/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11026577]

ok, two positions, two (seemingly) mutually exclusive, reciprocally critical viewpoints of contemporary thought - that of Deleuze, with his Nietzsche, and Badiou, with his Platonism
do you think Badiou's critique of continental philosophy is substantial and he is on to something? Or do you think that Badiou's platonism and approach to Being is just nostalgic musings, whereas Deleuze's Nietzsche can see through philosophy?

[Anonymous No.11026598]

>>11026577

[Anonymous No.11026601]

No, Badiou is just a reactionary who's jealous of those who received the attention he couldn't garner, so he sought to resurrect an extremely old motherfucker who's barely relevant outside of classical philology.

Deleuze is an articulate clown who for fun sought to appropriate Nietzsche in a manner which the OG would abhor. Nietzsche can't see through philosophy insofar that he's one of its major snake-oil salesmen.

What you're reading into is a shit-show of attention-seeking aesthetes who tried to earn a bit of money because of their status in a very exclusive field.

Ignore them, move on, and read more.

[Anonymous No.11026613]

>>11026601
>read more
>doesn't like philosophy
really makes you cogitate

[Anonymous No.11026648]

>>11026613
You are as thick as a fucking brick. My criticism of two philosophers doesn't mean I don't like philosophy. God damn. Learn to read, anon.

[Anonymous No.11026660]

>>11026648
what philosophy do you like?

[Anonymous No.11026670]

>>11026660
For one, I think Lee Edelman has important criticisms of how children are used as politically expedient rhetorical objects.

[Anonymous No.11026674]

deleuze/badiou (or deleuze/hegel) is some fun high-test continental philosophy stuff for sure.

i think in the end it will eventually wind up being like schools of vedanta - you have the dualistic school, the nondualistic school, the qualified nondualistics and so on.

my own feeling is that you can learn to sharpen your own brain against these guys if you like but you will not convince one side the other is wrong and vice versa. badiou loves lacan and D&G think psychoanalysis is the disease and not the cure. badiou is also way into heidegger and deleuze's world is anything but heideggerian.

i'm kind of a brainlet myself so i find it hard to choose one side or the other, since i always wind up taking the side of whichever of these guys i read most recently. i think in the end deleuze was just the cleverest fucking guy in the universe at that time and badiou (and zizek) knew it. it's the same thing with heidegger and nietzsche: you can try as hard as you like to form a system but a guy like nietzsche is not going to get boxed in by anyone. with hegel and spinoza it's the same thing, i think.

so yeah. deleuze will dissolve anyone's brain and sway you on the mechanosphere. and then if you read badiou afterwards you may wind up unironically championing mao and the stellar void in being. i don't know if it's possible to square that circle completely but it's all pretty fascinating to think about.

brassier has a good essay on this too if you're interested.

https://plijournal.com/files/Pli_10_11_Brassier.pdf

check out clayton crockett's book and jon roffe's as well for more in this vein.

[Anonymous No.11026685]

>>11026670
>queer theory
anon.. I wasn't joking.

[Anonymous No.11026693]

>>11026685
>using buzzwords to dismiss the exploitation of the image of a child
There's nothing queer involved there, anon. Good job Googling, I guess, and thanks for your fucking shit input.

[Anonymous No.11026694]

>>11026674
interesting articles, danke

[Anonymous No.11026707]

>>11026693
I don't think that a literary critic is a philosopher, so I can't dismiss anything because I don't care about literary critics

[Anonymous No.11027524]

There is no opposition between Deleuze and Badiou if we take into account that both of them reacted to prevailing problems of their time. In Badiou's words, Deleuze's philosophy was reteritorialized by capital (there is no better way to accumulate simbolic or monetary capital in academia or among 'intelectuals' than by referring to creative act, rhizomatic thinking, problem of minorities and etc, problems that were crucial to Deleuze as revolt against status quo). With that in mind Badiou goes further, in my opinion he succeeds.

[Anonymous No.11027533]

>>11026601
>Plato barely relevant outside of classical philology

Maybe as a matter of conscious philosophizing, but Plato is most definitely the source of any kind of political radicalism in the West.

[Anonymous No.11027534]

>>>/his/
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.11027553]

>>11027533
don't forget Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11027576]

>>11027553
Aristotle wasn't a radical.

