/lit/ - Literature

>>19771754
Daily reminder that Deleuze is /lit/core. The body without organs is the most brilliant philosophical concept of the last 50 years.

>>19771782
QRD on body w/o organs? he does seem very interesting. I'm into Nietzsche and want to start with Deleuze's book on him

>>19771782
the deleuzean cat boys are here

>>19771754
overly verbose and distorted Heraclitus, dislike it
the more words are spent talking about certain things the more the truth about it is lost and the uglier the world becomes

>>19771754
This is what 'dark deleuze' that zizek and guys like land sometimes touch on.
Basically it just justifies fascism (not a bad thing)

>>19771792
think of an egg, the egg is the flow process of life and is about to exist but has not actually existed(as a chicken). this differentiated process of organism secession is what D&G is refering to as BwO

>>19771754
kek its the tyler the creator/odd future font from 2009. fitting for a bunch of edgy overgrown children.

Culp's Dark Deleuze book: I read it about 5 times and got something useful each time. A line of flight into asymmetry, a kind of positive nihilism.
> https://usa.anarchistlibraries.net/library/andrew-culp-dark-deleuze

>>19772072
Dark Deleuze is such a stupid cope. If you want to be a fascist just be a fascist. Why disillusioned leftists can't just leave their leftist ideas behind?

>>19772112
What differentiates the BwO from a field of potential i.e. something which isn't anything but has the possibility to become almost anything? What differentiates BwO from Mother Mary (pure potential) in whom God the Son the Word and the Pantocrator (consciousness/intelligence in which subjects and objects have existence and are actualised) is immaculately conceived as the image of God the Father (Creator of the world from pure potential with Word)?

>>19772146
Because they are inherently anti-nomian so when they change side they try to articulate an anti-nomian version of the right, which is a self-contradiction, of course, but what can you expect from leftists.

>>19772170
nothing. it's verbosity and "innovation" for innovation's sake

>>19772175
Kek
Please tell me that is not a serious answer

>>19772178
Deleuze and Guatari's project is about never ending self-balkanization. Bro, just experiment new things! Actualize yourself! You aren't letting your self to be constrained by preconceived notions, right? But, of course you should keep voting for the left though...

>Daily reminder that Deleuze is /lit/core. The body without organs is the most brilliant philosophical concept of the last 50 years.

>>19772185
How do they account for the actualiser? If the balkanised self is balkanised again, the previous self isn't balkanised anymore because balkanisation cannot be subject to balkanisation because otherwise the self couldn't exist even as nothingness. That doesn't make any sense. Is their philosophy a perverse negative theology encapsulated in the following claim: if the world is destroyed only God can remain?

>>19772204
>if the world is destroyed only God can remain?
Probably they wouldn't use the word God, but kind of, in a way. It's like some sort of distorted budhism that instead of trying to stop suffering pursues it and embraces never-ending-change, so instead of ending up as an enlightened being you end up as a tranny who never stops feeling dysphoria no matter how much they try to self-actualize, because the self-balkanization is never complete.

>>19772170
>something which isn't anything but has the possibility to become almost anything
can this be differentiated in the context of natura naturata/natura naturans?

>>19772219
That sounds wonderful. Now I understand why the body without organs is the most brilliant philosophical concept of the last 50 years.

>>19772204
I worded that poorly
Self-balkanisation = universal broken into particulars
You cannot break a particular into particulars without making the previous particular a universal. If you break the braking it's either a double negation or the destruction of the universe because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
>>19772219
Yeah 50% I can see how suicide is the practical application of their philosophy. I still don't understand how they cash out their ontology, though.

>>19772204
Have you seen Hellraiser? You know the Cenobites? I wouldn't know if that's what they had in mind when they came up with the body without organs, but it's what it leads to. Deleuze and Guatari believe in some sort of absolute individualism, but not in a traditional or libertarian sense. On the contrary, they are so leftist that they want everyone to becomes a minority of sorts that keeps becoming a minority out of themselves in an eternal fractal of exploring their own potential, but not potential in a virtuous sense, but as in "you're valid because you're a minority!"

>>19772228
I made a distinction between a field of potential which is limited and pure potential which is unlimited.

Seems like natura naturata means play-doh without form (Father) and natura naturans is the person (Son) who molds (Holy Ghost) the play-doh (Mother) into form. The person (God) also is the play-doh. Did I explain those concepts properly?

>>19772260
If the becoming minority is fractal, it's recursion would immediately empty the distinction between minorities and majorities, because when the pattern of becoming minority is repeated the minority becomes majority.

Doesn't cash out the ontology because that is just an incoherent explanation of non-duality. Haven't seen the film but I put it in my watchlist.

>>19772329
If their ontology cannot be cashed out they cannot make any coherent claims about what one should do. What's the point of becoming minority when I already am a minority in reference to majority?

>>19772329
>Doesn't cash out the ontology because that is just an incoherent explanation of non-duality.
They didn't think it thoroughly. That's why they are mostly irrelevant in philosophy studies, but it's also why they are influential in other areas, like art or politics. The nonsense makes them fashionable. They are just your typical post-war french intellectuals who were obsessed about avoiding fascism to ever rise again so one day they thought "wouldn't it be nice if everyone were a minority? Then no class would get systematically persecuted by those fascists!"

>>19772301
i see natura naturan/naturata as more of a recursive process w/o further instantiation(realization of the process). this could be why the limited/unlimited field of potential distinction is not recognized in this epistemic framing.

>>19772343
>What's the point of becoming minority when I already am a minority in reference to majority?
Because that means you're just individualistic and therefor part of the problem. You must deterritorialize yourself.

>>19772349
Ok, I can understand how their philosophy can be somewhat sensible with the historical perspective. Thanks.

>>19772364
>deterritorialize yourself
And what does that mean?

>>19772349
>"wouldn't it be nice if everyone were a minority? Then no class would get systematically persecuted by those fascists!"
The point is that if everyone is a minority then there wouldn't be nazis to persecute anyone else, retard.

