It's a "complex" of claims, some of which are metaphysical, others are physical.
-
-
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @dcxtv
If you don’t want to read Deleuze, which is completely understandable, at least read De Landa. His project is to explain Deleuze’s realism to an Analytic audience and I’m almost certain a lot of your concerns will be addressed.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Depopulatus @dcxtv
u mean this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_de_Landa …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
oh and why r u telling me to read Deleuze? u haven't even really absorbed Darwin (since u believed that Darwinism is teleological) it's like someone who hasn't understood arithmetics trying to tell someone to study advanced calculus
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @dcxtv
I don’t believe that Darwinism is teleological. In the 19th century Darwinism and classical thermodynamics posited narrow historical outcome (fittest design and optimal energy distribution). This has changed since Prigogine, but you didn’t seem to know that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
really read evo bio, until then ciao
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
All right, take care.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.