Tripping Rust

I don't have A Spirit of Trust, so, glancing at the chapter titles and reading the beginning of the introduction, I do not doubt nothing has changed that I oppose, I offer in opposition, to the inferentialism that Brandom is granted to guide in Rorty's essay (and Brandom is quite influential in Rorty's philosophy - it appears Brandom has gone Spinozist (and some thought Heideggerian, which is true in what follows) as was Rorty toward his departure. It is that Rorty teaches how to work in philosophy, that he believed we could get better by it, like eating well or a mutual beneficial partnering and so forth, not as total revolution much as there is the desire for. My only remaining aberrance is a resort to ironise the realism that State's use, imposing charactistics, habits, on vulnerable dependents such as often are academics and more revealing of this ad hominem vulgarity from me I see it of scientists. Politicians often don't even amount to this stencilling; to paraphrase Wittgenstein, maybe we should remain speechless; and render unto media what is media's?

This would be more than I'll write, because there's urgency and as ever I've more to do on these questions.

First off I haven't looked up what Brandom has to say, what Hegel does, on presuppositions. I won't labour over these, you'll labour enough digging down to them in the ruins, in my description, of what I write in - by my lights - temporarily labelled Humean Collapse (of science). There is frown on this Humean face. You'll see, though I'd have to write again, that I've made, after time (a considerable 2 decades) some concessions to Foucault (the New Historicism was lassiezitis on those tutored by Marx interpreters, Foucault is not guilty on the Discourse fest disaster so much as Deleuze and Guattari who are the handlers and chaperoned in New Historicism? Copjec, an incomparable logician and thorough exerciser of theorem, doesn't quite convince me of everything yet does walk through the workings out of troubles with Foucault. What I was leading to: that sexuality creates sex (as a proto FEP hypothesis?) is not really, not all, what can be made of evolution as the proliferation of diversity to generate accessible energy. We have to however think of what is The Military as a means of exhausting energy, as if to exhaust sexuality and - as Foucualt is woke to - control reproduction. Though what changes, what cannot take all space, is down to the fits of the linguistic, vocabularies. And that, for Freud was in a vocabulary unequivocally shared with Marx, is where all that is left of Hegel arrives. English consolidates all languages, though it cannot prove much of them for all that. Presently a Darwinian vocabulary - although we can't say what he meant about what he was only able to speculate on - and not he alone by any means - runs the show.

At this point I begin, with those reminders hopefully at rest with you.
It is amusing that Dawkins complains of Hegel - he's read Popper's Open Society - when he should be able to see his own inept use of Darwinism is not different in kind with the argumentations of faiths. I have pointed this out as Darwinists have recapitulated faiths, and Dame Beer on Darwin dabbled on how literature could've shaped Darwin. The relevance is the issue if science. Largely I think I'm arguing we have always been modern. Latour is quite the Baudrillardian, I wonder? Signification is a different matter, as it were, and one has to be suspect of something that relies on pedantry about the chronicity of things. This how I am suspicious, to say the least, of Perspective Realism (we could place Baudrillard in a gallery of notables?)

https://twitter.com/p_realism/status/1360212726606364673?s=19

That's for another time...

Nehemas has examined Nietzsche with a reverse engineering from the influenced, if not the uncrediting of such. Deleuze is cited, momentarily. From that remark my compression of a forming critique follows.
Now I don't take much from Spinoza - I could get more lyrical on this, suffice to say Wittgenstein hit home with TLP - except that I'm satisfied he got it that god and art are one and the same, and didn't like that but the "lens grinder" couldn't hide it, given he'd painted a deflection of the issue as a detailed panorama. Guattari brought the Spinozism to Deleuze, and though they may have gotten to the same conclusion it there we depart. I don't know that I'll achieve the contrast here, though I've no truck with D&G. I'm a universalist basically, not a trad Lacanian though I'm following through on the ahistorical human (element of us, for want of phrase at this moment) into Lacanian by Methodoligical Presentism (for ease of definition, though not argument. Well, Life is no argument?)

Ontology results from signs. D&G are bursting such, and such are one dimensional. They obscure time, so very like sciences. Bergsonian drifts will catch us cold, so lets stay warm, I'm not doing time as concept here, besides it is obscured. It is all very well to historiograph the concepts wrecking around under science labels, though what is needed is ethical declarations, full disclosure, of the implications of a research not the theory test the scientist insists they are providing. Science needs the precautionary principle enforced on it so that we are dependent on (here be Brandom's) inferentialism.
I abhor Virillio's TMI - something he shared with Habermas and Agamben - as a civilisational taciticy. In social life, yes, because Brandom hasn't a clue  - in his masonry work on the edifice of reason - how inferentialism is no more than a drug hit achieving, I'm concluding mutually assured distraction and of a ruse of authenticity (the bogeyman was going to pop out...).
Deleuze is translated as writing borrows in arguing that, and identity is the schtick, that redescription has to use the enemy's descriptions so to survive. In fact the object is "object", and that's another barrel of Diogenesians to die in whatever metaphor you care to splice it with. This is Dawkins talkings. Monod, Jacques was way ahead of Dawkins and no improvement in being a forerunner. D&G were next door to him, culturally, we may infer.

I'll end this incomplete statement with one of intent: we cannot be authentic.
We need drop the inferentialism past-time and get the sciences into the routine of pre-publication ethical examination, that every finding will accrue without allowing recourse to libel.

It's a question of presuppositions and realism is only a Deleuzian object society is sent by force tripping over.