It's 2022 and you still haven't read this?!
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It's 2022 and you still haven't read this?!
It's 2022 and you still haven't read this?!
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I don't play the guitar
ok, i laughed
I've read half on one plateau. How much better is it really than anti Oedipus? I was planning on re reading that and the Kafka literature book before attempting this.
ATP is anti-oedipus on steroids and actually applies its concepts to itself
It's not 2017/2018 anymore chud. Literally no one cares about rizomes? body without organs, Anti-Oedipus, schizophrenia, or A Thousand Plateaus. Move on. Remember that anon who tried to boast about how well-read and intelligent he was for reading Deleuze and Guatarri? Remember that? His professor just laughed at him. Another anon did the same thing. His professor said, "who the frick are they? Obviously nobodies."
If you aint ready for the Deleuzean 21st century just say that
This is a quote from Foucault regarding the 20th century
Ngmi
le rhizome
Le rhizome, le rhizome
oh la-di-da mr. frenchman
even if you dont agree with it, the aesthetics are great
Both of these books are really nice for getting in a certain frame of mind.
I'm reading Deleuze's Cinema books right now and finding them very eye opening. More interesting than a lot of other film theory I've read. I plan on reading his stuff on Spinoza next.
are you french
What else do you recommend on film theory? I've read Deleuze's Cinema as well.
Not that anon, actual filmmaker here: don't fricking read film theory you loser. film theory is bullshit. I've never read a theoretical work outside of Grierson and maybe Pudovkin of any insight. Probably because they were actual practioners.
Film Theorists are paid schizophrenics, the moving of a kitschy landscape painting to get at a prop actually important to the plot will be invested with some kind of non-mimetic symbolism about old and new. No, it's an obstacle, the point is what the character is doing.
Frick I hate film theory. Why would you pretend to like that shit!?
Film gays are so fricking dumb, Adorno was right about your """"art"""", you're so embarrassing
film > literature
HA
sculpting in time is really all you need to read
>eye opening
marxist bullshit.
dead meme
>open book
>read first few chapters
>they are still just seething about Freud and Lacan
waste of time
And they are still exactly right. Lacan is a complete fraud.
That's why he's important.
Don’t be surprised m, we don’t read anything at all.
I didn't like it. Nomadology might be more up my alley but 98% of De-Looze fanboys come as snobby pretentious morons so I don't really care to peruse his works very often
This
Just read Nomadology and Georges Dumezil
If you want philosophical content then go to Difference et repetition
Explain to me how reading this now or ever will likely
1. Directly and dramatically increase my earning power
2. Allow me to have sex with attractive female partners
TL;DR - No, because it doesn't help me get paid or laid you loser
Practice reading books or consuming other media through a certain frame of reference so that your interpretation addresses whatever you want, then everything can serve to make you rich or get you laid.
I've tried that, it doesn't work, it turns you into a free-associational almost schizo who makes superficial semantic connections between a wide variety of concepts but not the actual scenario relevant knowledge or technical skills needed to actualize your goals or suffice your intentions.
More to the point OP was speaking about A Thousand Plateaus in particular, you've made a generalized argument for reading, which again - in my experience isn't a valid argument (but your mileage may vary).
Therefore, OP is a frickwit and I shouldn't heed his call to read his French repackaging of Aristotelian hylomorphism through root analogies
How is whining in this thread going to get you laid?
Off chance someone smarter than me explains what I'm doing wrong. Are you smarter than me? If you are you should be able to very easily and without going for condescending sarcasm explain how I can "consume media through a certain frame of reference..." so that it can "serve to make [me] rich or get [me] laid?"
Media is a means that connects a producer (me) to the consumer (reading me) and both producer and consumer have their own frame of reference for how those means should look and act. The media we know is a combination of what the creator or maker tells me it should look like and what I experience what it look like. Our individual frames of perception are our own internal constructs.
We experience reality and we define what reality means. So when I experience reality through the media, whether a book written by a certain author, like me, or the music I listen to as a listener of certain style of artists or my TV, is what I have interpreted it to be for certain.
So basically, reality is that we choose what it can mean.
>So basically, reality is that we choose what it can mean.
But how come the meanings I choose aren't making me rich or getting me laid, but more importantly: what specifically should I be choosing that will get me rich or laid?
serious question, how does the concept of a body without organs differ from the buddhist concept of emptiness?
It would probably be easier to answer this question if you would elaborate in which ways you see them as so similar that you would perceive them as the same.
Would "emptiness" be usable the same way as the BwO when talking about production and desires in the way D&G use it?
Or are both terms just kinda hard to really put into words so interchanging is easy because no one really gets them?
So you have a thing. In order to do something, it makes an Organ. An Organ is a tool. You want to pump blood, so you have a heart; you want to absorb oxygen, so you have lungs; you want to digest, so you have a stomach. But, organs are a source of fragility, as those organs can fall apart. They are connections that are made, but those same connections can chain you down. Lungs mean that you can breath oxygen, but now you cannot breathe under water; if your heart gets smashed, you die. A thing without lungs cannot suffocate, but it also cannot breathe on land. See how Organs work?
A Body Without Organs is a hypothetical horizon towards which you can move. You can never reach it however because Organs are also necessary for stability. A BOW is a pure becoming, but you can never achieve a pure becoming because you'll just radically become something else. You also have no guarantee that you will become something that you want (and you have no say in the matter because you're just subjected to raw change). Thus, the BOW is a horizon that is moved towards, but not actually achieved; rather, the process is the goal, not the destination. Diet is an example of a BOW: you can never actually achieve a state of having completed a "good diet", but are rather in a constant process of nutrition. You are aiming towards a certain direction, but will never achieve it, and are simply constantly making minor adjustments as you move towards the horizon.
Emptiness meanwhile is a description of a state of existing. The Buddha posited that all things derive their existence from something else; this extends backwards and forwards infinitely. This is an infinite historical past and an infinite historical future, which are not the same thing as an infinite regress (which is positing an infinite number of steps between two finite points; the Buddha very much accepted a finite number of steps between two finitely separated points). The Buddha is not saying that things are empty as opposed to being full, but rather that Emptiness is a descriptor of HOW things exist. Emptiness = existence; Emptiness is the descriptor of existence. They exist by virtue of having been made to exist by some other thing.
While you can make an argument that a BOW requires some degree of nominalism because it's all about change, they aren't really the same thing. A BOW is, as mentioned, a horizon that is moved towards (or away from), but not actually trying to achieve, whereas Emptiness is just a descriptor of what existence means under a certain framework. Things can be Empty but not moving towards a BOW, and a thing could move towards a BOW but not be Empty (you'd be positing that the thing operated according to a different metaphysics and I don't see how it could change if it isn't Empty but whatever let's roll with it).
Thanks anon, I will digest this interesting info (organically)
But if you think Emptiness is just a metaphysical “state of being” or that something can be non-empty then I reckon you’ve misunderstood the concept
Emptiness (lack of _inherent_ existence) is the nature of any given thing (or concept, thought etc.). Indeed if you try to argue that something is non-empty you immediately either invoke another thing (so the first thing was empty after all) or beg the question (use only the first thing to show the first thing is non-empty, ie use the conclusion as the premise)
Beautifully, emptiness is itself empty (see Nagarjuna)
Yeah and I never will
"People do not only identify with animals; they also have brotherly and sisterly feelings toward plants. Trees are, as it were, the first plants to which you can really relate to. There’s an affinity that probably has something to do with this spherical form of the tree. The tree is, as it were, a double rhizome: a rhizome that has preserved the vertical dimension. If you read Deleuze, by and by you feel a little bit uneasy because the resentment against all hierarchical structures is so strong. You feel that it simply can’t be true, because hierarchies just exist. The most beautiful example that nature has given is the tree, with different physical layers of rhizomatic extension (root structure, branch structure). If you remove the resentment, you’ll find your way back to trees. A rhizome has to come out at some point and see the light.
Nature has delivered a double rhizome. Trees show us the coexistence of unity and multiplicity. In the history of ideas the tree has been used as the richest of metaphors for everything concerning differentiation. Deleuze should have spoken more about bamboo than mushrooms! Bamboo does not deny verticality; on the contrary. Deleuze was seduced by the fact that the biggest forms of life on earth are huge rhizomatic structures, hidden in woods.
This was what Deleuze was looking for: a natural structure that announces modernity at the level of organized form. But this is what we can consider to be his “bastardic” form of thinking (a concept I discussed in my Wellek lecture[i]), in the sense that he denied a kind of procreation that could create asymmetries between parents and offspring. For Deleuze, the only legitimate form of reproduction was cloning; and for this reason, he has trouble with the asymmetric relationships that procreation brings about. This is the highest level of bastardic abstraction!" -S
>For Deleuze, the only legitimate form of reproduction was cloning; and for this reason, he has trouble with the asymmetric relationships that procreation brings about.
What do "cloning" and "asymmetries" mean in this context?
Nothing complex, 'cloning' as a method of reproducing humans. 'Asymmetries' as the power imbalances that Deleuze is reacting against in his anti-hierarchical theory of the rhizome.
I don't think Deleuze saw asymmetries as inherently bad.
>Never believe that a smooth space will suffice to save us
An interesting point.
Thank you effort-poster.
i'd rather say he didn't see symmetries as inherently good.
D&G talk about two kinds of reproduction, basically initiation and lineage. Lineage is really good at preserving traits, but it's not good at introducing traits and bringing in new blood, whereas initiation is creative and by definition brings in new blood. The Indo-European Mannerbund (the actual structure itself was called the Koryos) is his example of this: a group of boys that increases by taking in new boys and initiating them into the group. It functions as a pack, existing neither as one nor many; it changes the boys that it brings in, but they also change it. When the boys grow up (they earn the right to be wolves, and thus leave the Koryos, rejoin society as men, and are thus dogs, and are part of a structure called the Teutah), they spread out, having taken what they learned and contributed to the Koryos with them.
"Cloning" here refers to rhizomatic reproduction in general (the rhizome just gets bigger and buds), but also the initiatory growth mentioned above. The tl;dr is that initiating a boy into your gang of bandits results in creativity whereas having a kid the old fashioned was does not. But of course, you need to reproduce "normally" to have kids join bandit-gangs in the forest, so there's a balance here. Deleuze doesn't dislike hierarchy, he's just postulating an alternative to the arborescent (that being the rhizomatic); all things are some ratio of both, the question is which ratio is best for a given situation. D&G were reacting against a heavily arborescent mode of living, so this is why they seem gung-ho to shit on it, but they never go too far.
Thanks anon. Is the Mannerbund/Koryos stuff explicitly mentioned in ATP or is it implied?
D&G namedrop Dumezil a few times; their conception of political power and sovereignty in the Plateaus on the different Regimes is lifted directly from Mitra-Varuna (although they recontextualize it in French terms via Catholic Feudalism and israeli History in the OT); everything to do with nomads comes from Dumezil (ultimately); the Nomadic War Machine IS the Indo-European invasion; they directly reference the IE Mannerbund (and, interestingly, even bring up the deterritorializing edge that is sharpest at the leader, who is THE wolf, literally, he often took the name "Wolf"), but do not use the terms Koryos and Teutah; Dumezil comes back up in the "becoming-animal" bits due to the Koryos in theory being ritualized lycanthropy; the stuff on War-Machines in general comes from Indo-European conceptions of war and its relationship with sovereignty and religious authority; in addition to Mitra-Varuna they directly cite a number of Dumezil's other works like Destiny of the Warrior. They get the "nomads don't move" take from Toynbee however, and namedrop Spengler at one point.
D&G, and interestingly Foucault, draw a lot from Dumezil. I think the biggest idea that they get from him is a coherent theory of a "counter-history" in juxtaposition to the Judeo-Christian (the Judeo- here is because it is taken from the israeli point of view) and Dumezil's "structural-relativism", wherein men can create "structures" that are ideal in as much as they are immaterial, but they are not more fundamental than the material (they are immaterial but dependent upon the actions of men to exist).
Reading it alongside The One Eyed God by Kris Kershaw is interesting because you see how the whole "arborescence isn't ALWAYS bad" thing comes about. Odin is the God of kings and bandits because every king is a bandit until they win. Every hierarchy was started by a gang of hoodlums until they made it big. It's easy to be all MUH DETERRITORIALIZATION MUH CHAOS MUH ANARCHY FRICK TREES until you get your hands on a grove that you want to keep for yourself.
>It's easy to be all MUH DETERRITORIALIZATION MUH CHAOS MUH ANARCHY FRICK TREES until you get your hands on a grove that you want to keep for yourself.
this
refuted by Guenon (pbuh)
The authors of this book were child groomers who wanted to abolish the age of consent. These are pedophiles.
>Verification not required
>RETVRN TO TRADITION
>n-no not that tradition!
This is incorrect.
That's exactly what I said in
. It's not a metaphysical state of being as opposed to some other state within the Buddha's framework, it's just flat out what it means "to be". There are no other options (in Buddhism).
D&G posit that all things have some ratio of change and stasis. Philosophers have largely been focused on understanding stasis, and then looking at change, as they believe that we live in a world characterized by stasis with periodic change. D&G flip this around. In this sense, they are philosophers of being, trying to understand change and stasis in a world of constant change dotted with periodic stasises. Their centerpiece is the "rhizome", a structure in opposition to the "tree". A tree is a hierarchy, with branches. Branches are either greater, less, or equal. A rhizome however has no direction except that which is internal to it. There is no up, only internal differentiation. It's a mass of connections that interface with each other rather than deriving from something else. A forest is a good example of this, being a huge mass of connections in a vast number of dimensions.
They then take a very fun but also rather obtuse format of breaking the book up into "Plateaus". While the book should be read the first time in its initial order, you can then reread it in whatever order you like in order to make connections. It's a toolbox that is meant to be used to empower creativity by giving a philosophy to change. But, be careful, because you know what is really creative and really changey? A mentally ill homeless drug addict getting sodomized in an alleyway. Remember, it's a ratio of stasis:change, not just change. The question is: what are you changing into?
Good description. Time to read ATP.
Read your own post; you said “a thing could move towards a BOW [sic] but not be empty”
But it couldn’t
You can totally posit some thing that isn't Empty that is also moving towards a BOW. A Buddhist would totally reject this because everything is Empty, but some kind of Platonist or whatever would not. A BOW for a Platonist might be a purely material thing or whatever, but that's mere technicality. You'd first have to come up with some kind of system in which this non-Empty thing could even exist (as Platonists do), and what it even means for a thing to change or do anything in such a scenario (as Platonists do), of course.
This is why I said I don’t believe you’ve understood the concept of emptiness. Let’s take the Platonist example; to “change or do anything”, as you say, already shows that this supposedly non-empty thing is in fact empty. These Platonists might believe that their BWO is non-empty, but that would show their duncehood and philological laziness to boot; it should be clear even from the term “body without organs”, in its contrast to “body with organs” that neither a body, nor the organs, nor the body without organs, inherently exists, that is, they are all empty
I don't suffer from twitter induced AGP
Projecting really badly
If you've read it, what's it about?
the internet is a friggin' rhizome and look where it got us. overdetermined noise. where's the silence in this structure?
It's 2022 and you're still reading the French?
Read Kant he's better than Deleuze