>>19772364
I'm not sure if that was ironic so I'll respond.

After having permanently deterritorialised myself what should I do? Remember I inhabit no territory, I am like Buddha Nature or something.

>>19772379
>Permanent deterritorialisation
If that's not possible D&G is reducible to a failed Buddhism

>>19772372
There are some nuances to it, but really it's just their way of saying dekonstruction. Check your privileges, bro. Haven't you considered that all you hold as an static true is just a social construct? Explore every possibility, bro. Just keep voting for the left though.
>>19772379
You can't permanently deterritorialize yourself. You can be in a permanent start of self-deterritioralization though, and if enough people join our cult then it means we finally defeated fascism and we can all live happy in an eternal (metaphorical and literal) orgy. Guatari unironically thought May 68 would lead to that.

>>19772402
>permanent start
Wanted to write "permanent state".

>>19772402
>Guatari unironically thought May 68 would lead to that.
wtf source? I can't believe they were that retarded.

>>19772402
>permanent deterritorialisation
>permanent state of self-deterritioralisation
Check my previous posts about incoherency. They have to be the same or D&G's philosophy cannot make sense.
So is deterritorialisation just an unholy form of active meditation and contemplation? In Buddhism (Enlightenment), Hinduism (Atman), Daoism (The Way) and Christianity (Christ Consciousness) there is a holy purpose to meditation and contemplation.

>>19772424
Can't bother to look, but search for Guattari and may 68 and you should find stuff about how enthusiastic Guattari was about the whole thing and how he believed this time the world was going to change for real. He was even in charge of some mental patients and brought them to the streets so they could too enjoy this new deterritorialised world, because who is to say that they are crazy anyway?
I also seem to remember that his fell out with Lacan was because of May 68 too. Guattari kept annoying Lacan about how amazing this thing was and how everything was going to change in a radical way, but Lacan didn't care for it and told him people were just looking for a new master or something like that. Guattari got so pissed that Lacan couldn't see how people were going to finally free themselves, that he cut Lacan from his life. Lacan was another massive pseud though, but he was right that time.

>>19772495
This is absolutely hilarious

>>19772495
lol. Redpill on Lacan anon?

>>19772495
holy fuck
trannies worship these pseuds? how do they even manage to pretend they're studying something subversive and innovative?

>Deleuzes thought is just a failed/bastardized version of xyz
I fucking hate it when this board does that. It's impossible to argue against because the terms the argument is based around are extremely broad and at the same time very narrow because when engaged, most of the time someone only gets a "lol study the vedas this is obvious! Read the entire bibliography of xyz before you respond nerd"
This is general complain though that happens often and not only with Dolce&Gabanna

>>19771792
Deleuzes books on other philosophers are much more accessible than his main works and pretty great. If you have read a little bit of Nietzsche beforehand it's easy to get into.

>>19772059
Kill yourself you stupid faggot.

>>19772563
chances are you will kill yourself sooner than I die of old age

>>19772566
Tranny obsessed faggot. Stop thinking CONSTANTLY about another mans open wound you nigger.

>>19772572
>no mentions of trannies anywhere
>somehow he feels called out on it
What are you telling us about yourself anon?

>>19772563
>Dolce&Gabanna
You should try to hide that you're a tranny in /lit/, for your own good.

>>19772563
Mommy! Mommy! I'm so happy you came to call out all these pseuds who don't know the first thing about D&G

>>19772563
Are you a woman or tranny with BPD?
>I'm anything and everything simultaneously and I have to be accepted just the way I am. Also, I fucking hate when this board doesn't accept this.
It is possible to understand philosophers and to argue against their arguments with reference to Truth.
It's not the fault of the world that you are emotionally unstable.

>>19772563
>>19772572
Please don't kill yourself

>>19772260
>but as in "you're valid because you're a minority!"
If each person is becoming their own personal minority (party of one), that would completely destroy the concept of being "valid" for being a member of a specially treated group, because such groups cease to exist. Clearly you don't understand what you pretend to have read, stick to grumbling about the American Culture War with your buddies on twitter

>>19772146
No it's just implicit. How is it a cope?
If we accept the interior is a doubling of the outside world what do you say if the fascist just says 'yes'?

>just make up some inconsequential metaphysical gibberish
>retards everywhere laps it up and discuss it
modern philosophy truly is something

>>19773393
They learned from Plato

>>19771754
Someone plz explain the connection with deleuze and trannies/catboys

>>19773399
it looks edgy so they try to appropriate it to confirm themselves. small brain '''ring-wingers''' seethe and call Deleuze a badman: catboys screech triumphantly as they feel validated by the other. both parties get locked in a symmetrical dialectic.

>>19773396
you're not wrong, but for the Greeks metaphysics were more of a posteriori justification of a way of life/way of seeing the world, instead of the pointless logophilia of the intellectually diseased that call itself philosophy today.

>>19773421
So what you're saying is that I have to fuck these catboys calm? Alright

>>19773445
Be careful with toxoplasmosis.

>>19772563
Deleuze literally describes his own thought as a kind of “buggery” with the philosophers that came before him. His concepts are quite literally bastard-children.

>”But, above all, my way of coping at that time was, I am inclined to believe, to conceive of the history of philosophy as a sort of buggery or, which amounts to the same thing, a sort of immaculate conception. I imagined myself as arriving in the back of an author and giving him a child, which would be his and which nevertheless would be monstruous.”

Yes biographical readings are dumb, but this is more about his approach to interpretation and epistemology than his own personal life.

>>19771782
That's blanchot you pleb.

