Why did Delueze not understand that multiplicity had already been completely BTFO by Aryan sages thousands of years ago...

Mandana refutes difference by means of dialectical arguments. We do not perceive any ‘difference'. Three alternatives are possible regarding perception:

(1) perception may manifest a positive object
(2) it may distinguish an object from other objects; and
(3) it may manifest a positive object and may also distinguish it from other objects.

In the third alternative again there are three possibilities: (a) manifestation of a positive object and its distinction from other objects may be simultaneous; (b) first there may be positive manifestation and then negative distinction; and (c) first there may be negative distinction and then positive manifestation. Now, in the first alternative where only a positive object is manifested, no ‘difference* is perceived. The second alternative is untenable because, pure negation is an impossibility. Perception always manifests some positive object; it does not negate anything. Hence perception cannot reveal mere difference. Possibilities (a)and (c) of the third alternative are untenable, for positive manifestation and negative distinction can be neither simultaneous nor can there be first negative distinction without positive manifestation. Negation is necessarily rooted in affirmation. Difference or distinction is a relation between two positive objects which it presupposes. Even the negation of a non-entity like the sky-flower is only a denial of the false relation between two positive entities, the sky and the flower. Possibility (b) of the third alternative is also untenable, for perception is one unique process and there cannot be two or more moments in it. Further, Mandana points out that unity and difference cannot be combined like light and darkness. And, to say, like the Buddhist, that difference alone is real and unity an appearance, is highly absurd, for if difference be the very nature of things, then there would be no difference among them at all. Again, difference being ‘formless’, the objects themselves would* be ‘formless*. Again, difference being of the nature of negation, objects themselves would be of the nature of negation. Again, difference being dual or plural, no object would be the same single object for the same thing cannot be both one and many. Hence, it has to be admitted that unity alone is real and difference is only an appearance. Difference in qualities does not imply difference in reality. Just as the same fire has diverse activities of burning, cooking and illuminating, similarly it is the extraordinary potency of the one.supreme Brahma that enables it to appear as this diverse phenomenal world

why waste time with delude when there is so much better out there?

Sophistic wordgames won't change the fact that a plenum of objects around is self-evident. So rather than playing life-denying games to trying and refute this obvious fact as a means to baselessly assert some hidden absolute, spend your time trying to make sense of the plenum and understand where it arises from.

Yeah so you are right about everything except that there is (2) and nothing else.

Also your refutation fails at the outset, by placing the creation of the objects upon perception in an ontological sense, when in fact perception only creates and distinguishes objects in a strictly phenomenal sense.

Useful if you're preparing to transition

>Possibility (b) of the third alternative is also untenable, for perception is one unique process and there cannot be two or more moments in it

That's stupid. The process of memory allows us to relate multiple moments to one another. There's obviously a positive affirmation (the existence of yourself as a unique individual) and then a negative distinction (yourself from your environment) from which every other such distinction follows.

The idea of affirmation applied to objects makes as little sense as the idea of negation so applied. When I perceive an object, I do not thereby "affirm" its existence, as in a proposition. Affirmation and negation are abstract acts of the reason, whereas perception itself is intellectual, but merely in the form of an understanding of causality. So, when I open a book, I immediately understand that what I see within it is a consequence of my opening it, but this immediate understanding is still then separate from, and constitutes the basis of, the proposition that "I can see the words because I have opened the book."

Additionally, that difference is a negatively expressed relationship does not at all imply that different objects "would be of the nature of negation." Here, again, the perceptive understanding is conflated with the abstract reason, and a quality imbued by reflection is taken as a necessary characteristic of the object. I perceive objects immediately as causal elements, but then I am able to distinguish, for example, between the light of the fire that burns me, and the light of the sun that does not, by comparing these perceptions in memory and associating them according to the stimulus of burning pain. One falls within this concept, the other does not. This is sufficient to show that difference is by no means (nor could it ever be) a quality of phenomenal objects, but only a mechanism of the reason by which it relates individual objects to and within the sphere of concepts.

can someone explain this meme to me? I don't get it.

People here tried to read Anti-Oedipus and didn't understand so now they try and associate him with trannies

oh, that's pretty embarrassing

His mistake was going the way of Malfatti (pseudo-tradition) instead of Guénon (cf. Comptes rendus)

Wow! Such great scholarship coming from Deleuzians
youtube.com/watch?v=25pX6JacK20

>If Russell Brand extols your metaphysics

Sauce please. And please don't say that he mentioned his name once in passing on Joe Rogan or something.

Attached: 1557001155023.jpg (540x572, 113K)

redpill me on deleuze

he BTFOd freud with schizophrenia

does deleuze fit with chris langan ctmu or hegel

why people pays attention to these frog twitter fags beats me

bend over

he is radically opposed to Hegel. afaik no relation to Langan

im going to reterritorialize you dumb bitch