Deleuze & Guattari Quote

“It is not a question of experiencing desire as an internal lack, nor of delaying pleasure in order to produce a kind of externalizable surplus value, but instead of constituting an intensive body without organs, Tao, a field of immanence in which desire lacks nothing and therefore cannot be linked to any external or transcendent criterion.” (ATP 157)

Analyze that!

A stab at non-anthropocentric ontology. (Let Being do the talking.)

How can anthropocentrism in ontology be avoided? One option, it seems, is to let Being “speak” for itself. What does this mean? Being as it expresses itself toward itself as itself and as other conceives and is conceived in itself as agent is to patient, as subject is to object. Thus, One is already Two. How is Being, as expressive, to conceive and be conceived of if not by humans? Humans are certainly part of it but are not the absolute center. More accurately Being itself should be classified as a non-centered multiplicity that expresses (and also impresses [is impressed upon]) its many unities and its own complete unity as an absolutely centered unity. What is meant by this? Can multiplicities not also be centered like unities as it is impled that unities are? It seems as though there are four sides to two rotating coins. Huh?  I might have borrowed something like this idea from Harman/Latour, but I’m not completely sure as [how to] I deploy it in my own musings here. Each side of a coin expresses either unity or multiplicity and recieves either unity as multiplicity or multiplicity as unity. There can be as many coins as conceivable (and then some), but they all rotate (toward each other and away from each other) as they express and are impressed upon. They might even be conceived of as rotating spheres… As the motion is a motion of becoming, each moment is singular and yet at the same time caught up in the same perpetual wave of becoming [fluid emergence]. 

This is all I’ve got for now.