delusionalDeluze

And that is to say I'm not quite sure if he makes me more delusional than his text is or the other way around. Than again, delusions, or thought disturbances are to be expected when math (the concrete science) moves into calculus, and is used to describe limits and attempts to describe infinity (the unknown, the untouchable, the elusive, the angst evoking). is Deluze delusional talking about the "Soul of point, line, surface, or the fold"? He sure is eloquent in the logic of his model. He is reaching all the way to Greek roots when he makes a move from the imperfect physical point "neither atom, nor Cartesian point - elastic point-fold," to idealistic mathematical point "rigorous without being exact". He follows the logic with Euclidean strictness and set of basic parameters where point describes extremities of lines. Though his model is broader, including vectors, magnitudes, movement, force, and direction. so far so good. But wait, now that seems to transform the point into "the metaphysical point," or the soul, or the subject. Now while I can follow each little step, this general move is something I still have to digest. how exactly did we move form the physical to ideal to now "a point of view" or "a point of inclusion"?

I find both texts dualistically very stimulating and discouraging. But my mind too ventures off while reading, sometime stimulated by the multitude of ideas and possibilities he opens (especially in the smooth & striated), and other times just finding it difficult to follow the condensation of his lifes' work seemingly neatly packed in every few lines.