/lit/ - Literature

>>10967843
>So, they're basically just describing a being that is wholly unconditioned, correct?
yeah but more specifically literal human being with hollow inside. no organs, nothing. watch the movie 'hollow man' and you'll know everything there is to know about deleuzian rhizomatic anti-atavistic proclamations

>>10967880
This really deterritorialized my neurons.

So what is the body without organs? Pure Being trapped in the individuated (human) being but that is unwilling to actualise as individuation.

>>10967880
Like a Cartesian dualist describing a pure ghost without a machine?

It is funny how something is actually being defines and you still asking what it is. You know, a BwO is probably smthng that you havent though about before. Thats why u read Deleuze, in order to get new ideas, new concepts. Dont try to tie up them to your previos experience (dont be arborescent): that is something that happens after

It would be amazing if english was muy first language

>In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari eventually differentiate between three kinds of BwO: cancerous, empty, and full. Roughly, the empty BwO is the BwO of Anti-Oedipus. This BwO is also described as "catatonic" because it is completely de-organ-ized; all flows pass through it freely, with no stopping, and no directing. Even though any form of desire can be produced on it, the empty BwO is non-productive. The full BwO is the healthy BwO; it is productive, but not petrified in its organ-ization. The cancerous BwO is caught in a pattern of endless reproduction of the self-same pattern. They give a rough recipe for building yourself a healthy BwO:

>This is how it should be done. Lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continua of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times. It is through a meticulous relation with the strata that one succeeds in freeing lines of flight, causing conjugated flows to pass and escape and bringing forth continuous intensities for a BwO. (Deleuze & Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, 1980/1987, p. 161)

>Deleuze and Guattari suggest restraint here, writing that drug addicts and masochists may come closer to truly possessing bodies without organs—and die as a result. The 'healthy BwO' thus envisions the actual body without organs as a horizon, not a goal.

the fuck where these niggas on

>>10967956
Giving old ideas new jargon terms doesn't acquit them of their past conceptions, critiques, or problems. Rehashing the ontology of Being, Act, Potency, and Causes with meme words doesn't erase two and a half thousand years of thought on them.

>>10967880
So becoming a tabula rasa which can experience the actualisation of any potential?

inventing meaningless words to hide the fact you have nothing to say.

>>10968012
>Rehashing the ontology of Being, Act, Potency, and Causes with meme words doesn't erase two and a half thousand years of thought on them.
I just have bad news for you...

>>10968029
Why would ever anybody do that? Are u considering that may be projecting?

>>10967880
The 1933 one?

>>10968012
>>10968029
>Giving old ideas new jargon terms doesn't acquit them of their past conceptions
>inventing meaningless words to hide the fact you have nothing to say.
But if the "rehashing" can eventually accumulate/perpetuate into a sustainable linguistic milieu, continuous with the former protogenic millennia and yet altered in some ways useful within an emerging technical paradigm, then the reiteration is not superfluous but becomes an adaptive transposition.

>>10968012

>>10968029
fuck off Jordan

>>10968087
Yes, I'm not saying that you can not make new contributions to old ideas, nor that those new contributions might necessitate new jargon or redifinitions of terminology. But you do not escape the old conceptions or critiques and must be able to defend your new gloss from the old base. You can not resort to chronology as an argument, just because your conception is newer does not make it inherently better.

>>10968045
Jump out a window

>>10968198
>just because your conception is newer does not make it inherently better.
I agree wholeheartedly, but cannot help emphasizing that chronology/continuity is nonetheless significant and must be accounted for in any well informed conception. New ideas are necessary for survival in a novel technical field, but they must be recombinations/redraftings of existing component conceptions, yes?
I feel that too often, young thinkers especially tend to forget this and have occasion to latch far too fervently on to precisely some OLD idea after concluding (rightfully) that (but only seemingly!) the vast majority of new conceptions are either well meaning but erroneous or else pure utter shit. Its true, but the new is still ultimately necessary!! And I believe D&G make an earnest and useful attempt at constructing an innovative vocabulary for the postCartesian project of conceptualizing self and other in a shifting social world. Even if they are occasionally cryptic or obscurantist, personally I take that to be part of the interactive allure of coming to ingest and implement their intentionally minoritarian syntax.

Is this book interesting at least or is it just ramblings?

