u/apophasisred

I am actually fairly handy at most things having to do with kind of home repair. I hate calling somebody for this that and the other. They say they'll be there at X time and x + 3 hours later they call me to tell me it's going to have to be put off till tomorrow. So I would prefer to learn about the thing and do it myself.

The one area I've refused to mess with other than replacing like switches or plugs is electricity. Maybe this is because I got electric shocks twice as a kid. I'm a little afraid of it.

I follow this Reddit because I would like to know and be more confident about modest electrical tasks. I've noticed a couple of trends here.

Even about fairly simple questions, the contributors here often disagree wildly about what is the appropriate thing to do. Indeed, it's fairly usual for one person to make fun of the other person's answer as being dangerous and uninformed. That is not reassuring.

Another thing which happens quite often is people say your house is going to burn down. Call an electrician. Well, as you must know calling an electrician is not cheap. Many people really don't have that option. They're already almost underwater. That doesn't mean to me that people should undertake dangerous tasks that they can't handle, but it does mean that they should try and be able to take tasks that they can.

So, how does a guy like me who wants to learn more about electricity electricity do so? Between books and YouTube, I've been able to master to an adequate degree. A lot of challenges that pop up if you own an old house. But I have not been able to do so with electricity. The books that I've looked up are often too simple and basic on one side or as in the books that give the codes for electrical installations, too complex and to presumptive about what you already know.

I wonder if anybody can recommend not one book, but perhaps a series of books that go from the infantile (what is current? What are volts? Etc), through a kind of narrative overview, even with a little history, to explaining more complicated problems and perhaps even a basic understanding of my local code.

I suspect this can't be done with one book but with a series of books. I know this is a lot to ask and this has been a long post. I'm sorry if it's inappropriate here.

More and more, I've had Gemini respond to completely abstract, historical, or referential questions with " normally I can help with things like that.." These questions have absolutely no relationship to anything that should trigger such a response. I find it quite annoying and it seems to be happening more often.

About the time of his dissertation, 1968-1969, D said that "What" is a bad question." Why is what bad? I think because it is a leading question in the realm of the extensive, of actualization. It seems odd then that their mutual production should end in a triadic taxonomy of what....

Immanent causation strikes me as much more unanallyzable than say structural causation or Newtonian causation. Do you guys have any ideas about this or quotations that interrogate the issue?

If so, what do you think?

Many of the questions on here might be characterized as applied Deleuze. In part, this means that they speak of matters of history and fact as if these were intelligible givens. For me, nothing which is narrated about the past or the present can be taken on its own terms if one accepts the more radical consequences of D's philosophy.

​

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me nor stating that it's the best interpretation. I see all matters that are not events at hand are representational. All representations are actualizations. We can understand them then as part of the very hegemonic episteme we nominally wish to resist.

​

Therefore, revolutionary or simply ameliorative activity cannot be through the agency of representation itself. This may seem like an invitation to an ostrich attitude. For me it is not. Partially this is because I believe that the relationship as it were between the virtual and the actual is not one of separation nor antagonism.

​

Rather, I see actualization as an epi-ontogenetic expression of the virtual assemblage that is concurrently giving it form. I do not mean by this that the actual resembles it's virtual. I don't even think that's possible, but rather that any modeling does not lead us to a greater comprehension of the world as it is, but gives us the opportunity to intervene in the modeling event in which we are now participating.

​

I knew this wasn't very clear or spelled out. I don't particularly want to spell it out anymore because I'd rather just see how people react. Further, a better presentation of what I affirm would be quite onerous.

I use Gemini primarily to aid me in finding quotations on the philosophical concepts that interest me. Gemini very quickly is able to produce quotations about the ideas in which I'm interested. While I trusted Gemini for a while, I noticed that many of the quotations given in quotation marks followed by parenthetical page numbers and supported by a bibliographic entry were in fact not quotations at all. They were paraphrases. I have tried about 10 different solutions to this problem where the solution was offered by Gemini as a way to get around its hallucination. None of them worked. As I pointed out, since Gemini is supposed to be helpful that mislabeling something which was a paraphrase as a quotation in quotation marks was misleading and far worse than just supplying the paraphrase as a paraphrase. I think I finally figured out a solution but it is quite clunky.

I now have Gemini answer every question twice. The first time, which I call the object language, is its normative response to the question at hand. Language, is a critical review of the first answer.

This fairly consistently reveals that no matter what else, it has been mandated to do. It produces more hallucinations than it does real verbatim quotations. Here's a sample of a meta language response to its own object language response

Status of Deleuze Citation (p. 153): FAIL. The string "Error is only the reverse of the true... every determination of the false is at the same time an indication of the true" is a paraphrase incorrectly labeled as [verbatim].

​Correction: In the Patton translation of Difference and Repetition, p. 153, the text reads: ["Error is only the reverse of the true, a simple 'fall' or 'mis-step' of the mind."] [verbatim]. The subsequent clause about the "indication of the true" is an interpretive synthesis of Deleuze's critique of the "dogmatic image of thought."

This finally seems to work and that I can get the correct real verbatim quotation, but it burns a lot of text. However, it's better than me having to go back to the original book and look it up. But does anybody have a more elegant, quicker, simpler solution to this problem that actually works?