Surface without depth???
I'm not sure that can be true if the crystal has two sides. Surely
( despite the usual stuff about proliferation of
simulacra) Deleuze does not (like, say, baudrillard) emphasise the
replacing of real with virtual image (what i assume is surface
without depth) but rather the oscillation of real and virtual around
a poiint of indiscernibility. This would suggest a depth ... somewhat
akin to the multi-facetted rhizome ... perhaps ......
Anyway, what I'm suggesting is .... its not that you can't have
metaphor (something meaning something else) so much as never knowing
what is real and what virtual , what stands for what, due to the
nature of becoming other.
Yes, admittedly the use of crystal and other such images seems to
strike a paradox though. Its a teaser!
d.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|