Four maxims of empiricism.

a)Reality – that is the film of perceived realty is what there is. The questions about met reality or ideal reality go by the wayside. The transcendental is likewise the illusion of attempting o see otherwise that the perceiving and whirring  the minds that make a perception. The problem of truth is therefore never the problem of uncovering what was hidden, but rather that of allowing what is real to sand out from everything else. The truth is plain to see, but never plain to articulate.

b) Empiricism is haunted by problems of mingling selves. At each point, and in each part the individual is likely to be confused with what they see and feel . This confusion is very complex, as each individual is really creating there own reality in this veneer they add. The addition is therefore not something other, something different: It is real enough. It might even be pooled and shared with others. E might therefore be collectively disillusioned, collectively mislead. The problem is though at some point, the addition, the passion takes over from reality, and makes a claim that one could not follow is one bent with reality itself. That is if one went with what fumbles into a mind, rather than what is generate by mines. However even here one needs so much caution. This distinction is very complex, as affects are also passions between minds, which we tumble into. They will therefore appear as other morality to us. However the difference still remains that the affect will effect us by forcing us to relate to, a and feel across one another. The affects therefore others our passions, in giving us reality: w all feel differently, and instability: We are all gripped in a change as we feel: The unstably and the affect are run together, and only dogma and endless enforcing of certain impressions will stabilize this dream. Affects therefore breed dogmas is they are shared.. Reality itself, works by bleeding not a different directly in the mind. Simple ideas therefore hook up, and we become able to forecast that hooking up. The world becomes open both to track ways, which we belief we know and which render the world predictive and probably. Bu also we can cope with the fact that these track ways are always slightly wrong, always misplaces, always never wee we think thy ought to be. Their error becomes therefore creative, and creative as they’re experience, and helps in our mind. The are therefore in their fixing, in their assembling as shatter of impressions and simple ideas, the very opposite of affects, which can only be housed in stodgy dogma.

c) Or to put it another way empiricism founds itself on a complex distinction in mutualism. An affect is given in the particular in the dogma, and in the general across morality. Therefore creates itself across the great canvas of the world: we all as we are share it in being human or being an animal. It is the sense, the direction to a sharing. Reality itself is different. I is most shared, most real in the immediate assemblages (where an affect is a mere dogma), and never to be trusted on the great canvas (where it immediately resolves or is taken over in the claims of dogma).Reality is he reality of the little therefore. The power to endlessly doubles up what is. This doubling then allows this what is also to be share with others. We all loo to it, and feel though it. We all grasps it and expect others to grasps it. This kind of reality is therefore shared (within reason) between you and me. We are in I together. An affect  contrast swells, and grows in sharing itself across the multitude. It is shred in this multitude by never being the same in either of us. Each know that our positions in the moral order are different. You will behave from your angle, I from mine, but together in a swell, in a communication of others, we will raise up a moral clamour. Reality is the tread of the immediate therefore, and affects the grasp of the distance. Philosophy is the dual citizen, at home is ether. However this of course opens up the philosophic to the possible dream. How might these two elements be connected? Are they? All of religion pulls one way, and yet the empiric as sceptic appears always to pull the other.

d)Here the problem really comes down to the levels of mutualism. What the sceptic is really opposed to is any simple inclusive index. The problem with such index (teleology, difference, duration etc), which in various diverse ways capture nature and humanity yin a single throw, is that they necessarily are reductive jus at the moment that reality itself is as its move creative. Reality becomes therefore in its ability to encompass others, and include parallel structures, in its ability to differ as it is, merely the adjunct of some other great (and always intensive) difference. Its own power is therefore occluded within the power of something else. The sceptic is the knight of the real therefore. He endlessly wants to insist the power and place of what is their. However this does not itself mean that the problem goes away. On the contrary the knight is open to it, and open to the possible that endlessly new lines or links (universe as vegetable, or as blind force) might be proposed. This links operate not as fixed truths, so much as hypothesis of level, in the chaos of the world. Thy create hybrid hypothesis communizing feeling and reality in affect-percept combo (Deleuze here is of course right – we merely go the exact levels wrong, blighted as he was by Bergson). Or to put I another way, be took the collapse of these structures, and there needless warping to be one and the same as the problem of reality itself: the difference that vivacity inhabits, the difference that allows an idea to taken in what it was not, was therefore seen as the same problem which allows one to run across different local structures, different sets of mutualisms. This assertion (which allows one the rights to claim passions and reality unit in this difference) is too much for Hume. He would not accept it. His point is that everything beyond the mutualism of the hypothesis is not know or will be known only through the mutuality itself (and the way it eventually implodes). The links might be endlessly textures or problematical dogmatic. The gain is to set no rules, but rather to let the absence of real rules and their endlessly creation is full power. If one does set rules themselves one will of course be caught up on the difference between passion ands reality (hat the agency or money which is their sole encompassed). If one then allows this move, then one loses the power and virtue of the actual under the weight of what might have been. Allow different mutalities their own mystery. Trust them, and see what happens, is the sceptic-empirics line.