[Anonymous No.11027595]

>>11027524
so would you say then that deleuze was appropriately reacting against a decaying intellectual climate of his time, and that badiou is doing a similar thing today, perhaps to an academic culture that takes deleuze as a kind of baseline?

it's interesting to think about, because badiou actually does seem to be struggling with deleuze in a way that is pretty singular. much like nietzsche everybody pretty much just gets out of his way.

talk more about why you think badiou succeeds anon, i'm interested. i do sometimes think there is a kind of mysterious rock-scissors-paper process to this but this is basically just to say, dialectics. after reading lots of land i'm more inclined to think pic rel is more appropriate. but i'm curious about what you think.

[Anonymous No.11027676]

>>11027576
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGfFXc0TwhU

[Anonymous No.11027726]

>>11027595
>so would you say then that deleuze was appropriately reacting against a decaying intellectual climate of his time, and that badiou is doing a similar thing today, perhaps to an academic culture that takes deleuze as a kind of baseline?
yes, you put it accurately, only though I wouldnt say that badiou is reacting to deleuze's thought (his philosophical problems or concepts) as such, but to an ideological appropriation of them. As I said, speaking about the problem of minorities or everything being rhizomatic isn't as earthshaking and actual as it was in Deleuze's time, in some ways it goes hand in hand with the logic of capital. In a similliar way Deleuze didn't react to psychoanalytical thinking, or Lacan/Freud but to certain concepts offered by them that became intelectually stale and useful to ideological climate (e.g. in his book on Kafka Deleuze with Guattari go nuts against interpretation that use Oedipus complex because it misses the innovative aspect of K's work; D&G even sees an revolt against Oedipization of everything in Kafka's work).
>talk more about why you think badiou succeeds anon, i'm interested <...> basically just to say, dialectics
I think Lacan/Badiou/Deleuze have this one thing in common, with Lacan it's the notion of real, with Badiou event and with Deleuze it's deterritorialization. It is a way of conceptualizing a sudden rupture in state of things or an point of impasse/non-signification. Of course they differ and investigate different problems, but because of the notion of the real philosophy for them has to find a way out of current dogmas. The big dogma of D&G's time was oedipization, Lacan raged against any notion of Ego as a priori (for lacan being yourself is the biggest meme) for Badiou it's the discourse that formed post-holocaust - the biggest evil is hitler and you must respect the Other. Thinking in alliance with the notion of real is trying to find a way out of certain dogmas or doxas, analyzing what status quo has to repress to keep itself functioning and so on. So for Deleuze resistance becomes deteritorialization out of Oedipus triangle, for Lacan basically showing that there is an permament lack in your beeing-urself which Freud introduced by psychoanalysis and for Badiou its saying that a Man is not reduced to another victim of potential harm but becomes Man only by participating in an event and overcoming being-animal that current ideological climate tries to reduce it to.

Sorry for my word salad im not good at writing hope you understand what I'm getting at.

[Anonymous No.11027776]

>>11027676
Well this is wrong though. Aristotle viewed pure democracy as mob rule, and thought it was completely idiotic.

What he did advocate for was a proto-constitutional form of democracy, e.g what we now call liberal democracy. A democracy which has it's majority power restrained by a constitution.

Furthermore, Aristotle also says in the Politics that the best system is one that facilitates for and has a large middle class, which is presumably what Chomsky means when he says that Aristotle wanted a society of "equal free men".

[Anonymous No.11027788]

>>11026601
>Nietzsche can't see through philosophy insofar that he's one of its major snake-oil salesmen.
>This whole post

[Anonymous No.11027789]

>>11027726
no word salad there at all, was quite interesting and i definitely understand. it's actually a really good summation too for anyone reading this thread ITT who might like to know more.

>So for Deleuze resistance becomes deteritorialization out of Oedipus triangle, for Lacan basically showing that there is an permament lack in your beeing-urself which Freud introduced by psychoanalysis and for Badiou its saying that a Man is not reduced to another victim of potential harm but becomes Man only by participating in an event and overcoming being-animal that current ideological climate tries to reduce it to.

i really really like your last part of this, also, why badiou matters. he writes somewhere about the political subject being birthed and produced through fidelity to an event in this way, and it's one of the things that i actually really like and admire about his work and for this reason. it's as if he's saying, don't just allow yourself to melt into a stew of non-differentiation, don't even kid yourself about being some kind of subject anterior to society because you have partly digested the entire sargasso sea of postmodernity. rather, keep going, keep looking, don't stop, don't compromise on your desire.

this last sentence ofc is lacan but for badiou he seems to be taking it towards something else, about your desire to actually *be* a subject through this becoming, but it's a becoming-through-fidelity. at first his idea of his four discourses didn't make sense to me but he's only following from this sort of inescapable quartet posed by lacan...except it's not supposed to turn you, i think, into a permanent nomad, exile, refugee, or war machine, but something in fact much nobler: a person who can actually meaningfully distinguish between philosophy and sophistry.

as i mentioned before, i kind of thing right now there is a sort of trifecta at work, not unlike the vedanta (where my current interest is, as well as buddhist stuff) - dualist, nondualist, qualified nondualist and so on. and i think that badiou is definitely in there somewhere as someone who doesn't necessarily BTFO deleuze (as perhaps we sometimes like to see philosophy, like it's a never-ending royal rumble) but as a guy who is asking these really timely and pertinent questions raised perhaps by deleuze's own enormous shadow over the academy.

anyways. so much of this. but yeah, badiou is kind of good for making you re-think deleuze and vice-versa. maybe it's going to be like confucius and laozi in the end. i don't know. but i definitely don't regret having wasted so much time pondering these guys.

badiou is indeed interesting. i wonder sometimes, did he/does he miss having deleuze as a rival? he has some nice things to say about him in pocket pantheon, despite their differences. it's way cool stuff.

[Anonymous No.11027909]

>>11027789
I'm glad you understood and appreciate the clarity of your responses
>it's as if he's saying, don't just allow yourself to melt into a stew of non-differentiation
I also admire this part of his philosophy, because he gracefully shows a way out of this pseudo-Derridean and pseudo-Deleuzian academical and intellectual discourse whose goal is to show how we can't straightly assert anything because of endless wave of signification and lack of legitimization of any position. This kind of view is well captured in Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism; we cannot make any assertions or hold serious views because any kind of fidelity leads to radicalism and gulags. With Badiou it's precisely that you become Man only because of some kind of radicality or split in your life.

>this last sentence ofc is lacan but for badiou he seems to be taking it towards something else
I understand where you are coming from, Badiou conceptualized it further than Lacan, but this kind of reasoning (be loyal to a split in your life) is not original at all, one can find same shit in Kant (duty is something un-rational and defies any pre-supposed notion of good). When Lacan says stay true to your desire he says excatly what Kant said, because for Lacan (in his own words) duty is desire in its pure form. And Badiou himself admitted that the basis of his ethical theory is Lacan notion of the real (which is the register in which desire as pure form resides). Badiou's excellence and actuality is that he skillfully shows how this tradition is at odds with the current ideological climate. This ethical tradition is literally the real of status quo; indiferrent, egoistical, impotent animal-man avoids any ruptures or splits. When Deleuze put nomadness on pedestal he was fighting another cause.

[Anonymous No.11027955]

>>11027909
so this is a wonderful post. i want to ask you about something you posted earlier, however, because it's something very much on my mind atm at as well. you wrote:

>>11027726
>the big dogma of D&G's time was oedipalization, Lacan raged against any notion of Ego as a priori (for lacan being yourself is the biggest meme) for Badiou it's the discourse that formed post-holocaust - the biggest evil is hitler and you must respect the Other.

can you elaborate on this a little bit? particularly that last sentence. whether it's your own interpretations of badiou or things that he himself has said on this subject, wherever your thought takes you on this. i think it's a really key point and it's one that i'd actually be interested in hearing more about myself.

>When Lacan says stay true to your desire he says excatly what Kant said, because for Lacan (in his own words) duty is desire in its pure form. And Badiou himself admitted that the basis of his ethical theory is Lacan notion of the real (which is the register in which desire as pure form resides). Badiou's excellence and actuality is that he skillfully shows how this tradition is at odds with the current ideological climate. This ethical tradition is literally the real of status quo; indiferrent, egoistical, impotent animal-man avoids any ruptures or splits. When Deleuze put nomadness on pedestal he was fighting another cause.

i'm quite interested in this, because my own current interest (pathology?) is with these very kinds of questions. so feel free to talk about what badiou thinks here or what you think, or both. but i think it's a really interesting idea b/c i think the current wave of explosive guilt and anger and such that we see on the news is directly connected to these kinds of things. listening to the harris/klein podcast for instance suggested that for many people the pain or weight or gravity of history is too much for them to see anything else. so are they wrong? not wrong? what's to be understood about this from a philosophical perspective, what would badiou say and so on. but i'd be ineterested to hear your thoughts or interpretations of badiou on this kind of thing.

for such an intensely political time it may be the case that we only *think* we are acting politically when in fact just forming into angry mobs might be the evasion of actual political thinking altogether - something like this?

[Anonymous No.11027968]

>>11026601
Yikes!

[Anonymous No.11028142]

>>11027955
>>11027955
>so this is a wonderful post
thank you
I personally am too interested in these topics, so I'm glad to respond

>can you elaborate on this a little bit? particularly that last sentence.

In Badiou's book Ethics (very accessible and short, suggest if you haven't read it) he talks about two main current discourses that use the term ethics; human right ethics which suppose that there is some kind of a-historical universal Man and the ethics of the Other (Levinasian thought). The problem Badiou has with the first one is that 1. it can be ideologically used to legitimize selfish interventions (since we, USA or anyone really, are fighting for human rights we can do anything really because we are morally right) this is his marxist critique, basically human-rights as an ideology and 2. this kind of ethics stems from the aftermath of WW2 where human life was valueless, so it sacralizes it to the point where the only Man of ethics becomes victim-man which has to be defended and the measure of Evil becomes the wrong-doer Hitler who violated the Human Life. And the ethics of the Other for Badiou is no better, Levinas's philosophy is rooted in religion so when it is appropriated in contemporary atheistic times it turns into vague moralizing (You must tolerate different cultures! Respect the minorities!). Badiou says that ethics of Man and Other cling too much on victimization and moralizing (imo both aspects cristalized in some instances of metoo; there was desiring for being victim and desire for moralizing) and by this erase and shade any potential thought or action.

>Im quite interested in this, because my own current interest (pathology?) is with these very kinds of questions.

don't really know harris/klein so cant elaborate on that, but when it comes to explanation of these cultural phenomena (alt-right vs antifa, metoo, rise of common-sensicalism) I think one can't do without psychoanalysis and dialectics. It is my personal interpretation that I haven't fleshed out, but I think the whole alt-right or in some lighter cases recourse to common-sensical rhetoricians is an reaction to the effects of ethics of man/other. When the basic human rights and moral values are secured there remains only pure desire which turns into political correctness and moralizing. Reaction to this (practically reaction to jouissance of neo-liberal left) is of course offered by someone who goes against pol-correct and moralizing and offers some kind of ethics and order in life. In this sense we get a big divide into radical left and right. Whole project of the left turned into moralizing and passivity (dont hold any views that are poblematic!) so then we get something that is radically opposite. Anti-thesis occurs when thesis is lacking something, but of course anti-thesis is no better than thesis, to philosophize is to overcome both.

[Anonymous No.11028146]

>>11028142
replying to my own post because it was too long, wanted to add;

Your words "for such an intensely political time it may be the case that we only *think* we are acting politically when in fact just forming into angry mobs might be the evasion of actual political thinking altogether - something like this?" are tl'dr of what I was getting at

[Anonymous No.11028196]

>>11026670
>Lee Edelman has important criticisms of how children are used as politically expedient rhetorical objects
you mean how children symbolize everything that is degenerate and contraventional to the push, pulse and purpose of society in your decadent sexual preoccupation
all for toleration btw

[Anonymous No.11028278]

>>11028142
>tfw when you encounter someone on /lit/ who has done the reading and knows what they are saying
>feels good man

your first passage explained 100% perfectly why i have issues with derrida, because he was in so many ways the philosopher of the 90s and 2000s and this kind of thing, which is an untenable system based on this kind of enlightened martyrdom and self-victimization. so i really value how you expressed this because i agree with you completely.

i guess the question that i would have here would be perhaps contrarian: i actually do think that some concept of the spiritual or even religious is required here in this regard, even with all of this in mind. but in general i think you are absolutely spot-on in highlighting the salience of this, that so much is a blowback from WWII and our collective inability to process this. even if derrida did had some important things to say about this once, i am with you that badiou is more relevant today. i just have issues with derrida but they aren't important.

>Whole project of the left turned into moralizing and passivity (dont hold any views that are poblematic!) so then we get something that is radically opposite.

i agree with this completely as well. i think it's why there is so much uproar going on right now, in fact - people are basically completely bought into now into the neoliberal paradigm/Enjoy!, whether willingly or unwillingly, and it is has become the crystal palace that sloterdijk writes about. it won't work but people are horrified by having no alternative. so it's like doubling down on heroin because you are afraid the world is running out of heroin or that your heroin will be taken away from you, in a way. but it's the heroin that is bad for you, not the person taking it from you or the world that makes you take heroin. it's the heroin itself, the vehicle of faux-jouissance. but when the world is dark and ugly ppl think that way.