>>19773438
The crux of the matter is whether the metaphysics is consequential or not. In that sense modern philosophy is a parody, because it cannot even take seriously what it makes up, merely entertaining it as an explanation, while Plato could make up a story from Egypt and present it as part of a system of belief and practice

transgenderism and deleuze being conflated makes absolutely no sense, and the trans appropriation of deleuze is nonsense. a becoming-woman is precisely not what transgenderism manifests itself as: the molding of a subject to fit the schematic we know as "woman". Deleuzean becomings do not consist in this sort of identification. Furthermore, failing to fit into this schematic perfectly is not radical, is not a de-territorializing, because it always places that which it is not at the forefront. Having a mustache as a trans woman, for instance, is not a radical blending. Both "man" and "woman" have been determined in advance and the performance in question is a fitting into one or the other. The binary distinction of gender is perfectly intact and, indeed, reinforced by that which claims to be outside of it. To put it another way, transgenderism as we see it now is almost entirely reactive. And this is not a defense of traditional family values or notions of gender, it's just to say any Deleuzean transgender person who identifies with the image of the "trans identity" qua LGBTQ has misread Deleuze.

>>19771754
>>19771782
Literal schizo moment, meds nowhere to be seen

bump

>>19773438
>logophilia
What does this mean, that people are too rational?

>>19771782
BwO is just the opposite of Nazism
t. Nick Land

Deleuze threads are always fun.

Why did he make Zizek so buttmad that he wrote Organs Without Bodies?

>>19772059
Based.
>>19772563
Cringe.

>>19771754
Wtf is the outside.

>>19772191
>body without (female) organs

The fallacy of independent existence "just happening."
Existence is One.

>>19774307
Fascism is a war machine - an army, a flow, bent on destroying the state(s), therefore slightly similar to BwO

Take the DeLanda-pill

>>19772376
But the cultural marxists and lgbt just want a world were there are nth number of biopolitical identifiers that converge in the same ideology and mandatory character structure. combining the worst aspects of 50s scientism conformism and authoritarian institutionalism and 60s self expressive narcissism. they are essentially the new corporate monoculture purpose engineered biopolitical clientele for the managerial state, pharmaceuticals the democratic party

>>19774590
Meds now.

>>19773459
Can't you read? He's literally describing all of philosophy that way. Every philosopher is just as much of a bugger as Deleuze, even Socrates.

>>19774557
fuck I forgot about this book, thanks anon

>>19774602
This.Science has proven the existance of mental conditions as products of chemical imbalances in the brain that are most effectively treated by medication. The denial of mental illness isnt radical but a cover for systems of domination based on institutionalized ableism. Many 4chan users are neurodivergent but have internalized the ableist prejudices of the wider society rendering them vulnerable to radicalization by incels, transphobes, russian bots or white supremacists. it would be far more radical to adopt an intersectional equity perspective that places evidence based treatment and the lived experience of mental health consumers first and foremost in its intersections with gender race sex worker status, internalized stigma against the use of hard drugs. Besides it plays into the arguments of reactionaries to imply queer peoples identities are based on trauma and not on objective scientific and psychiatric authority.

>>19774626
I self-medicate you bourgeois pharma shill fauxcialist
"lived experience" isn't a product of focus groups and industry surveys of the least-neurodivergent sectors of society
fuck you! you ain't radical you ain't shit

>>19774590
Good job, you managed to be even less coherent than Sokal's Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

>>19773766
based

>>19774450
anyone?

>>19774935
Spinoza's extension

>>19775125
>Spinoza's extension
Which is what? And wasn't Deleuze anti-Spinoza

>>19774539
Fascism=/=Nazism
Read making it with death

>>19773766
You're not wrong, but you're naive if you don't think that at least Guattari would have been very supportive of the trans reading of their world. Also we should wonder why are they so popular with the trans community? You never see anyone talking about transexualism as a form of Heideggerian destruktion, for example. What is in Deleuze and Guattari that invites those readings?

>>19771782
This, but Guattari instead of Deleuze. Childhood is idealizing Deleuze. Adulthood is realizing Guattari was the real disruptive genius.

>>19775636
there is no genius in disrubting, the two are polar opposites, revolutionaries can suck my fat schlong

>>19775430
All the lasch girls have BPD (inter cluster B competition makes them the narcissist natural nemesis) but its hard to find a girl who is into french anti psychiatry (oury deligny guattari) whos cis or even passable.

>>19775797
This sounds like something that spic nigger tripfag Cumgenius would type, except you know, IN ALL CAPS

>>19775430
The vulgarity of biopolitics. were once the queers and trannies were the people who didnt fit into biopolitical standards like male or female but now theres an active attempt to reify them back into the same systems of marketing psychiatric authority political machines and mass media control. Much like the liberal response to antipsychiatry was the DSM and now the unholy dialectical synthesis were the made up statistical constructs are reified as essential via identity politics. Basically the locus of power shifts from universality to the regulatory capture of particularity by various interest groups- if you can be identified you can be disciplined.

>>19772191
>>19774494
Fuck you

>>19774494
underrated

>>19771782
why?

>>19776610
answer me

>>19774494
LMAO

>>19774494
the post that kills the deleuze trannies

>>19771754
Same old French """theory,""" different wrapper. The upshot is always the same: the destruction of the human subject and its unintended supplanting by the mass-democratic consumer, epistemological nihilism and the relativisation of truth, and the the advocacy of an unconscious, quasi-anarcho-communistic ethic entirely at odds with the main substance the edifice. There's nothing new or radical in Duhlooze, and there's even less in him for those confused online right wingers. The only reason he's still getting attention is because he's even more of an obscurantist than the rest of the Sainte Famille of '68, whose strategic use has largely been exhausted, granting his exegetes even more opportunities to spin-out the same old conclusions under a new exotic guise.

>>19776944
You obviously haven't read Based Deleuze by Justin Murphy.

>>19776957
>the destruction of the human subject and its unintended supplanting by the mass-democratic consumer, epistemological nihilism and the relativisation of truth, and the the advocacy of an unconscious, quasi-anarcho-communistic ethic
Woah, so based and right wing!

