If madness is as a science do we conclude its reasonable representation? If a mad person attempts to make of their experience a science, do we make the same conclusion? If reason concludes a contradiction, are we to presume antithesis?
It's not even obscure: "totalizable" is a totally thinkable concept! Funny that @CritDrip pops up. At least I know apparently Deleuze talks about it, but in the abstract.
Dream: Forgotten homework. A volleyball game with unfair teams, and it was "resolved" by switching all the players on one team for all the players on another. People telling me I'm hyperbolic as I'm uncontrollably floating. Russian nukes. Explaining historicity.
Everyday, bro, I'm on that ABD. You know me.
Always Be Deterritorializing.
Boom. I wake up.
Boom. I'm a strata on the plane of consistency.
Boom. I'm a body-without-organs.
Boom. I'm God.
Boom. I die.
Boom. I wake up.
Holy fuck. Philosophers that are not mathematicians need to shut the fuck up about mathematical concepts. Every time they try they embarrass themselves. Dear lord. Even works I consider genius make this all-too-common folly.