The IT/not-IT leuzedistinction seems to be the basis of the dialectic--expressed
in terms of territorialization--lines of flight-reterritorilization in Deleuze.
The real is what remains present, but what remains present through space and
time? The question Deleuze asks--sort of--is what remains real when the velocity
increases? Baudrillard asks a similar question: how do we ever get to the real
when that ground is always mediated by the artificial? All we have is the
artifical coupled with doubt./difference
Yes, Plato posits a ground outside the Cave, but what are the political
consequences of believing such ground is foundational? Does it mean giving up
our right to question what is true and having the philosopher-kings decide that
for us? I think that's what it means. That is, Plato offers the Ideas (Forms) as
real, but their ontology is left for the philosopher-kings to decide. Do we ever
have a means of getting to this foundational ground ourselves? Why should we
believe that philosopher-kings can?
JMC
|