Image of Thought: Trash Theory #2

Trash Theory: Preliminary Materials for a Non-Buddhist Image of Practice #2*

What is the prevailing “image of practice” in contemporary x-buddhism? More importantly, what might come next?

The image of thought

First, a review of the basic concept of “image.” In Chapter 3 of Difference and Repetition, Gilles Deleuze lays out eight postulates on the “dogmatic image of thought.” Briefly, “image of thought” indicates the structure provided by a discipline or community to determine the contours that thinking is permitted to take therein (hence, “dogmatic”). In the preface to the English edition of Difference and Repetition, Deleuze says:

By this I mean not only that we think according to a given method, but also that there is a more or less implicit, tacit or presupposed image of thought which determines our goals when we try to think. (xiv)

An image of thought has the basic form of “Everybody knows…” (DR, 129). In an x-buddhist community, for example, everybody knows that “suffering” is the primary human problematic, and everybody knows that craving is its cause. Everybody knows, furthermore, that there is an end to suffering, and everybody knows that The Dharma prescribes the way to that end. Such explicit propositions determine the basic lines of what, within an x-buddhist community, may legitimately be thought about and discussed.

Deleuze, however, says that images of thought contain elements that, unlike these x-buddhist postulates, are not explicitly stated. Such elements remain socially and doctrinally functional, yet personally unconscious. For example, the very assumption that “the four noble truths” are coherent, even practicable, is simply given in the x-buddhist image of thought. The assumption is thus operative within the community, but in a way that functions “all the more effectively in silence” (DR, 167). No committed “sangha member” questions the assumptions underlying the basic premises of x-buddhist thought. No x-buddhist has ever applied sustained thought to the prospect that, for example, eliminating craving is impossible or even undesirable, and, given our biology, an outright ludicrous notion—indeed, yet another desperate human attempt to overcome the irrevocably human. In other words, as Joshua Ramey says in The Hermetic Deleuze, “Under the auspices of the image of thought, what remains unasked are the truly critical questions…[U]nder this aegis, thought can never truly break with opinion (doxa)” (114).

Deleuze holds that the reinvigoration of thinking in western philosophy can “be reached only by putting into question the traditional image of thought” (DR, xiv). That image of thought, received, paradigmatically, from Plato and Descartes, naively takes for granted that the person doing the thinking (and by extension, legitimate thought itself) is possessed of such qualities as “good sense,” “common sense” (DR, 168), a “talent for the true and an affinity for the true” (DR, 166). What is thus required for thinking to be something other than the mere mimicry of received opinion (doxa, doctrine) is “to overturn Platonism” (DR, 71). Duly turned over—thinking untethered from the constraints and predetermined goals of tradition-opinion—critical and creative force is restored to thought.

The conditions of a true critique and a true creation are one and the same: the destruction of the image of thought which presupposes itself and the genesis of the act of thinking in thought itself. (DR, 139)

You can read more of my take on the x-buddhist image of thought in “Witch’s Flight.” Now, I’d like to take this basic concept and turn it toward the x-buddhist image of practice.

The x-buddhist image of practice

We just read that what is thus required for Western philosophical thinking to be something other than the mere mimicry of received opinion (doxa, doctrine) is “to overturn Platonism” (DR, 71). Before we can begin to articulate a non-buddhist practice, we have to tease out similar assumptions and values burrowed within the current x-buddhist image. So, what is it, exactly, that every x-buddhist knows? I’ll begin with some basic postulates; hopefully, you will offer your own pieces of trash theory in the comment section.

Postulate 1 Every x-buddhist knows that humanism is true.
Dictionary Definition: “Humanism is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.”
Postulate 2 Every x-buddhist knows that idealism is true.
As The Protagonist in Dhammapada 1.1: “Preceded by mind are phenomena/led by mind/formed by mind.” More broadly, I mean idealism in Kant’s sense in Critique of Pure Reason: “if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world must at once vanish because it is nothing but a phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of ourselves as a subject, and a manner or species of representation.”
Postulate 3 Every x-buddhist knows that the New Age Apocalypse is true.
This entails a cluster of beliefs about the end of the current world and the coming of a new world. Decisive to this formulation is the fact that the new world comes into being not through collective social action or through radical (i.e., non-reformist) operations on material structures, but rather through some sort of “shift in consciousness” or through collective “cosmic awareness.” In the most basic sense, it means that the way to change the world is to change one’s attitude, consciousness, viewpoint, etc., etc.
Postulate 4 Every x-buddhist knows that yogic practice is essential.
 This postulate follows from the previous one. By “yogic practice” I mean a discipline that entails “inner contemplation” of some sort. Although the x-buddhist canonical record is has instances where people became awakened in conversation with The Protagonist, the Western-Buddhism image of practice dogmatically holds meditation as the sole means of ultimate attainment.

