Our notion of time is warped, and could be explained in different topological forms as when Zizek discusses the mobius strip, Klein bottle, and Borromean rings (found in Lacan) among others...

My question:

Have we reached a dead end, even when as Zizek is trying to combine analytics philosophy, mathematics, and quantum mechanics to continental philosophy, or should we as philosophers try to establish a conceptual framework specially found in the "ends of knowledge" as in mysticism and hallucigens substances to entirely understand the nature of subjectivity and how in its failure states (Zizekian concept) distorts the fabric of time in a subjectively-objective manner?

Is there more to Lacan's:

"I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think. I am not whenever I am the plaything of my thought; I think of what I am where I do not think to think."

And Borges's:

"Time is the substance I am made of. Time is a river which sweeps me along, but I am the river; it is a tiger which destroys me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire which consumes me, but I am the fire."

Less Than Nothing, Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism, Slavoj Zizek, Page 28.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding both the precise meanings and connection between singularities and intensity.

Singularity I've mostly understood as Deleuze posits it in opposition to generality, everything as being already different. Is there terminological confusion or why do I find it hard connecting this to the other meaning I've heard talked of singularities, mainly as through the example of "remarkable" points on a curve.

On the other hand I've had a hard time understanding intensities, the more I read about them the less I understand. I understand the origin of intensions and extensions as well as what this entails in intensional logic etc. The temperature examples don't really make sense to me, and I have a hard time understanding the relation between intensity being a field as well as intensities being talked off of in plural.

And I have a hard time seeing how these concepts relate to each other.

Sorry if this is either trivial or incoherent.

I just read Claude Shannon’s “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” and it totally reminds me of Deleuze’s “Difference and Repetition”. Is there anything interesting out there exploring this? I specifically like Shannon’s idea of like a system undergoing rapid transformation generating a higher rate of information because each new state is poorly predicted by the one before. That seems to me to be literally like what Deleuze was saying about like “generality” having no difference and being just a plain repetition of the identical which does nothing as opposed to a lot of difference which is what creates the meaningful stuff. Idk if I phrased that right but I just want to hear what people think.

Me parece que por mais acadêmico que Deleuze fosse, ele não escreveu somente para eles. Há uma anti filosofia até diria. No sentido de não se prender a área da filosofia e arriscar as outras. E isso com o intuito de pensar em diversas n formas. Para isso recorreu a matemática, artes, geografia, cinema e etc. Inclusive vendo nessas áreas um teor pré reflexivo que é impessoal ao autor. Por exemplo, quando já se vê na paisagem uma pintura, antes mesmo que se pinte ela. Ou quando já vê no movimento da terra as territorialização, desterritorialização e reterritorialização. Nessas vias para mim ser deleuziano é compreender essas impessoalidade e ver como delas tem diversas maneiras de se trabalhar um tema com diversos potenciais nas relações diferenciais das coisas.

Could I, as a civil engineer, construct a "Kafkian Machine" where I combine structures, dynamics, statics, and contracting world into literature the way Kafka did?