body: It operates therefore to create its own desire.

 

4 This is the point of essence: Essence is the point the rules of the external suddenly become enriched (they are not replaced), by another movement, a difference.

 

5 And yet here one needs so very much care, and there are two veer distant elements to ties recess.

 

6  On the one hand there is white everything is, and always will be; there are the infinite force of the immediate mode and its off shoots. These forces bend matter into being finite and discrete, an force the issue of toady or tomorrow. They create the physical worked.

 

7ii) but there is a second physical process, which includes or would include all things (including the physics of perceptions) within causality. As things are, as they have mind at a certain level of the process, at a certain point or power :

 

8 Or perhaps better there exists somewhere an unimaginable physics of perceptions, which has everything which itself as if it were the perception: the infinite being of perceiving (which never then itself perceives, for it sis always in the building, in the fact of perceiving, in the others.

 

9 This last infinite mode as it actually exists, in the attribute, is the nest of causes, of one and anothering that divines the universe. The roe of this mode as it sir infinite is therefore to define  causes, and the place of causes, in the picture It roots my ability to be perceives within the world of causes.

 

10 As it can never pitch a live, or have a body beyond the stream of formal causation, the infinite mode itself, never desires or feels, of even actually its allows perception: all it allows is the endless tumbling of parts of the universe into each other, and the admixtures they involve.

 

11 And yet there is a sense where we give it this reality. As I actually am, and have a body, then in the desiring, in the pitching of that body as a finite element against the world, a d the reworking of what I am from the inside of that body, from within that god, I exist in the middle of this nature.

 

12 or perhaps better I pose the middle o this nature as my nature – my never being quite finishes what I am or what I can do. I might have a formal existence-  I might like the infinite mediate be given by beyond in the word o causes, and yet I still am – I still have an actual finite bound existence

 

13 this here and there configures an initial nature, derived from the causes I am, and yet dos so under the condition that this nature can change, as long as it remains within the actually existing body. What  am, is as I highlight a bit of the universe opened, and enriched. What Imam is the endlessly negotiated and renegotiated in that existence.

 

14 This renegotiation is what s called desire. Desire is the revelling in the what  am . It is the making the individual I am. As the universe tumbles into me, not as cause  throw and throw.

 

15 Or to pt it as 4/4 puts its. At the point that I rework my body, I am given as a finite element in the universe, a finite part of the universe, then God and nature are given in the same breadth. F=God the infinite power of negotiating and renegotiating a nature, the infinite middle, is the power of this finite as it is written in the agency of perceiving as cause, in the cause, in the making cause, and embodied (as a meta-whole0 in nature.

 

16 Nature is the ash, the light of god shines through. The ash in which my desire  moves.

 

17 my actual existence, my being finite- being caught up in  single relating system, then allows the perceiving within me to mean something. If I am caught with something else, in something else, as a perception impacts into me, then As I am, that impact, resonates in my desire: t creates what I m, in the reaction. I carrying the finite with me, incurring the desire of the finite o be, I make this perceiving something: I pitch I as a level, and force a finitude upon it.18 It then steps being the dreary sense of one thing merely registering the difference of another (the infinite mediate mode or perceiving0 or the infinitely creative once of being within another (the infinite immediate mode), and becomes rather the very pitch at which I am; the point I use the tumble from elsewhere to make a world to inhabit/

 

18 In desiring I make an issueless make the sense that I actually existed the issue, and so pitch  a being into the infinites of actions in another, and perceiving (which demands another).

 

19 or perhaps it might be said, I very innocently break the rules here. I assume that I ought to  be able to bridge the gap between those two infinites, the being within another, and the registering of another. This difference, is of course the post modern divide…

 

20) and yet here one hits a deeper problem about what kind of thing ought to bridge this difference. E problem is that is the Bridger itself a real element of the universe Is it then something Spinoza and his ilk forgot to mention, or did not really see?

21 Or is t in Spinoza, but in him not as something we are expecting /

 

22 If you run with the first argument the is only one real candidate. We are talking unfettered time; This is Deleuze, and the time that rejoices in the difference between being in another, and being in the gip o another. Time is the name for the mismatch between the infinites.