What should we add to this collection of assumed and largely unconscious, hence dogmatic, x-buddhist postulates on practice? This post at The Failed Buddhist,”Ideological Injustice in Social Justice Ideologies,” should also stimulate you to some thoughts (for instance, what values are at work in the obscured image of practice?).

*Trash Theory: Preliminary Materials for a Non-Buddhist Image of Practice

The concept of “trash theory” is borrowed from Tiqqun’s Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young Girl.

So as not to give a false impression — which could  well be our intention — the jumble of fragments that follows does not in any way constitute a theory.  These are materials accumulated by chance encounter, by frequenting and observing Young-Girls: pearls extracted from magazines, expressions  gleaned out of order under sometimes dubious circumstances…The choice to expose these elements in all their incompleteness, in their contingent  original state, in their ordinary excess, knowing that if polished, hollowed out, and given a good trim they might together constitute an altogether presentable doctrine, we have chosen—just this  once—trash theory. The cardinal ruse of theoreticians resides, generally, in the presentation of the  result of their deliberations such that the process of deliberation is no longer apparent. We figure that, faced with Bloomesque fragmentation of attention, this ruse no longer works. We have chosen a different one. In these scattered fragments, spirits attracted to moral comfort or vice in need of condemning will find only roads leading nowhere. It is less a question of converting [x-buddhists] than of mapping out the dark corners of the fractalized  frontline of [the x-buddhist World]. And it is a question of furnishing arms for a struggle, step-by-step, blow-by-blow, wherever you may find yourself. (20-21)

How do we conceive of practice after the death of the big Other?

Contemporary German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk argues that “anyone who takes part in a program for de-passivizing himself, and crosses from the side of the merely formed to that of the forming, becomes [an agent].” The colloquial word for such a program is practice. The more technical term, praxis, aims to approach the question consciously, with an a priori awareness of theoretical considerations. Yet, at the title of the series indicates, the “theory” arising out of whatever collective and chaotic deliberations may be the case.

More formally, it proceeds from three questions. First, what does it mean to “practice”? What, for instance, distinguishes practice from things like routine, habit, or simply a way of life? And when is a practice one of healthy self-formation as opposed to one of ideological subjugation or romantic fantasy? This question may presuppose a new image of practice, akin to Deleuze’s image of thought. Second, how can we conceive of practice in an age of profound skepticism toward the transcendental orientations of our so-called spiritual traditions? What might a materialist or, in the language of Pope Francis, an “incarnational” practice look like? Third, rather than adapt the practitioner to the existing social formation, how can we ensure that a practice develops competent, courageous agents for changing their formations in closer conformity to their moral ideals?

If you have any thoughts on this matter, please send them along. You can write an original text or share an existing piece of writing or mash the two together. Keep it short, and include a commentary and a question or two for discussion. The purpose of this exercise is to stimulate thinking, not to dominate it. Maybe some of you will eventually use these trashy fragments to create a new theoretical whole. Even better, maybe some of you will put them to the test in actual communal practice. Let us know how we can help.

Send your trash to

15 responses to “Image of Thought: Trash Theory #2”

  1. Poppajee Avatar

    Man you can throw down some seriously complicated words (I guess that’s what comes with a Harvard Phd) for what boils down to – take care of yourself, those you love, then and only then if there’s any left over, bitch slap the neoliberal order. How’s that for praxis mofo?

  2. Glenn Wallis Avatar

    Thanks for your comment, Poppajee. Yes, we Harvard Ph.D.s are contractually obligated to use in public nothing under a $50 word. It has something to do with branding, or something. As we like to say in private: “Lingua se est quotidie parum diligens est.” Hahaha! Anyway, to your point, are you sure that’s what the post boils down to? What if the two, care for loved ones and the bitch-slap-worthy neoliberal order, coincide? What does “love” look like then? And wouldn’t the practice you implicitly condone simply help perpetuate the “order”?

