Idiots and wagers

I plunge into the middle, since I am no longer at the beginning and cannot see the ends. I jump in and will somehow doggie paddle around from buoy to buoy, hoping not to drown.

I've dived into the water close to the conceptual persona bouy. So we will rest here while I catch my breath. While we hang (grimly) onto this bobbing conceptual persona, we notice some things. Here are a few of the things we distract our clinging selves with:

A conceptual persona is "reconstituted by the reader"- perhaps a viewer will be more in line with our use of Marchand- often appears with a proper name, like Socrates, though we must not confuse Socrates the character of the dialogues with Socrates the conceptual persona. (D&G, 63).

Conceptual personae

• are thinkers, solely thingers (69)
  
• must be remarkable, even if repulsive (83)
  
• constitute a point of view (75)
  
• show thought's territories (69)
  
• think in us (69)
  
• are the becoming or the subject of the philosophy (64)
  
• are true agents of enunciation (65)
  
• are irreducible to psychosocial types (67)
  
• have features- some examples, pathic (maniac, the Idiot), relational (Friend, Rival), dynamic (leaping, dancing) juridical (lays claims to what is right), existential (invents possibilities of life) (70-72)
  
• perhaps are how philosophers waken a dormant concept and play it a new stage (83)

Only a few vital anecdotes are needed to "produce a portrait of a philosophy" (72). So in Pascal's philosophy "the gambler" becomes a conceptual persona that then in a vital anecdote places a wager.