>>19771754
mental illness

>>19774494
lol'd

>>19774494
kek

>>19774494

Nice one, Punchy!

>>19776944
Alright, so who's better than him then?

>>19775636
>disruptive genius
>"Umm, there's no such thing as truth or the subject and you should be an anarcho commie or something"
Wow! So radical!

>>19776944
No. De-Leuze is of the right wing: he presented intellectual tools and concepts to put communitarianism (the essence of the left) offline forever.
>From Middle High German lesen, from Old High German lesan, from Proto-Germanic *lesaną (“to gather”), from Proto-Indo-European *les- (“to gather”).
>gathering is Enframing [Gestell] is foreclosing the being making is a totalized (non)entity

>>19776944
This. Mandatory drag queen story hour child indoctrination sessionsled by pedophilic lgbtsjwtfnpc apparatchiks sponsored by google disney pepsico war machine is the only possible conclusion to deleuzian ideas

>>19771754
>all of the universe is a process of folding and unfolding the outside
So the universe is just the process of folding and unfolding the outside? But this would require "the outside" to exist, and what exists is included in the universe, so "the outside" is included in the universe, so the universe is not just a process, which is a contradiction. So the original idea is wrong.

>>19775430
>What is in Deleuze and Guattari that invites those readings?
It's mostly Guattari, hardly anybody points to Deleuze's solo work within that camp. But if you actually look around at what his contemporaries in philosophy thought and still do think, the consensus is that Capitalism and Schizophrenia is far inferior to the radically new metaphysics that D approaches in Nietzsche and Philosophy, Bergsonism, Spinoza, Difference and Repetition, Logic of Sense, etc... I think both Derrida and Foucault said LoS was one of the most impactful works of that generation for them. I've always seen Deleuze as a complete Nietzschean insofar as he seems to be doing a form of post-Kantian alchemy (everything is forces and the complex structures that emerge from their pure differentiations). Add Bergson's Virtual and some interesting post-structuralism / semiotics and psycho-analysis and you have Logic of Sense.

>>19776944
In what sense is deconstructing subjectivity a positive for capital? Deleuze is simply pointing to the possibility of a-representational spaces, pure dynamic mixtures and powers that aren't fixable into designated substantial loci. Pre-Guattari Deleuze is almost completely a-political precisely because he rejects the polis and the person as crystallized entities formed by a particular perspective (or semiotics). He is a pretty orthodox Nietzschean at the end of the day. And I don't see how you can pin relativism on him anymore than you can on Heidegger, but Heideggerian relativism and post-modernism lead him to fascism, so even if in the case of French post-war thought it often leads to anarchism or communism this isn't necessarily attached to the ontological backdrop. If you don't think that Deleuze's metaphysics is new or radical you have either never read him, or you are genuinely stupid and pretentious to the point that you genuinely believe that you know more about metaphysics and philosophy than an entire generation of thinkers who have lauded Deleuze as a genuine innovator and deep metaphysical thinker. Also he is very different from say Lacan, Derrida or Sartre in his conclusions.

>>19779865
>>19779915
very based posts

>>19779521
>No. De-Leuze is of the right wing: he presented intellectual tools and concepts to put communitarianism (the essence of the left) offline forever.
The essence of the left is anti-nomia and Deleuze is clearly an anti-nomian thinker. Right wing communitarianism is a thing.

>>19774494
kek

>>19776944
Good post

>>19772191
Kill yourself

>>19779915
His fundamental conclusions (mentioned above: deconstruction of the subject, emotive and unconscious anarcho-communistic ethic etc.) are identical to those of his contemporaries. And poison fruit (conclusions), then poison tree also (metaphysics). This relationship is made clearer when we note the thematic similarities of his metaphysics with those of his contemporaries. It's really no surprise then that he received back pats from his fellow members of the Saint Famille and their devotees. This isn't however the yardstick I'd recommned others use to measure the quality of a thinker's thought.

>>19779521
>deluded rightoid thinks a literal pro-pedo commie is the solution to the right's ills
Many such cases

>>19781902
The only "right wingers" into Deleuze are usually leftists who got tired of being useful idiots.

>>19780632
>The essence of the left is anti-nomia
As an attitude, certainly, but you're a fool if you think that the Left isn't just a cudgel for Jewish power. They're dogs let loose on order that Jews don't like, and they're reeled in when Jews want to bring in new structures in their place.

This is what >>19775979 is saying. Yeah, there's an active attempt by Trannies who see that 1KP is basically a call for Aryan Jihad and as such realize that this stuff can be utilized by the Right to create a counter-Jewish anti-nomianism. That is, after all, what Post-Structuralism is about: smashing down the structures that actual Marxists were trying to create. And once we open our eyes and see that Marxism is just a tool of Jewry, we see why trannies are trying to colonize D&G: because D&G are proposing a radical creativity to create order that is free from Jewish control.

Now, granted, you can justify some absolutely heinous stuff with these tools, don't get me wrong. But you're not creating a Eunuch caste to rule your global petrol-finance empire; you're not chopping your dick off and staying there (which would be stasis around a point of stability), you're a constant Heraclitean blur of constant sexual thrill. Foucault assfucked hundreds of little Arab boys in Algeria. But then, that's just a cruel monster caged up by the Indo-European conquerors that's being let loose on the Maghreb, isn't it? At which point, we've come back to the beginning: Jews don't like the idea of someone other than them having power. Foucault is just a monster leashed by White people, let loose reeled back in when it benefits us.

You might disagree because you're a good conservative like >>19781902, but then he only thinks that way because he's a loser and his head is full of loser ideologies so that he stays a loser.

>>19781989
>that's just a cruel monster caged up by the Indo-European conquerors that's being let loose
RETVRN TO NOMADOLOGY

>>19781989
I read Foucaults book discipline and punishment as a neognostic vision exposing the inner workings of the ZOG machine. The takeaway being that the freaks have gone too far and its about time for normal people (decent non perverted degenerate or mentally ill) to get their shit together and put the freaks(ie. YOU) back in their rightful place at the back of the totem pole

>>19782092
Normal people will never run any society because they are herd creatures. You believe too much in democracy to be "conservative."

