I am a bit confused about the function of the blog. The blog, as I see it, offers two modes of writing: the first structure uses the blog as one would use a diary, recording the narrative of our thinking. This includes tentative connections that don't really fall under a particular heading or subject. This would use the blog as a linear medium.
While this is the structure I take with the email, because of the 25 post requirement, my blogs tend to use each entry as a way to explore a particular topic/concept. For instance, with Baudrillard I will have separate blogs on seduction, the obese, ceremony, and terrorism. I think this is more true to the heuretic method since we will eventually probably take one of these moments as an instruction. Furthermore, this is a different mode of thinking than what I refer to as the 'narrative' mode and as such differs from one continuous diary entry. This takes advantage of hypertext.
The problem I am having lies in my hermeneutic approach to texts. I want to make connections, struggling with the "meaning" of the text, rather than breaking it up into separate sections. Baudrillard himself asks us to be more "discerning" so perhaps my problem ( is I am trying to collapse these contents into a series of connections that will eventually make sense.
I just read through Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge and, like Baudrillard, he is interested in mapping out the dispersions rather than connections that form an intricate but closed system. Though I haven't read Deleuze on Foucault, I think I understand why he likes his thought considering his concern with "lines of flight" and dispersion/creation of concepts. Perhaps I should approach B.'s text in this way and it will help me with reading heuretically?