Redundancy Builds Evidence; Proof Clears Redundancy / IPA/FLŽ: Partial Exoneration of Deleuze & Guattari

All right, let’s just jump right in. We are absolutely drowning in information, right? So, how do you actually find clarity? How do you go from just collecting clues to having that one single breakthrough moment? Well, today we’re going to break down a really powerful way of thinking that helps you do exactly that. It’s all about separating the endless pile up of evidence from the clean, decisive act of a proof. So, here’s the game plan. First, we’re going to nail down the difference between evidence and proof. Then we’ll see this idea in action, fielding a big critique in philosophy. After that, we’ll salvage the good parts, the really useful tools. We’ll stick them together into a new method and then use that method on a very modern problem before we land on what you might call a new kind of intellectual rigor.

Okay, let’s get right to the heart of it. This entire framework, this whole way of thinking, it all hinges on one really crucial distinction. This one sentence right here is basically the key to everything. Think about it like a scientific experiment. You start with a baseline, you know, your null hypothesis, and your job is to gather evidence to put pressure on that baseline until it breaks. Redundancy, more data, more sightings, more overlapping stories is your best friend here. It just keeps building that pressure. But proof, ah, proof is a completely different animal. And you can really see the difference in texture here. Evidence, it just it grows sideways. It’s like a detective patiently gathering a mountain of clues. You got phone records, grainy CCTV footage, witness statements. None of these things alone solves the case, right? But together, they make the suspect’s story impossible. Proof, on the other hand, that’s the single act that subtracts clues. It’s the one piece of irrefutable DNA evidence that just closes the case. It doesn’t add to the pile of clues. It clears the whole table and authorizes a verdict.

Okay, so now that we have this distinction, let’s see what it can do. Let’s put this tool to work. We’re going to use it as a kind of analytical weapon to look at a huge debate in 20th century philosophy. And we’re starting with a pretty sharp critique. The charge here is aimed at two really influential French philosophers, Deleuze and Guattari. And the argument goes something like this. Their whole celebration of concepts like endless flows and desiring production, you know, ideas that are all about constant movement and connection is actually a betrayal of a really crucial tool from psychoanalysis, the cut.

So, what exactly is this cut? Look, it’s not some gentle flowing river of self-discovery. No, no, it’s a precise sharp incision. You know, in a therapy session, it might be the analyst suddenly ending the session right after a key word is spoken. It forces the patient to sit with that gap in their own story. It’s the act that sets a limit that forces a decision that makes something actually count. It’s a craft. And here’s the core of the critique. When you celebrate this idea of endless flow and you get rid of negativity or what some call lack, you don’t actually liberate anyone. You just dissolve them. You feed them right into the algorithmic stimulation loops we all know so well. That endless scroll, the constant notifications, the feedback. You end up replacing the difficult, precise craft of incision with this vague feel-good vibe of just keeping things moving.

But hold on, this isn’t just a simple takedown. The story is way more nuanced than that. The argument we just laid out, it’s a clinical one, a technical one. It’s not a complete dismissal of everything they did. Yeah, let’s be absolutely clear. Despite that really powerful critique, Deleuze and Guattari were not idiots. Not even close. In fact, they built some of the most essential analytical tools we have for understanding the world we live in right now. The trick is to salvage the tools and leave behind some of the romanticism. And here’s the toolbox we can rescue. You’ve got their brilliant distinction between a map and a tracing. Basically, an open guide versus a dead copy. There’s the plane of consistency, a way to organize things without some top-down boss. Their warnings about pseudo flights, you know, fake escape routes that just lead you right back to where you started. And my favorite, their faciality diagram, which is just stunningly predictive of how social media basically works.

Let’s just zoom in for a second on maybe their most important contribution. This idea of the map versus the tracing. See, a map is alive. It’s experimental. You can enter it from any point connected to anything else. A tracing, on the other hand, is just a dead copy. It’s all about reproducing what’s already known. It just creates blockages and redundancies. The rule is always use the tracing, but report it back to the map. Always bring it back to the living experiment.

Okay. So, on one hand, we have this powerful critique. On the other, we have this incredible toolbox. These things seem like they’re in conflict, right? So, how do we bring them together? Well, this is where our new method, this powerful synthesis, finally comes into play. So, the method is really like a two-step dance. Step one, you map widely. You use those Deleuzian tools, that sensitivity, that experimental vibe to just gather evidence to let the redundancies build up. You keep the map open. Then, and only then, you move to step two. You cut once. You make one single decisive incision, maybe in the style of a thinker like Žižek or Lacan. And that cut is what clears away all the noise, forces a consequence, and authorizes a proof. And that’s the real beauty of this whole synthesis. You get the best of both worlds. The Deleuzian sensitivity stops you from jumping the gun, from closing down your analysis way too early. But the Žižekian decisiveness saves you from just mapping forever, from that endless deferral that never actually gets anywhere. It’s a way to be rigorous without being rigid.

All right, we have our framework. Now, let’s really put it to the test. Let’s apply it to a problem that I am almost certain you’ve seen, especially online. A kind of critique that sounds really smart, but never actually changes a thing. The name for this is hypercritique, and it’s basically the performance of being critical. It uses all the right jargon, lack, contradiction, the other, but it very carefully takes the blade out of the knife. It’s designed to give you that little rush, that satisfying feeling of, “Oh, I get it.” without you ever having to risk anything or demand a real change. It turns analysis into nothing more than a mood. And what’s so wild is how you can break down the playbook here. First, it always puts feeling over causation. Expressing a moral verdict is great, but trying to analyze the structure of why something happened is seen as kind of indecent. Second, concepts aren’t tools for cutting. They’re like little collectible charms you wear for their vibe. And third, it swaps out the hard work of structural change for a curated mascot, a perfect victim or a perfect hero, which inflates emotion, but leaves the actual levers of power completely untouched.

And this quote from Slavoj Žižek just it absolutely nails the cultural air that hypocritique breathes. He’s describing a space that loves criticism, that celebrates pointing the finger and making moral condemnations, but it actively punishes and forbids real analysis. You know, the kind of causal talk that might point to some uncomfortable truths and actually demand a real costly change.

So, after this whole deep dive, where are we? What’s the big takeaway here? Well, it’s not just some abstract theory. It’s a new really disciplined way to think and more importantly to act in the world. We can really boil this whole thing down to five practical rules. One, map before you model. Two, be patient. Let the evidence grow and let that redundancy build pressure. Three, cut late and cut lean. Just one clean incision is all you need. Four, prioritize execution over exhibition. Actually change the structure. Don’t just perform the mood. And finally, number five, and maybe the most important, bind your words to the world. Make what you say have a real consequence. And that’s our explainer for today. A new kind of rigor for a very confusing time. And it leaves us with one last question to think about. In this world we live in, this world of endless commentary and information loops, where do you think the cut, that one decisive, consequential act is most desperately needed?