Postmodern Schizoanalysis

This book is a schizoanalytic perspective of the whole of philosophy, mysticism, and esotericism.

The schizoanalytic method is experimental, and it's significance lies in its ability to process the world from inside its connections as RAW processing, rather than outside of them in a perceptual or structural way. 

A schizoid model operates on chaos theory rather than the binary model of the arboreal centrally-based structure. 

Excerpt (pg 13):

"What I fundamentally am is not so much the back that I can't see, but the impossibility of my ever seeing it, or, nothing but the continuous craning of my neck to see it: the Hegelian dialectic, the infinite positing and overcoming of limits, of what thought initially assumes it can't access and then, miraculously, finds it has already accessed it by this assumption. As with the Buddhist mantra of "this is not I, this is not me, this is not my self": the practitioner is told to repeatedly bring to mind the nothingness of all prospective selves, the self isn't some substantial x but this ongoing, processual dis-identification with any and all substantial x's - the inability to endorse this movement is experienced as loss, grief, the irrevocable passage of time. Buddhism is the AA of the void. Ties in beautifully with Hegel's identity of identity and non-identity: I am not (fully) what I am identified with precisely by my being identified with it ("I am, and yet not I, but God is in me"). Because something is here, that it can't render itself as an object in its own field, and so everything eventually overstays its welcome: the Hegelian dialectic. The apperceptive field in which phenomena emerge and subside is both the only possible condition of their existence and what kills them: "... and man that hath Mind in him, let him learn to know that he himself is deathless, and that cause of death is love, though Love is all."

If Kant was the straitjacket, Parmenides is the orderly: Parmenides was the first to equate being with intelligibility, that thought's activity necessarily presupposes its adequacy with its object. Thought can't think non-being because thought can't think what is outside its fundamental identity with itself as thought. The inaugural move of Western philosophy was the banishing of the very opacity it simultaneously establishes and deploys itself to excavate. Rational solipsism. The agreement of the mind with its object is a two-sidedness whose isomorphism is guaranteed by this very distinction: Hegel's great breakthrough. And so, the Platonic God becomes the principle of intelligibility, because to be is to be intelligible. As Eric Perlman so brilliantly observes: see, it's not that because the One in Plotinus' system produces out of necessity that it is constrained by some law outside it, it's that the one is Productivity as such, the One's necessity doesn't contradict its primacy because at its level the One must be the principle of non-contradiction itself. What the Gnostics do is demonize this principle, because as the principle of determination, it must also be the principle of finitude: death, matter, suffering. History is humanity's progressive repudiation of its base: even Plotinus chafed at the prima materia. We become sick with ourselves for the death that has to feed us. In our original immersion in nature, consumption was sacralized, we thanked the animal for the sacrifice of its body as just as we recognized beauty is the hourglass. Kant himself isn't so dramatic, but he still ties a cinderblock to the absolute: for him, the brain is the demiurge, that which imposes form on an unthematizable substrate: it's not that I, as subject, approach a medium always-already intelligible, but as the subject I am precisely that-which-makes-intelligible. If only Kant could have seen the occult ramifications of his breakthrough. Kant thinks the world only makes sense in reference to itself ("there is no metalanguage"), Plato, instead, thinks that the principle of intelligibility must itself be situated beyond it. Isn't there something of a (very attenuated) remnant of this in Kant's system itself? The irreducibility of the subject to either pole of his transcendental schematic: my self is neither noumenon nor phenomenon, but groundless hovering. The seeing-unseeing eye. Freedom is only possible within and /as/ my internality: as is magic."