>>19781989
Combo of biblical exegesis, cryptozoology and pornography. Lewd sex apes and electric aryan hermaphrodites. Maybe antisemites just queer for jews.

>>19782115

>>19781989
Well said.
Loser ideologies or more broadly: loser irradiations from an amalgam of hostile monads. Once you step into that field it latches on to you and tries to colonize you. I call that the morbid monad.

The cure and the answer to it is the next REFORMATION:
Virtues of unhinged creativity. Mystical exegesis of memes. Sneed gematria. Futuristic breakaway language. Monadology rethought from within the local. And all that deployed in good and healthy spirit of love for Art understood as Dynamis of innovation and Life itself.

Yet many are locked in symmetrical oppositions for the sake of fragile profanic egos. It is a mistake.

The moment asks for Luther of shitposting bros..

>>19781989
Well said.
Loser ideologies or more broadly: loser irradiations from an amalgam of hostile monads. Once you step into that field it latches on to you and tries to colonize you. I call that the morbid monad.

The cure and the answer to it is the next REFORMATION:
Virtues of unhinged creativity. Mystical exegesis of memes. Sneed gematria. Futuristic breakaway language. Monadology rethought from within the local. And all that deployed in good and healthy spirit of love for Art understood as Dynamis of innovation and Life itself.

Yet many are locked in symmetrical oppositions for the sake of fragile profanic egos. It is a mistake.

The moment asks for Luther of shitposting bros..

>>19772260
bumping this to call you a retard

What's the fucking problem with being trans and liking Deleuze? What's the problem with liking Deleuze or being trans at all? Sometimes I don't understand this fucking board. At times it seems like a place with actually reasonable and well read people, but at others it's just like /pol/. Deleuze is great and being trans is fine. Western civilization didn't fall because now trans people can enter your bathroom. Fuck off.

>>19781989
>are proposing a radical creativity to create order that is free from Jewish control.
What is radically creative about 75 year old intellectual clichés that have become the governing logic of the very Jewish order you claim they can be used to oppose?

>>19782526
Tbh i trannies dissapoint me more than anything youd expect them to be outrageous and depraved characters out of a john waters movie but they are just poorly groomed androgynous people with aspergers syndrome

>>19771754

Through experiential transversion, one texturally recontects/resynthesizes/recreates the essence of something that is external to one into one's comprehension/imperience, adding its form to one's mindspace —to one's "belt"; under one's "petal".

Consensus of texture; contecture of pressure.

>>19782571
That's just it anon: they aren't. See, just because someone SAYS something doesn't mean that what they SAY impacts how they ACT. Trannies say that they are women. They aren't. Academia loves jerking off over philosophers, but 99.99% of the philosophers who study a philosopher don't put even the slightest bit of effort into living how that philosopher said you should (this applies to Thomists and the like as well). Yes, I am making the radical suggestion that people like, and come up with lies that they tell themselves so that they don't have to change. Let me put it in simple terms: Us vs them. Whatever window dressing you need to justify that is window dressing.

Get it? Because the Jews get it. Do you?

>>19782526
i think its that men shouldnt prey on women

>>19781819
Emotive and unconscious? This is only a negative if you are operating on some sort of out dated aristotelian presumption of animal rationale. Most people agree that humans and indeed most structures contain implicit complexities and affects. And no these are not identical to his contemporaries. For instance he is pretty harsh on Lacan and he never really affirms or endorses the humanism of Sartre, Levinas or Derrida. I'll grant that he is quite close to Foucault but how is this a bad thing? Also your logic is lacking (I recommend you brush up on that if you want to discuss philosophy). A faulty ethics is not implicative of a faulty ontology insofar as ethics cannot relate itself to ontology at a meta-epistemological level. Deleuze's ethics insofar as he has any are the same as Nietzsche or Spinoza. So far you have provided a whopping 0 actual arguments against Deleuze's thought apart from claiming that his relation to a generation of rigorous French thinkers who grew up in a very demanding scholarly climate somehow makes him tainted. Deleuze does not endorse communism, he does not endorse anarchism, he is not a humanist, he does not even believe in a subject at all but rather in events spreading difference across the virtual and affecting a totally immanent plane with novel mixtures. You are critiquing Deleuze from a dogmatic subjectivist perspective without attempting in the slightest to understand how radically new his ontology is. Your recursion to silly political strawmen like "gomunism bad bad pomo Marxist man!" Are quite juvenile and display a lack of authentic philosophical engagement with post-war thought. Btw what does epistemic nihilism even mean in Deleuze's context? Frankly I feel that his philosophy aims at the exact opposite

I tried to read Capitalism and Shizophrenia, made it halfway. Didn’t understand, what’s the main point of that book?

>>19783490
>Also your logic is lacking (I recommend you brush up on that if you want to discuss philosophy)

>In the beginning of the book, it would seem that the Oedipus complex is only a false problem: there is no Gordian knot. But this knot is, on the contrary, a reality. Deleuze and Guattari cannot return to the scene of the Oedipus complex, which they promised never to visit without rediscovering this same knot intact and always in place, where it has never relinquished control.
>Thus, we witness an underhanded reaffirmation of the Oedipus complex. The concessions multiply as the real problems become more evident. The reader remembers the triumphant negations of the beginning, he expects them to be fully confirmed and demonstrated. Let us judge his disappointment: " We do not deny that there is an Oedipal sexuality, an Oedipal heterosexuality, an Oedipal homosexuality, an Oedipal castration complex - whole objects, global images, and specific egos."4 Therefore, what remains to be denied? The essential, affirm Deleuze and Guattari, is that these are not "productions of the unconscious."
>The Oedipus complex has nothing to do with the order of a "desiring production" always crushed by repressive and suppressive forces. On the contrary, it is everywhere in the project of domesticating the unconscious. Since this enterprise has completely succeeded, it suffices to say that the Oedipus complex is everywhere, and that's that. It does not matter if desiring production is theoretically independent of the social formations integrating it, since it is always dependent in fact. We are happy to learn that there is another and better unconscious behind the pseudounconscious of Freud and that it remains uncorruptible, but this myth resembles the superior god of certain religions, so superior and distant that we need not consider him. It cannot do anything for us.
>Deleuze and Guattari ferociously hunt down any kind of piety, but their unconscious production sharply resembles a new form of piety that is particularly ethereal despite appearances. Finally, do they not limit themselves to placing beneath the shaken but intact Freudian edifice, at either its bottom or top, a new layer of the unconscious, whose repercussions on our little affairs would be just about as concrete as the discovery of a new layer of gas in Venus's atmosphere?

