Making philosophy a multiplicity

One of our categories here is "Analytic-Continental Divide (and its overcoming)." What do I mean by "overcoming"? I don't mean that when the divide is overcome there will be one homogeneous way of doing philosophy. I'm a Deleuzean, and that would not at all be a Deleuzean ideal. Instead I think we should make philosophy into a multiplicity.

In comments here on the new JHAP (Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy) it was suggested that one outcome of "overcoming the divide" could be "absorption" of CP by AP, producing a homogeneity, one way of doing philosophy. Well, sure, "absorption" of CP by AP is one possible outcome of "overcoming the divide" -- as is absorption of AP by CP for that matter -- but it is not the only one. And it's not one I think likely or desireable.

What I said in the post was this:

1. I'm going to tag this with "Analytic-Continental Divide and its overcoming" as the potential for work examining "the parting of the ways" might help to specify the important similarities and the important differences between the two traditions. 
2. There is also be room for investigations into the relation of the history of analytic philosophy and other non-continental traditions -- we should never forget that the philosophy map isn't completely divisible into two traditions, analytic and continental. There are plenty of fields that don't fit either description.

Putting them together means I think philosophy should produce itself as a multiplicity, including not just CP and AP but many other traditions. In the Deleuzean sense, a multiplicity is that which maintains heterogeneity among its components in a disjunctive synthesis that affirms differences. And in the most important sense, a multiplicity is virtual, that is, it is the structure of a pre-individual field of differential relations and singularities, which is actualized by a leading edge of an impersonal individuation which integrates that differential field.

What does that mean in non-specialist terms? It means that a finished piece of work is an actual product whose production (the writing) integrates a conceptual field composed by our reading choices. The more heterogeneous the reading, the more hetereogeneity is integrated and preserved in the product. 

To give a concrete example: I spent several years reading up on 4EA cog sci in order to intervene in that field with this piece, which seeks to "add Deleuze to the mix." In doing so I think I "overcame the AP / CP divide" by writing on an area (cognitive science) which tends to be the preserve of analytically trained philosophers, or at least those who are conversant with analytic philosophy of mind (even if many of the positions there are foils for 4EA positions).

Of course, it should be added that the 4EA field has a number of contributors who have themselves already "overcome the divide" and are operating their own multiplicities: Shaun Gallagher, Hanne De Jaegher, Evan Thompson, Mike Wheeler, Ezequiel Di Paolo, and lots of other folks (we should never forget the contributions of Francisco Varela and Susan Hurley before their untimely deaths). What I tried to do was add Deleuze as another "dimension" to the heterogeneous multiplicity they had already constructed: philosophy of mind, phenomenology, neuroscience (cognitive and affective), developmental psychology, dynamic systems modeling, Developmental Systems Theory, and so on and so forth. 

So I don't think "overcoming the divide" is some future goal; it's happening already in this and other areas and we need to thematize it as such and, to the extent one can, contribute to it.