  3. matthewoconnell Avatar

    May we indeed shed the burden of the Platonic quest: God it’s limiting! Thank you for making more of Delueze’s thought clearer. I’ve said it on Twitter and will repeat it here. Every time someone makes his thought less cryptic, I am amazed by it and, if I may be so bold, enjoy how much it resonates with my own conclusions and intuitions, but I find reading him directly a real fatigue. I know you go for that sort of thing Glenn, but I find him exhausting.
    The point you make here about the giveness of basic concepts and their uncritical adoption is so important. It is so stifling to the creative endeavour of rethinking our human condition to merely accept what is handed out in dharma halls as the next, new truth. What is consistently lost on Buddhist teachers and practitioners is that this does not equate to an abstract, intellectual endeavour to think deeply about ideas but is the basis for how one approaches even the most intimate of practice.
    There is something to be said about the idea of the inherent rationality of Buddhist belief and practice that could go on the list. Something like ‘Postulate X: Buddhism is inherently rational and reasonable, and compatible with the secular project in a way that those other religions are not.’ Therefore we can engage with it without having to think to much. We can get our spiritual/religious fix without the burden of messy beliefs, irrational rituals, funnily dressed priests, and so on.
    Incidentally, I am taking a second crack at Sloterdijk’s book and finding it more accessible, although I do think the translation could have been better. He’s got some fascinating ideas.

  4. Glenn Wallis Avatar

    Thanks for your comment, Matthew. It raises a point that goes to the heart of the matter as I am grappling with it. There is something in your comment that, if I understand it correctly, is a crucial element in disentangling the ancient x-buddhist image of thought and practice from the snares in which it is, I believed, trapped. Tell me please if I have misunderstood. Does your comment not reveal a conflicted relationship to hard thought? For example, Deleuze is really, really, hard, fatiguing even. Yet once someone sorts it out a bit for you, it not only makes sense, but resonates with your own thinking. Yet, presumably, he remains not your “sort of thing;” thus, any further resonance his thought may bring to yours will remain unsounded unless and until someone explains things. Then, you add a postulate (which I endorse), the reversal of which requires hard thought. So, is it possible that grappling long and hard with, say, Deleuze, could in and of itself constitute an awakening practice?

    Maybe we should all revisit Tom Pepper’s post “On Reading Hegel as a Corrective to Meditation Malpractice.” Pepper: “This summer, I am making a commitment not to meditate. At least, not to meditate in any way that Western Buddhists would identify as Buddhist meditation. My meditation practice, I have decided, will be to do a slow and careful rereading of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, attempting to think dialectically about every argument Hegel makes.”

    I personally believe–no, am convinced–that the x-buddhist image of practice is plagued by fear of thinking. The amature psychoanalyst in me suspects that this fear has to do with a dark intimation that the thinking will think the thinker right out of the x-buddhist refuge. Imagine a practice where we spent, say, six months, reading Buddhists texts alongside of thinkers like Deleuze. This practice would be along the lines of Laruelle’s recommendation for “superpositioning” x and y systems. (This amounts to colliding x and y together, producing a third, z.)

    So, what would your comment look like if you developed it further, paying particular attention to the somewhat immersed, unconscious issues?

  5. Failed Buddhist Avatar

    Two more postulates which, I think, can be found in pretty much all x-buddhisms:

    a) Every x-buddhist knows that what The Protagonist meant by anatman was that there is, in fact, an atman.
    The Protagonist’s greatest gift, for the x-buddhist, is the reassurance that one is not obligated to take their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors all too seriously since, ultimately, they are “not self” and therefore not the x-buddhist’s responsibility to attempt to investigate and understand. In pairing this postulate with its twin, Postulate #2 in the article, (an)atman serves to ensure that all of material reality is rendered functionally irrelevant in the quest for reducing suffering.

    b) Every x-buddhist knows that there is a realm of existence called “direct experience” which is ontologically seperable, indeed fundamentally distinct from, the unfortunate human mental milieu containing thoughts, cravings, conceptual proliferation, identity, ideology, social practice, etc etc. When all else fails, and/or when one is in doubt, one can always count on “direct experience” to provide a neutral anchor or refuge, which freezes these worldly worries in time and temporarily delivers the practitioner from the realm of ideology and the social. Furthermore, since direct experience is not provided by material reality and is available only to the individual mind, one can never be mistaken about one’s own “direct experience.” This one was particularly salient in some of the Burmese vipassana traditions I spent time in, for which the “go-to” move was directing attention to “direct sensory experience.”