>>19783594
>At times Deleuze and Guattari move even farther toward Oedipal reconversion. After vigorously supporting the anti-Freudians in the ethnological debate on the universality of the Oedipus complex, they seem more or less to reverse their own position by an inexorable evolution. The universal Oedipus complex could indeed haunt all societies, "but exactly like capitalism haunts them, that is, like the nightmare or anguished foreboding of what would be the decoding of fluxes."5 Since the decoding of fluxes triggered by capitalism is one and the same with the absolute truth of history - given some oratorical precautions made necessary by intellectual circumstances - we certainly cannot permit ourselves to treat these "nightmares" and "forebodings" lightly.
>We might ask if Deleuze and Guattari are not like the man who, when forced to witness his wife's rape, congratulates himself because he has transgressed once or twice the chalk circle that the rapist traced around him and ordered him not to cross.
lol
>It is even possible to ask whether L'Anti-Oedipe retains this meager consolation to the end. There are solemn vows to protect "desiring production" from all Oedipal contamination, but there are also other passages that appear to plunge the Oedipus complex once more into a sort of unconscious, or at least to remove it from the conscious: "The Oedipal usages of synthesis or of oedipalization - triangulation, castration - reflect forces a little more powerful, a little more subterranean than psychoanalysis, family, and ideology, even when combined."6
>Such formulas make us wonder, but it is easy to see what makes them necessary. No one prevents us from asserting that the Oedipus complex is only a chimera predicated by psychoanalysis. If .we advance the'question a little further, we see the resurgence of the phenomenon of "triangulation" that is habitually read in terms of the Oedipus complex. No one knows how to read, or can even imagine reading, "triangulation" in any other terms. Psychoanalysis always takes the blame, but nevertheless we cannot say that it created all these triangles. Ever since the age of the troubadours, for example, these triangles have been at the center of Western literature. The quicksand has finally swallowed its victim: "psychoanalysis did not invent these operations, it only lends them the resources and procedures of its genius."

I don't know much about this Deleuze fella, but I've noticed that often when he come ups some people shit on him and then some people defend him saying that all the retarded ideas come from Guattari, not Deleuze. But if that's the case, then my question is, if Deleuze is so brilliant, then why did he collaborate so much with Guattari and why did he let Guattari write about those retarded ideas if he didn't believe them?

>>19783490
>This is only a negative if you are operating on some sort of out dated aristotelian presumption of animal rationale.
Dude, the post-structuralist idea of the subject (or lack thereof) was already dated back in the 80s and 90s. Levelling critiques of these ideas have been delivered since their first appearance that their proponents seem to competely unaware of.

>>19783707
What are those critiques? You have yet to provide a single substantial point through this entire thread you LARPing faggot. And furthermore what even is the post-structuralist idea of the subject, can you even define it? You consistently display 0 understanding of contemporary philosophy in your posts, first you caricature Deleuze by making idiotic assertions with no substance. Please, tell me what is the theory of subjectivity that surpasses Nietzsche, Heidegger and Deleuze's post humanism?
>>19783681
Guattari has interesting ideas and he has commonalities with Deleuze, nobody denies that. C and S isn't a bad book per se, but the political programme and praxis are more G than D and the actual metaphysical meat was already developed by Deleuze in his solo work.

>>19782699

Will you start writing your own schizoposts already?

I really want to read deleuze but I'm scared due to the necessary background.
I've read the main Kant and Hegel, all of Nietzsche's important works, a reasonable amount of Freud. Intend to read Heidegger soon. No marx and no other french philosophers (derrida, fookoh, baudrillard, bataille...).
Am I good if I read the capital vol1 and start with D&G? what else do I need?
Also, deleuze's works on cinema are accessible for people with no background on his main works of philosophy? Also interested in his work about nieztsche, is it a good place to start with him?
thank

>>19784701
Not him but most of the critiques of subjectivity launched against Deleuze are an appeal to a return to a classic subject / object distinction. For instance Spivak’s essay Can the Subaltern Speak criticizes Deleuze and Foucault for their take on the subject. She basically says we need to return to the classic subject object distinction for the sake of Marxist critique in the global world.

>>19784733
had screencapped this from an old thread. Sounds like a good path. But I will definetely not read cover to cover all this shit just to feel ready to read a single work. Any single work. Begin reading and pause if you must and continue after you informed yourself on the respective subject. And also anon for the sake of your mental health do not read Kapital

>>19784801
I don't think that anon actually knows what "subject" refers to given that he thinks that it's something that the Post-Structuralists made up.

>>19784733
Get a reader. LARPers will scoff, ignore them. You're looking for someone to help you through dense turgid French philosophy. You can totally ignore what the aids say, you just need more information.

>>19784801
Spivak is a midwit and his critique is hardly some tour de force that invalidates a metaphysics of the absolute (which is precisely the project of post-structuralisms a-representational theory). Foucault and Deleuze decisively move beyond Marx while retaining that which was correct in him, ala post Marxism.

