Re: <underfire> answer to Joy (fwd)

there's a discussion going on over at Jordan Crandell's list that I've
sortof dropped out of (exhaustion) but my name lingers on subject lines
much to my embarrassment…

I thought this was relevant in some way to our discussion (even though
I'm no student of philosophy–even the "street" variety ;)

also see list archives:

http://list.v2.nl/pipermail/underfire/

best,
j


———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:07:29 -0500
From: manuel delanda <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: <underfire> answer to Joy


On Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 04:56 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote:

> The 911 example is designed to show that different cognitive states
> could drive one to the same actions, but it is also true that what one
> thinks is "real" depends on what representations are informing one's
> cognitive faculties.

only if you uncritically accept (like most intellectuals after the
linguistic turn do) that experience is shaped by language (that is, if
you accept that Kant modified by Saussure is the essence of
experience). But if you do not accept that (as for ex Deleuze does not)
what's real does not depend on our minds. But anyway, trying to
convince you of this is like trying to convince a christian that jesus
is not the son of god. Who cares?





Manuel DeLanda
Street Philosopher.