    What is practice? What a great question, the asking of which, perhaps, constitutes a practice in itself, no?

    The most crucial element for any non-buddhist practice should be, in my view, a perpetual resistence to taking any part of subjectivity as a refuge, or as some sort of “default” state removed from the inconveniences of social subjectivity.

    Practice necessarily implies struggle; practice leads to mastery, at which point practice is no longer needed as such. To practice, then, is to resist mastery in perpetuity. For me, practice tends to carry with it a certain need for incomprehension. This is why I actually consider it a good sign when I open an obscure book written by some French asshole only to find myself frustratingly staring down pages of pure gibberish. What such an experience reveals to me is that I am unaware of the conditions determining my practice. If everything was always easy for me to undertstand, would that not be due cause for suspicion? To quote Althusser, at the risk of abstracting his words from its original context:

    “Before Marx, philosophy may be said to have played its role without being aware of the conditions determining it: to have played its role blindly. Since it had no idea the laws governing it ‘behind its back,’ it thought it had no ‘back’, and identified its own nature with the only consciousness of itself that it had, of what it considered to be its ‘object’ and vocation: unveiling the Truth, Meaning, the Origin, and the End. And it conceived of its own history as the history of the forms of this unveiling, which, paradoxically, had always been attained and had always to be undertaken anew.”

    Althusser is attempting, in the chapter from which I took this passage, to demarcate idealist and materialist forms of philosophy, For Althusser, every practice is a practice of philosophy, in some sense, though not necessarily in quite the same sense of philosophy as it is practiced by the philosopher. One take-away I get is that practice—any practice of thinking—should be carried out striving always for some level of incomprehension. Indeed, I’ve found the incomprehensible to often be what points to those very “conditions determining [my practice]” which I could not see from within the ideological position that motivated and guided such a practice. Mastery by definition excludes the possibility of being mistaken for having no ‘back,’ whereas practice must consist of a self-consciousness that one has a ‘back,’ and of a vigilance to tease out the “laws governing [one’s practice] ‘behind its back.’”

    What is practice? For one, it is a struggle against mastery, rather than a reaching toward it!

  6. Brad Potts Avatar
    Brad Potts

    Postulate: Every x-buddhist in the West knows that life is fundamentally good – at least if approached x-buddhistly.

    In stark contrast to the axiom held by none other than their founding Protagonist, x-buddhists (at least those not wearing robes full time) firmly hold a life-affirming and optimistic view of the nature of reality and humanity’s place in it. Perhaps this is due to the long shadow of the Judeo-Christian God, who saw that His creation was “very good” in Genesis. Maybe that God doesn’t exist, but whatever — His creation is structurally sound: a veritable machine for the creation of human happiness (if we approach the machine properly). There is no place for pessimism in the sangha. If you have a problem in life that can’t seem to go away and are unhappy about it, it’s because you aren’t doing your x-buddhism right.

  7. dhammarato Avatar

    Hum, x-buddhism? Is this different from Buddhism? Different from Western Buddhism? Different from Asian Buddhist Religions? Seems they are all different from the Supra-mundane teachings of the Buddha, in that they do not function as advertised, providing no joy, no happiness, no freedom from suffering. . Perhaps the problems with x-Buddhism is found in confusion. Example: “In an x-buddhist community, for example, everybody knows that “suffering” is the primary human problematic, and everybody knows that craving is its cause. ” If that’s what they all (you and maybe 2 others) believe, then its totally different. x-Buddhism is very little more than a strawman for the real thing. perhaps they need to learn how to unpack the word “craving” for a better understanding of the process of how the mind works. So far it looks like a first graders “Fun with Dick and Jane” reader, and not at all like a Phd from a world class school that teachers more than first grader’s Buddhism, not Phd stuff at ll. Just throw in a few big words to impress the reade’s and you can tell any crap you can think up. Since it will take time and a joyful effort to unpack all the misguided “Dick and Jane” Buddhism that you spout here Glen, we can just end on the high note, that maybe you went to the wrong school and you can blame harvard for all the years you have wasted getting nowhere with the original devotion to Buddhism that so inspired you to go harvard. But now you know that you’ve wasted your whole life there, perhaps you can retire to a place such as Thailand to finish the job that harvard failed on you. Until you learn what the Buddha actually taught, it would be best for you to just shut up. Your money grubbing efforts at the expense of those who want real value is shameful. Glen you are a charlatan selling harvard snake oil. full of big words signifying trash talk.