>>19784845
When have I implicated that I believe post-structuralists made up subjecthood? I have spent the entire thread affirming their deconstruction of the concept, not their construction of it. Nice reading comprehension bro.

>>19784733
Start with Nietzsche and Philosophy and some easy Foucault to get warmed up. Then get into Bergson and Deleuze's Bergsonism. After that I'd go with Logic of Sense or Diff and Rep and do whatever after that but don't begin with Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Also check out Bataille's Accursed Share.

>>19771782
EXPLAIN WHAT THE BWO IS

EXPLAAAAAAAAAIN

>>19784880
>his critique
a classic subject / object distinction. caricature Deleuze of subjectivity that surpasses Oedipal reconversion that the rapist traced through this entire thread.

I'm scared due to oedipalization - triangulation, castration. you must ignore them. LARPers will Marxism for the sake of Marxist critique. basically obscurantist epistemological nihilism Much like the online right wingers through the unholy dialectical synthesis. vulgarity politics: self-medicate sectors of society to adopt neurodivergent incel peoples stigma. sneed slightly similar to BwO but just the opposite of Nazism.

To put it another way, the Greeks metaphysics learned from the American Culture War twitter. because anti-nomian conservative neognostic ZOG machine freaks too far to form a Consensus. Get it? Because the Hegel Freud bataille nieztsche Hegel get it. Do you? >>19784940

>>19784988
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

>>19784880
Yeah I agree, I find Spivak's argument weak; it garners most of its authority on the basis of its polemics against two monumental figures, especially in the late 80's when Spivak wrote it. It's a misreading and a Marxist apology imo

>>19784880
>post-structuralism's a-representational project is a metaphysics of the absolute
I've taken post-structuralist a- or anti-representational discourse to assert a more improvisational and basically Heraclitean metaphysics. The most significant problem the post-structuralists run up against is imo the problem of grounding (which is why late Wittgenstein is compatible with Deleuze), explored by Deleuze first of all in Nietzsche and Philosophy. Will to power is the sort of answer to grounding and this will to power as grounding doesn't involve representational logic, but I'd hardly call it an appeal to an absolute. I think any appeal to an absolute, or any appeal to an a priori grounding, is necessarily on the side of reactive forces. An absolute always implies the primacy of being - reactive forces - whereas Deleuze is interested, of course, in becoming - active forces.

>>19784988
shut up already you fucking ape

>>19774539
Another poster who has no idea what isms mean.

>>19785279
ape is a war machine - an army, a flow, bent on destroying the """theory""". the relativisation of truth is always the same: genius.
>QRD on (female) organs ontology
worship becoming minority
self-balkanization
authority on the basis of biblical exegesis that doesn't involve representational logic, active forces appeal to schizoposts so brilliant and a-political you will deterritorialize yourself, retard.

>>19771754
Sounds deleuzional

>>19785160
You might be interested in Deleuze's early lecture course "What Is Grounding?" If you haven't read it already. Imo he and others of that generation have a sort of mystical root ground ala Boehme where the pure subject (a-subjective or pre-subjective subjectivity like Fichte's absolute I) is grounded in a groundless self recursive ungrund. For instance with Deleuze an pre-representational and a-personal evental flows there is no longer any possibility of determination but only the indeterminate field of and immanent virtuality. Bergson connects that to the elan vital, but for Deleuze there is only chaos and complexity, everything is the emission and reception of the Sign. Herein lies the possibility for a genuine neo-Heraclitean discourse of the Logos. WTP itself is just a description of the process of immanent affects (forces intermingling through a schema of interior and exterior; inhibition and ex-stasis). Not enough space here to really go into this but this is kind of where Deleuze begins to build the notion of pure becoming a and difference as opposed to representational spaces that reflexively retain substantial loci.

>>19785160
Oh btw I mean absolute in this sense of beyond Subject and Object like with Fichte and his Absolute I there is this undetermined pure space that is not yet checked or determined from without. I think Bataille's notion of Sovereignty is a good way to simplify this, since Sovereignty is that which is for itself (I am who I am, for-itself, etc...). While Deleuze may not talk about an absolute it's pretty clear that his pre-conceptual field points to the essence of the event-becoming as a form of this very Absolute which is productive of its own opposition or Oppositing. So that we can say paradoxically that this immanent difference is precisely the indifference point. I'm still looking into the pervasiveness of semiotics as a descriptor of this since I feel that the Logos as emission-sign-reception is very important to unravelling the formation of active and reactive force and as a result the WTP, Overman, Control Society, Discursive Power, etc... A sort of non-phenomenology of power.

>>19785540
since Sovereignty was already dated back in the 80s, to be outrageous and depraved they are essentially creating a Eunuch caste to rule your 'so superior and distant' post-Marxist empire.


isms mean authority on the basis of verbose : dark zizek

touch on the egg
Kek

Lmao nerds this is some really fried brain shit
Go outside or read some science textbooks lol

>>19774494

>>19785901
itt cooking seminars. sadly the egg remains closed, i.e. hidden by a malicious entity known as hide-egger. poor wretches are seduced by the """theory""" that blinds the horizon and implicitly re-oedipizes them. instead of healthy good omelette there's textbook doritos and symmetrical reactive resentment on the menu.

man known as Deleuze ― who, as wiki insists, became-a-brick ― never existed: de-leuze simply means to make an initial act of ungathering so that prospective gardeners could cultivate the ground (Genesis 4:2).

>>19784733
Just read Derrida and ignore the others. They add nothing to the philosophical canon

>>19785812
Shit performance art attempting to imitate schizo anon but having only 5% the vocab. Nobody is laughing at these shitposts, you only embarrass yourself further, anon.

>>19786068
Nobody is laughing. Sounds like a good path. Let me put it in simple terms: electric aryan is unconscious of his contemporaries. It's really a complete Nietzschean fruit interesting insofar as it is cryptobiblical exegesis. retard conclusions: deconstruction of poison ethic. embarrass yourself. imitate. Shit schizo is opposition or Oppositing. difference is precisely the indifference point.
>anon

>>19785966
Why would you even read Derrida? Just read Heidegger.