>>10968284
Seems to be a novelty-fetish and a soft restatement of an argument from chronology. New philosophy needs to stand on its merits and be able to defend itself from past critques and conceptions. It is possible for new ideas to be wrong. It is possible for new ideas to detract from past ones and be inferior to them. Novelty is not an automatic good or an automatic improvement. A Hegelian conception of history that everything is always a progression and improvement-over-old is a self-serving excuse to exclude the possibility that your ideas may offer nothing; or worse be dysgenic to philosophy.

>>10968370
its unbelievably interesting if you have a high iq and are imaginative

its not scientific but who fucking cares stemspergs are retarded

>>10968434
Ironically IQ is something stemfags made up to try quantifying an incredibly nuanced subject with a simple numerical score

>>10968742
Tactical nihilism to defend 3rd worlder brainlets

>>10968412
>New philosophy needs to stand on its merits and be able to defend itself from past critques and conceptions. It is possible for new ideas to be wrong. It is possible for new ideas to detract from past ones and be inferior to them. Novelty is not an automatic good or an automatic improvement. A Hegelian conception of history that everything is always a progression and improvement-over-old is a self-serving excuse to exclude the possibility that your ideas may offer nothing; or worse be dysgenic to philosophy
Again- I agree completely with everything you said. I would only urge you to emphasize that although "novelty is not an automatic good or an automatic improvement", it- novelty in conceptualization, is also nonetheless necessary, at least when one is living through the emerging ascendance of a genuinely distinctive technical paradigm. One need not be an Hegelian to accede to that fact. Just because most novel things are not "a good", and no thing whatsoever is "an automatic good", does not preclude the fact that we- as D&G do, must strive for some novelty while incorporating lineage and retaining a strategic and discerning impetus for our expansion in the world. Whether that expansion of ours is to be binary or rhizomatic is for each other to decide, but if one fails to expand sufficiently to obtain some requisite nutrients, that one will surely fail in its reproductive cycle and so not survive in future generations. Such a one is by any material definition a failure- and that one you will find yourself to be if you are living through such a shift as we are currently right now witnessing here on Gaia.
>>10968758
oof

>>10968742
dude has anyone on /lit/ read that book that coined the term meritocracy? apparently it was supposed to be dystopian shit, but stemfags ran with it

>>10968284
>!!

>>10968742
>French psychologist Alfred Binet, together with Victor Henri and Théodore Simon had more success in 1905, when they published the Binet-Simon test, which focused on verbal abilities. It was intended to identify mental retardation in school children,[22] but in specific contradistinction to claims made by psychiatrists that these children were "sick" (not "slow") and should therefore be removed from school and cared for in asylums.[23] The score on the Binet-Simon scale would reveal the child's mental age. For example, a six-year-old child who passed all the tasks usually passed by six-year-olds—but nothing beyond—would have a mental age that matched his chronological age, 6.0. (Fancher, 1985). Binet thought that intelligence was multifaceted, but came under the control of practical judgment.

>In Binet's view, there were limitations with the scale and he stressed what he saw as the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures (White, 2000).

>>10969257
Throw jargon out the window

>>10967843
Why is Leftist "academic" writing such pretentious nonsense?

>>10970037
Lack of rigour. Mainly in it to smash cute undergrads.

FELIX PASS THE BONG

>Preface by Michel Foucault.
Into the trash it goes

>>10967843
Ah, that book. It's great but has a terrible writing style.

>>10967880
>watch the movie 'hollow man' and you'll know everything there is to know about deleuzian rhizomatic anti-atavistic proclamations
KEK

>>10967957
>>10967843
Stop listening to the trolls in this thread and read the BwO chapter in A Thousand Plateaus. Anti-Oedipus had an incoherent concept of BwO because D&G disagreed with one another about the concept at the time and admitted it eventually.

Also enough with the Deleuze threads, Jesus Christ. There's like three of them popping up at the same time.

>>10970295
>>>/rightylit/

>>10970581
>>>/pozpavmentslit/

All french philosophers are trash. Read more Anglos and Americans.

>>10970596
Pure anglo propaganda: the post.

>smokes bong and drops a tab of acid on tongue
>dude what if like everything was like the roots of plants and like bodies existed without organs

Why do we allow the french to exist lads?

>>10970610
>I don't understand texts that don't look like scientific discourse

>>10970622
In other words work that actually have sound rationality to them? Continental fags are the absolute worst

>>10970631
It's positivism, not philosophy.
Anglo propaganda, everyone.

>>10970654
>positivism, not philosophy

>>10970280
lel

>>10970967
Exactly, now take a break from lit, sit down for a while, and think it over until you comprehend the difference between philosophical engagement and positivism.

>>10971059
>MY WORD IS LAW, ACCEPT IT CRETIN