Zhahravaughanism



Zhah’s thought is an ontological anarchism that consists of a critical evaluation of capitalism and ideology. It advocates an insurrectionary response to the capitalist realism of control societies in the differentiated replication of a thought of nomadic schizophrenia. Zhahravaughanism is a politics that deterritorializes and reterritorializes politics itself in a mode of flux upon the plane of immanence in the creation of noveltous lines of flight. The Rhizome is central to the philosophy of Zhah, for it is the plane of nomadologic chaosophy, the fluid multiplicity of the multitude.

Desire here refers to the machinic and productive Desire of Deleuze and Guattari. Desire is a productive mechanism, for it is an expression of the will-to-power, the will to create and differentiate purely, the dance of flux, of multiplicity, of the schizoid. D+G’s desire may appear similar to Foucault’s Power, and there is no doubt there are parallels between the two. Foucault’s power is, like Desire, an all-encompassing concept, for Power is epitomized not only in the political sphere but in the fields of the world-historical, the social, the oedipal, and the body as well. Power is inevitable, although Foucault didn’t necessarily view this negatively. Nietzsche, who heavily influenced Foucault, spoke of the positive and creative potentialities of power that arise whence an individual has not exerted power over others but over himself.

Baudrillard noted that both D+G’s Desire and Foucault’s Power act solely as the mirror of the fluxus immanence that is capital and thus are nonrevolutionary. Though, the Desire of D+G differentiates itself from Foucault’s Power in that it must be liberated, for the Schizoid of Nomadology deterritorializes desire itself in a fluid, muliplicitious liberation of desire. Under a postanarchist interpretation, we can channel Desire toward a politics of anti-politics of autonomy, contrary to the commodifying, demographizing symbolic exchanges of capital. The politics will be deterritorialized in an anti-politics and reterritorialized in a politics of novelty, embodied by the rhizome, and perhaps, the post-rhizome. Such is applied to economism in the insurrection of the social realm. Though is this but a simulation of hyperreality? Is such a condition inescapable, for does the terrorist remain hostage to insurgency; the nomadic schizoid to insurrection? If so, what is the fault? For, revolution - quasi-reformism - must be deterritorialized. And perhaps the insurrection itself is a mode of creation, of conceptualization. Perhaps the insurrection is itself a manifestation of the fluctuating, multiplicitious, multitudinous rhizomatic plane of immanence spearheading new lines of flight.

Self-Inserts=

[[File:Mega_Yes.png]]

 * - I find myself agreeing with nearly everything I've read on your page so far, I'd like to know your opinions of my philosophy as it is actualized here on this page. You will further see my views on rhizomatics as well.

[[File:Kinda_No.png]]

 * [[File:Borker thought pixels.png]]Borker Thought - Cool dude, though your theory claims to defy the ever-so-powerful intelligentsia who are wrongly oppressing the vulnerable and dignified masses! Yet you do not realize that this “intelligentsia’s” authority relies upon an objectification of the knowledge they profess, justified by annunciations of “rationality”, “common sense”, etc. They do not hold power because of their “education”, but because the masses believe them to be powerful, to be intelligent, and this very “intelligence” is upheld by the title they are bestowed. By merely democratizing the intelligentsia’s “knowledge” the masses only perpetuate the simulatory hyperreality created by their formers, furthering its legitimacy. Additionally, this permits the emanation of state philosophy, for the “mentally ill” and such may very well be ostracized given the supremacist nature of Borker’s thought.

[[File:Mega_No.png]]
Ideologies=

Comments

 * [[File:Ioist.png]] Io - Add me?
 * - Add Please.
 * - Add me