In this blog I have been commenting on the book ALL THINGS SHINING by Dreyfus and Kelly. I like its pluralism and immanence and polytheism of moods, but I think it has a one-sided view of intensities or what they call “shining”, that excludes the “pathological” intensities. All this talk of “shining” (really as pluralists they should say “shinings”) is somehow limited to best case scenarios, when shining is not a normative notion. One could compare this with Deleuze and Guattari’s cry in ANTI-OEDIPUS:
“Everything must be interpreted in intensity” (p173)
For D&G this is already what Nietzsche and Artaud were doing. So I was glad to come across this post using Artaud, and to this one using Nietzsche.
