/lit/ - Literature

>Maybe we should grant to thinking a task opposite the one given to it by Enlightenment philosophy: to fragment the world according to difference instead of universalizing through the same; to induce the same through difference, instead of deducing difference from the same.

the first part of this is already fully in effect, and metastasizes as Batshit Insano-Leftism; the progressive stack is precisely that. again, we can be charitable: i would say that, like all truly powerful revolutions, it emerges out of *failure:* i think OWS is where things originally got started. guys in skyscrapers stuck their noses in the air at Zuccotti Park and the Left basically had to take in the ass because *not all of their demands could be placed in a PowerPoint presentation* and filed, humbly and politely, as a complete wish for the abolishment of capitalism itself, because it would have been rejected with a sneer. the Universalizing Through the Same that YH is talking about is 149% the agenda today: everything is racism, everything is misogyny. and so heads must roll. none of this will be unfamiliar to you. but a Great Betrayal and a Great Disappointment has deep roots in all political-religious movements, i'm going to guess.

>to induce the same through difference, instead of deducing difference from the same.

this is my feel also, to creation and back. it's why i like Girard: it's *fundamental mimesis* and not fundamental difference that is the phenomenon that leads to all of this. Girard isn't the cure for everything, of course, but it explains why i think he matters.

but this is not Awesome Opinions time. the more interesting questions are the ones that YH is raising:

*how do you induce the same through difference, instead of deducing difference from the same?* what does that *look* like?

please step into the Cosmotech Muse-um (or Transcendental Musitator MK II) and Cogitate on this at your convenience, gents. this is the deal.