inconsistencies are fun

Caution entering rhizomatic thoughts:

After having read the following sentence, I feel like I get why people and especially academics can get so excited about deleuze and guattari:

"We were wrong to give the impression at times that constants existed alongside variables, linguistic constants alongside variables of enunciation: that was only for convenience of presentation. For it is obvious that the constants are drawn from the variables themselves;"(103)

and after having followed their argumentation for an analysis of language on the ground of content and expression throughout 30 pages, and actually reaching a point of agreement with the text, it is just absolutely amazing if the sorcerers who produced the text, tell you: "did you notice, our argument is kind of inconsistent." But for me this also blends in with their argument for a rhizomatic approach towards a politics of pragmatics, everything is flux and can change be newly connected, maps being redrawn, furniture rearranged. And it also reminds me a lot of a friend of mine explaining to me the japanese coneptualization of truth which is a lot more appealing, than the concept western culture has developed. She said that there essentially 4 possible statements in regard to truth: 

1 it is true

2 it is false

3 it is as well true as it is false

4 it is neither true nor false

I feel Deleuze and Guattari fit very well in the third category here, and in a moment of wolfing, I am tempted to add that an example for the fourth I would consider somebody like adorno, since what are we supposed to do if he is right and "es gibt kein richtiges leben im falschen"?

In the spirit of sorcery and magic, i am starting to get into this concept of pragmatics as process, I like that: "The wolf is not fundamentally a characteristic of a certain number of characteristics, it is a wolfing" (239)