  8. dhammarato Avatar

    Hello again Glen. It is worth another comment about yet another outrageous claim you try to shove into the mouth of the Buddha: “No x-buddhist has ever applied sustained thought to the prospect that, for example, eliminating craving is impossible or even undesirable, ” WOW so now you have ridden your favorite word “craving” right into the ditch. It proves you have no understanding of the second noble truth. The “fun with Dick and Jane” Buddhism at harvard is seriously lacking, as if you never saw the first 10 pages of your first grade reader. Your understanding of Buddhism is a shame. and your PhD needs to be recalled. And above all things, Glen, you need to shut you mouth and go into a 10 years long silence, hopefully here in Thailand, where someone who knows can keep an eye on you.

  9. Failed Buddhist Avatar

    Glenn, how do you even begin responding to a comment such as #7 above from dhammarato? I am asking in all seriousness, as I am finding myself losing the capacity to engage in dialogue with good friends who happen to be x-buddhists and are thus literally incapable of grasping that you are precisely not promoting an x-buddhism, nor the “real thing” which dhammarato assures us is definitely not the thing you’re (not) promoting.

    I mean, it’s like trying to explain to my former Hasidic friends that I don’t believe in Yahweh. The syllables enter the ear canal, but their meaning somehow gets lost between there and the brain’s temporal lobe, the result being a response that fails to acknowledge even the most fundamental premise being articulated. Do you just let them be, and wait for them to grow up, or do you keep trying like a truly masochistic bodhisattva?

  10. dhammarato Avatar

    And one more for the path road).
    “Postulate 1 Every x-buddhist knows that humanism is true.”
    The Buddhas was a fan of the development of the skill of generosity and he praised gratitude.

    “Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.”
    Buddha taught the ending of stress, and that the mind is subject to stress and suffering, and as such is not happy. goodness is not the topic. Humanism is then not the teachings of the Buddha, but close.

    “Postulate 2 Every x-buddhist knows that idealism is true.
    As The Protagonist in Dhammapada 1.1: “Preceded by mind are phenomena/led by mind/formed by mind.” More broadly, I mean idealism in Kant’s sense in Critique of Pure Reason: “if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world must at once vanish ….”
    Well dear friend Glen, if the mind is removed in such a way, then for that mind, the whole material world at one vanishes. What is you beef? what would harvard say?

    Postulate 3 Every x-buddhist knows that the New Age Apocalypse is true.
    In the most basic sense, it means that the way to change the world is to change one’s attitude, consciousness, viewpoint, etc., etc.”
    Well right noble attitude is a path factor, But the way you introduce it sounds like you took too many Christian classes, at harvard, was that a “Fun with Dick and Jane” Christianity also? But by mentioning only attitude with out speaking to right noble view and the rest leading to right noble unification of the mind, your postulate fails and has fallen into the same muddy rut you are in.

    Postulate 4 Every x-buddhist knows that yogic practice is essential.
    The Protagonist, the Western-Buddhism image of practice dogmatically holds meditation as the sole means of ultimate attainment.
    This is the most wrong thing of all the wrong things you have said. The Buddha taught only one thing, Dukkha dukkha niroda. He failed at a meditation only method long before he sat under the tree at Bodhi-gaya. Maybe thing are so bad that not only you need to return your PhD, harvard needs to close the program.

  11. Glenn Wallis Avatar

    Failed Buddhist. I think most blog admins would delete comments like Dhammarato’s. I generally allow them because I believe they have a certain performative value. In fact, people have accused me of writing some of these comments just to make x-buddhists look mean, violent, and stupid. The x-buddhist community is run through with people possessing those qualities. You don’t need me for that! I do delete the vile comments, like the one below. That’s just the most recent one. I get several comments a month along these lines. I even get nasty emails from well-known x-buddhist figures. Several of them have posted anonymous comments of a decidedly un-right-speech type. (They’re still up. I can tell who the poster is from IP addresses matching up.)

