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.
AGENT SWARM 