>>19786950
Heidegger didn't fully understand the implications of "God is dead" and thought of will to power as a metaphysical given, whereas for Nietzsche it was something that manifested itself only in tension in difference between counterparts, i.e. becoming rather than being. Derrida had a better interpretation of Nietzsche and consequently more profound takes. His deconstruction does rely on Heidegger's "destruction" in some ways obviously but Nietzsche's genealogical approach is still more fundamental to it.

> deconstruction
> psychoanalysis
no thanks, i am not a jewish political sciences major

>>19774494
Sensibly chuckled.

>>19784701
>What are those critiques?
Girard, for one (excerpts posted here >>19783594 >>19783603). There's also the late 20th century French liberals, like Ferry and Renault, who delivered an absolutely devastating critique of Deleuze and his contemporaries in La pensée soixante-huit

>>19785488
>>19785540
holy shit dude. all this metaphysical pilpul to justify trannies and commie shit

>>19787825
I justify neither and I don't think Deleuze would affirm it either. Transgenderism and orthodox communist ideology are forms of humanism and Deleuze is no humanist.
>>19787777
I've read Girard and his critique before, he does not have a very good ontology of subjectivity and Deleuze's chief thrust against the subject was never a function of his writing on desire in AO, this was only an application of the earlier ontological deconstruction. Deleuze, like Schelling, is seeking that which immanently pivots beyond the dichotomization of a subject and object, he is a philosopher contra representation and as such latching him onto ethical paradigms (always dogmatic) makes little sense.

>>19787897
That's great dude but it doesn't really address the substance of his critique >>19783594 >>19783603 Also you didn't address the critiques of Ferry et al. Have you not read them?

>>19787897
>orthodox communist ideology
lol. he was an orthodox anarcho-commie with wacky metaphysical views that had no functional bearing on his politics. no need for the pilpul

>>19788062
Why would I address the critique of something I'm not arguing for? I don't care for Anti-Oedipus and I don't think Girard is totally correct in his mimetic theory either. Mimesis can only go so far in explaining desire and power, it requires an actually operative ontology and semiotics to ground the possibility of imitative desire. How do sign emissions actually operate in this schema, before the possibility of mimesis takes place? You have to account for the dynamisms that are pre-mimetic and Deleuze does just that with his ontology. You can reject Deleuzian differential ontology on ontological grounds, but Girard does not have a stable metaphysics from which to do so. And also, Luv Ferry? Really bro? Are you pulling my leg or what? Try offering an actually substantial critique at an ONTOLOGICAL or METAPHYSICAL level, not on your political and ethical feelings.

>>19788089
I don't care what he was just as much as I don't care that Heidegger was a fascist or that Foucault was a faggot. I'm more interested in the actual philosophy than idiotic gossip and political dogmatism

>>19772170
the BwO is deterritorialized its more like the chaos that leads to new orders that pervades everything

>>19788107
Do you think it's entirely accidental that ALL of these French thinkers who held metaphysical positions that essentially denied the existence of the traditional subject and thus the authority it commands in the politico-ethical sphere and also held anarcho-communisic poltico-ethical positions? Do you think there is no causal relationship between the two positions and this is all just one crazy coincidence?

>>19788258
I don't give a shit about politics or ethics. They do not matter.

How is Deleuze different from Whitehead?

>>19788258
>Do you think there is no causal relationship between the two positions and this is all just one crazy coincidence?
Nietzsche was the first one who properly outlined how subject doesn't fucking exist and his views were far from anarcho-communism or whatever. There's no link between death of subject and any concrete etho-political stance, like in most cases you can interpret this notion in whatever way is the most useful to you.

>>19790111
>Nietzsche
Worst example you could have picked becuause w/o him none of these rancid French sophists would have existed. Every one of them w/o fail claimed the mantle of true Nietzchean

>>19790429
>Worst example you could have picked becuause w/o him none of these rancid French sophists would have existed.
That's the point?..

>>19790429
What about Heidegger or even Hegel and Schelling. What about Bergson, Whitehead, de Chardin? All of them were in one way or another against the broad subjectivist tradition and anti-humanist.

>>19772112
Is he just a more sophisticated version of Whitehead? Should I read Whitehead before him? Would you say it is valid to say that there's a Heraclitus-Whitehead-Deleuze axis?

>>19774910
I miss her so much bros

>>19790868
Not really, but there are some connections. Deleuze is a process philosopher but he and Whitehead have some major differences. A far closer figure would be Bergson.

>>19772128
Do not buy this book

>>19772170
The BwO is formed by the consistency of the virtual, not the actual. This consistency extends beyond any plane of reference or representation of actuality, necessarily implied within the function of "potentiality"

>>19774450
The virtual, the origin point for qualitative difference. Deleuze endorses the a consistency of that beyond the actual. He sees this in the conclusions of set theory, imaginary numbers, and quantum indeterminacy. Our plane of space/time/matter is only one amongst many that rests on the immanent given plane.

>>19774590
Deleuze hated progressives and commies

>>19792819
>Deleuze hated progressives
We're talking about the same Deleuze who wanted to decriminalize pedophilia and thought the left was inherently good to the point that if a leftist did something wrong he would cope saying they weren't true leftists anyway, because the left is inherently good so anyone who does something bad isn't a leftist.

>>19792950
How is life like being sub 100 IQ?

>>19792950
The French are subhuman

>>19773393
/bread

>>19793087
I love Deleuze, but pretend Deleuze isn't a leftist is retarded. I only said factual things.

>>19793111
Read a different Wikipedia page

>>19774494
LMAO

>>19782526
KYS tranny

i used deleuze a lot in my phd. now i have a comfortable university job and can read all day. thanks gilles!

>>19772185

>self-balkanization

A hearty kek. Thanks, anon.

nice