    To answer your question, I mostly just let the comment do its work on the community of readers. What could I possibly say? Less is more in such cases.

    The comment below is from a few days ago. It was posted to a critical essay on Thanissaro Bhikkhu. That one and the one on B. Alan Wallace have attracted maybe two dozen violent, threatening comments from apparently different people. I wonder why. Trigger warning: Un-Right-Speech.

    “[First name] toot your own horn [Last name]… your over enlarged ego and self image bring me to barf. your a privileged peice of shit whose opinion means nothing other than too the 2 assholes who agree with you and you allow to comment. eat a dick you pussy ass little faggot. I suppose your going to start a revolution and be the change to society you so radically insist upon… certainly not. just continue to whine and cry and try to ride the coat tails of some one actually trying to make a positive change to society free of charge. your a disgrace. go ahead and continue to cherry pick from buddhism whatever strikes your fancy faggot.”

  12. zed Avatar


    Based on my own experiences, I find a need to add a fourth question (or maybe precede everything with a Question Zero): If someone was already deeply invested as in X-Buddhist, and the first tool (practice) they reach for is an X-Buddhist shovel, how does one dig themselves out of the X-Buddhist hole?

    There have been two things rolling over for me personally in relation to what you’re proposing here:

    i) I have very strongly modeled my concepts of practice (and my own day to day behaviour) around “they (who) don’t do what they say they do, and they (who) don’t say what they actually do”.

    I’ve been a highly self-motivated gobbler of the PR releases of modern monks and hagiographies of the dead ones, assuming it all to be true and 100% reproducible in my day-to-day existence. It has only been a recent thing to question them, even at the logistical level – e.g., if I really achieved or embraced the the kind of practice – and promised enlightenment – that these books proposed, would I even look like a functional human being in the situation that presents itself post-enlightenment?

    There is a practical reality of employment, debts and dependents that need me to keep a certain trajectory – and I don’t see that I’m going to walk away from that – but mentally I was still entertaining the idea that I was on “the path” to “the goal” that was being presented, so even at a foundation there is an enormous schism to be answered for there.

    ii) Even being aware of this, my toolbox (toybox?) of thinking and practice is stacked to the roof with x-buddhism, in a way that I still find almost inescapable today for having thought long and hard about what I want my relationship to it to be.

    Given the choice (and some time-travel), I’d go back and smack that first X-Buddhist title out of my own hands – as without any prior exposure to philosophy or grounding in critical thinking, it became “something read, never to be un-read”, a permanent scar on my ability to think around these topics. To say – “meditation” is an inescapably dead word for me, “sitting quietly” still belongs to Dogen, even when unintentional, “paying attention” is immediately mindfulness and spiritually significant. All trauma is delusion and all joy distraction.

    So even when trying to muster the clarity of thought to think-beyond X-Buddhism and discover my own opinions and ideas on the subject, X-Buddhism storms into the discussion and brute-forces itself into the discourse – switching from the victim to the aggressor in the line of thinking.

    I’m not sure if I’ve landed the intent of your asking for replies, but it gave me somewhere to focus these thoughts, so thank you (or apologies!) all the same.



  13. Glenn Wallis Avatar

    Hi Z. “I think If someone was already deeply invested as in X-Buddhist, and the first tool (practice) they reach for is an X-Buddhist shovel, how does one dig themselves out of the X-Buddhist hole?” Nicely put. I am thinking along those same lines, I believe, in identifying an affective aspect of decision. I think that that affective element is what produces the “reaching” that you mention. It’s a reflex which precisely stamps the reacher’s identity as x-buddhist.. Thanks!

  14. Misreading Mindfulness: From Sensate Experience to Recollection, Ethics, and Discursive Thought | Dharmic Détournement Avatar

    […] Here I borrow the term ‘image of practice’ from Glenn Wallis, who in turn appropriated it from the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Given his prediclination for intellectual buggery I am sure Deleuze you be proud.  See…. […]

  15. […] While my project here is informed and indebted to Wallis and co’s at Speculative Non-Buddhism, one may see it as running in parallel to and at points intersecting with, rather than coextensive with SNB’s per se. See Image of Thought: Trash Theory #2,….  […]

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: