/lit/ - Literature

>>11696528
> tfw mods are Deleuzian and don't believe in judging those who spam Deleuze threads so banning them is not an option

>>11345171
Thanks for the discussion as well.

Perhaps I'm still too attached to a problem of commons (not truly reducible to the market) to truly appreciate Land. I'm not even sure where D&G stand on this since capitalism's "fluidity", its capacity to always create new axioms to sustain itself isn't the same as the deterritorialization that they prefer.

Zizek's notion of commons (genetic material, intellectual property, the environment) which a new communism is supposed to protect still appeals to me (as opposed to the probably libertarian versions that advocate for pricing these things and letting the market go to the end in fixing the problems). We're probably too far gone at this point, even Heidegger famously said: "philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. ONLY A GOD CAN SAVE US". But the problem of commons goes a bit further than that: if today we get all kinds of conspiracy theories about ressentiment filled Cultural Marxists looking to destroy traditional values, if you look at why Marx and Engels attacked the family, it boils down to at least two things: it was already a decayed institution due to capitalist thinking (not just inheritance, but alliances based on money and power) and it was within a framework in which the wife was the man's caretaker and the capitalist got two workers for the price of one essentially. So Peterson's (and others) point about wages halving due to the number of workers (now male and female) doubling depends on the framework just as much. Point being that even here there is a problem of commons since until now birth rates and housework could be taken for granted, but now that is no longer the case and it's debatable just how much throwing money at the problem will fix it (as much as I want to believe leftist solutions).

Even what you mentioned:
> intelligence traveling backwards from the future
Can be read as not merely ulteriorism (in the sense that we always look for explanations after something has occurred), but also as a formula for the banking system as creating money out of nothing (bringing it from the future so to speak) in order to give out loans (rather than, as most people believe, giving someone else's already deposited money to the credit seeker).

Not saying I have an answer to all of this, I'm just wondering if the market can truly cover everything. Varoufakis had a cute example about his daughter helping a neighbor out for free out of kindness. Varoufakis asked his daughter: "if the kindness was lacking and the neighbor had instead paid you a small sum to perform the same trivial task, would you still do it?" and she said no. Maybe this anecdote isn't worth anything, but it does appeal to that part of me that thinks of unquantifiable relations.

>>10455373
> Isn't that what depression is?

Depends in which framework you're using the term. The futility of everything may be part of that way of thinking, which leads to being physically unable to act (unable to find the motivation to do anything). For D&G it's one drive, one interpretation, among others as far as I can tell because already for Nietzsche nihilism in this ordinary sense (not his remarks about Christianity being nihilistic) wasn't in itself something bad as long as it meant a transvaluation of all values where forces finally stood on their own in the plurality of their differences. Perspectivism (that a phenomenon has just as many valid meanings as forces capable of taking it over and giving it interpretation and evaluation, that is to say value) is true just as much for infinity.

Basically, of course one who's desiring machines are materially broken (people who feel chronic pain simply due to genetics, or people who due to brain damage are constantly thirsty, etc.) will have a bad time, but equating their experience to every experience of the infinity (if that's what you're getting at) is already one differentiated interpretation and evaluation among others. Not invalid, just not "the one truth".

Hopefully I didn't miss your point by translating it into D&G's Nietzschean side.

Read the three passages here: >>10451795
The infinity that desiring machines bring about has it's own inner ("intensive") joy for D&G. Even depression can affirm itself, even being narcissistic which is not to say that it is also desirable for life.