 

23 Deleuzian philosophy is then the arrangement of this mismatch, and the  taking of if. He making it matter. The unpulling of itself nature, within its own elements. From this superior place , he looks down on Spinoza and Leibniz, he explains them, or has them as stepping stones on his journey – powers leading up to him or as he modestly calls in powers leading to Nietzsche (although is fairness there is a lot of play in this idea, in this attributing).

 

24 The alternative, the original Spinoza hypothesis, is though not this. I was rather that the disjunction is created by my actual existence. Desire is its designer it glory in me there. Desire is the setting free, the power in me and mine of never being in the right place, tarried as an actual reality. My always then being in something else and is about  always reflecting what are given beyond me through  in my urgent strivings, in by unpulling other worlds form what I see within me. This was the point of the god-nature on through my nature of 4/4.

 

25 But at the same time, as I am,  I exist  a of perception. Thing might as they d for the poor of infinite mediate mode, exist in the dreary tumult of perceiving, the thins oh that of that of resembling: and yet as I am and have a body, this tumult invariably challenges my nature. IT adds more to me, and to be being I puts me in the mind of and caught up through something else, and what something else. I  come then not simply what  was, in the perceiving.

 

26) The act of perceiving becomes then also the sense that another is within me; it becomes the asking of that other in me. The perceives becomes then also to be actually challenges; it becomes to have other reality than one did. It becomes joys or pains.

 

27 Desire then resonates across my own others, making it really, striking an attitude about it, feeling it power and its nature.

 

28 At which point to further elements which in. as I am and am also a force to change the world that exist in others and as change. These others might well be other parts of me. The joy and sorrows are then  also self-inflicting ones. They are me in the other. But they can equally in others, (and I might understand that fact, as it is in both, me and others in the change in the same time).  become then not merely a cause, but also a self understanding one – or as Spinoza has it an adequate one.

 

29 In this causing that second feature of desire is resonate. As desire is always in the wrong police (in my mothering by others, but also elsewhere), it inhabits where it is differently.

 

30 To be merely within .a forcing of another me, in the pulling of that other within me, is to be somewhere ( a somewhere that includes always other implication or parts of that desiring, and always had addition surfs, places it can go).

 

31 But to be forming an adequate idea, which poses the nature of this being different as a force I too am sharing in, and am in the asking difference, is to be somewhere quite else somewhere quite different in it own right.

 

32 Adequate desire, the ability then to tumble into another, and understand that tumbles is given in the finite mind, as what appeals beyond (Deleuze has this right in What is philosophy-  the infinite enters in through the finite-  it is pitched by that finite).

 

33 And yet this clearly creates to direction for desire. One might consider the desires that are in me, as I tumble into the world and the world tumbles into me directly. These are the desires that inhabit that direct world of infinite modes as hey impact on my existence.

 

34 a territory that is absolutely complicated, a s it has singing into it both a perception, the ting within my body, as it causes something to occur in that body, but also the very extra elements it reality lends or bends into me, the way I challenge or and changes in its light. The power then that is given to be or though me in my desire, or as my ability to be that which is in the desiring of it.

 

35 Or  might start with my desire, and ability to always be where it should not be.

 

36 At which point a dictum of Spinoza comes into place; the is no real unity to desire as such. The desire I have as it hooks within what it beyond me, as that tumble into me as a pleasure, is not a single fixed thing. It is not even something like being productive, that adds in a certain way: rather what exist is doing is different each time – what or how it is creating is different.

 

37 I can call all these desires, good and bad desires not because of anything desire itself as it acts s, so much as its position in me; in the acting, I know it, from an elsewhere of consciousness in my mind. This not  weird; All perceiving (if one ignores the wisher of vivacity) operates in this manner.

 

38 We always get the idea of elsewhere by fostering a false unity upon it. There is though a difference here: the I a real unity that can materialize upon this desire as unity hypothesis – the unit of consciousness as it is given s the mirror of the body (a hypothesis developed elsewhere).

 

39 Consciousness will then ride the hors of desire as its unity, as if it were a reality, creating all the echoes in time this involves.

 

40 Or better the echoes of time, for consciousness which demands at some point a unity somewhere in the system, and time which is that unity of perceiving and being directly (and forgetting the body), are always bed fellows: theory merely quarrel about who is on top…Kant or Deleuze…

 

 

41 But desire left it its own power is the dry exposition of an essence hat really need not be anywhere in particular because it can create extra everywhere: it is always in the wrong place anyway: I merges memory with reality, or fantasy – and demands that tenses are mingles.

 

42 Or certainly better it is the sense that the must mingle. I exists in as I were the impossible future: the future as it actually exists in the infinite immediate mode, is always infinite, always the tumbling or the demanding of the tumbling into the next, infinitely and for good.

 

43 But desire lodges itself in the scope of the reel and in this tumble but as a finite: the next is a defined finite set, a set ht allows for the bodes existence (an existence the God of the attributer itself cannot create – this is sill 4/4).

 

44 is the pitch which demands the future is not merely infinite, but also is mine, or ought to be mine o ought or must be something I am springing or with.

 

45 In doing this is not long ignores the infinite immediate ode (well initially), but buggers up the mediate one as well. The mediate left to itself is the echo of the past; the one things as caused another, and done so in such a way that these things must be.

 

46 But as these things are when a me, that is a communication, a pitching or jangling of parts one into the other this being of me, is simply never given. The same parts are still within me, bound to a present, or as busy making another me, elsewhere of  another power, or through another play

 

47 What I am is therefore not riveted into the past but in bodily existence bends it to me. I create sense I m- and desire is critical in the doing of this,

 

48 here in inhabits the being not of h body or time so much as passions ability to blend and bend worlds: as I am passionate I have more world than I really ought to, more power, more influence, and desire is the inhabitancies of that extra I blend into that reality.

 

49 One needs of cause caution here: The real is always ready the extra to perception, the additional. The point is tat passions is another addition, and one lined ultimately not to he outside of the perceiving, but to their effect on a me.

 

50 it is then the intimae additional, the changing of me, and the way the level the amount of reality I contain in the perception (why are already changing the nature of my realty, by letting something else in directly in themselves.

 

51 That is passion in the corollary of desire; desire is the impossible future that includes me: passion, the changing of a body a I actually exists in perceiving, is the giving of this change; TI am moved as a body into  future, my nature is enriched – even as my perceiving is enriched, but actually reality (by the other in me). I am myself bothered, and I register another in me; I become the other to myself, and desire is the giving, the being in the middle of this feeling (and via consciousness, the knowing that is true)

 

52 Desire directly inhabiting the sense that my body is changed as a body, and that change then changes the world, and the perceptions in which the other is directly tumble into my world as another, and inhabits them at the same time.

 

53 As I desire the I see w world of enemies and friends as well as realities. The enemy has a reality as much a as friend: How they  into meld the perceiving, with the fat the perceiving creates more in me. Desire pitches myself and my own changes as the point that matters, and through the matter – do  so in feeling.

 

54 As such a long as I m dealing in the world of feeling tat fact or fiction idea is meaningless; it is either or both. As I desire cannot tell which is which. Realties are siphoned of into fictions and the powerful fiction, then bleeds into recite, sometimes enriching, sometimes becoming broken and bleeding the process.

 

55 in this entire muddling up, those desire alone remains intact; or better it is what will survive the ruining of passions and the wrapping up of this reality; desire is what I will always say I wanted, when what I wanted is not more; it id the savaging of a time or its cannibalisation; new tense is stripped to he tune of the next.

 

56 desire is then to use the physics of the body and its interaction, o build another body with; a body that as it s real can and must demand reality. It is the great problem of desire, Its great mystery, whether this extra dimension, this entering is itself mere fart and bad air, or can be sung into reality.

 

57 This othering through another is of course very complex: those others are at once a drug that acts on my body, setting the organs of my mind a challenging: But also the reality of perceptions, take me elsewhere it is own right, the light on another might allow me to shine in many places across my own being: I rips into my body then in the perceiving oddly.

 

58 More realties I am actually seeing as I am  caught in the drug of you, in the what the seeing of you does to me dos to my body, but also in the light of what seeing you does to my mind: I am in the desire and the adequate ideas, and in my sympathy in the both at the same time: To be is to b beyond what one is, so is to be open to the way you are redrafting both body and soul.