>>11028146
well, that's good to know. and you know, i was thinking to myself, i should have said thinking *ethically* and not politically, because in part i think that's the distinction to make. real political thinking may have to be a thing called ethics, that is, something to be done really slowly and not impulsively - if at all. of course, this may seem counter-intuitive but i suspect you know what i mean.

>Anti-thesis occurs when thesis is lacking something, but of course anti-thesis is no better than thesis, to philosophize is to overcome both.

i agree. maybe this is why i have begun to detach myself from hoping for intellectual solutions to political questions in this way. partly because i think on the one hand that if ethics > politics then really we should only expect the slowest and most gradual form of change. but also partly because i ultimately feel that problems arise from human passions that become political when they are misunderstood rather than understood.

it's like what plato says about thymos, 'craving for recognition.'

[Anonymous No.11028359]

>>11028278
I think I haven't talked this long with someone on /lit/ and it's really nice to see someone who has interest in same themes.

>i actually do think that some concept of the spiritual or even religious is required here in this regard, even with all of this in mind
Can you elaborate? What do you have in mind?

>i should have said thinking *ethically* and not politically
I'm all up for ecology of concepts (word political is degraded, ethics as thinking oriented towards praxis is more suitable now) and it is a nice suggestion, it carries a ring of tranquility against spontaneity of today's politics. Only then there is danger of falling into another ideology of passivity.
Also nice analogy with heroin.

[Anonymous No.11028364]

>>11028278
just to follow up on this, then, and to leave the post with a question rather than a statement:

how much of this do you think can be attributed to hegel basically effacing the difference between the personal and the political? i think that that is part of the current problem. the personal becomes the political, and we lose the ability to think about things abstractly - and this in turn is bolstered by any number of thinkers telling us that abstraction and metaphysics is dead, over, finished - nietzsche, heidegger, the frankfurt school. we have wound up with a situation where politics are taken personally, but at the same time thinking that to presume we can go back to some detached rationalism would be terrible for any number of ways.

i mean it's not like this is hegel's fault or anything. zizek speaks a lot of truth and he's a die-hard hegelian to the end. but i wonder nowadays if part of living through the age of uproar means trying to find a new equilibrium about this. even zizek himself will say, forget the eleventh thesis on feuerbach, stop trying to change the world and just go back to interpreting it again.

which is, maybe what badiou is saying - but i'm actually not sure. he likes mao, for instance, and obviously wants or believes people should take an active interest in political life, to the degree to which their subjectivity depends in the end on fidelity to some truth-event or rupture. but again, what i'm wondering is, is that necessary, possible, or good?

maybe we have to take a step back from being revolutionary. so i don't know, but that's a question for you, or something. i'm just wondering if a kind of withdrawal from politics itself doesn't make more sense, sometimes. people get all hyped up over power but it's such a reactive world that all people can wind up doing is reacting and reacting and reacting. just stopping and withdrawing seems good to me.

zizek doesn't like buddhism and i think i can understand why. i doubt badiou would either. but it's something i wonder about.

historically, the Enlightenment itself only emerged out of the thirty years' war, which is where i think the current trajectory of things is headed, where instead of protestants and catholics it's red against blue instead. and maybe with a neo-Enligthenment 2.0 to follow. i suspect there will be a lot of robots and artificial intelligences in it.

[Anonymous No.11028413]

>>11028278
>>11028142
OP here. This is really great, guys, glad you care so much about the thread, good posts, but no one said anything about the main topic of this thread, namely Deleuze
First of all, I disagree with this reduction of Deleuze's legacy to all these banalities like minorities, territorialization etc, how about his radical nietzschean insights like a relation between affirmation and negation in the will, wherefrom his anti-dialectics.
After all, doesn't Badiou confront his own phantom fears here, not always Deleuze's blunders?

[Anonymous No.11028423]

>>11026670
I think 'gay rights' and the rainbow have effectively become a secular religion, supplanting Christianity as the state church of late capitalism. Now they are the ones using children for their political propaganda. It's all so shrill and pious, wasn't homophobic beforehand, but you can't deny gay bashing is one of the last things that feels genuinely revolutionary. I feel like Galileo or Luther, one man standing up to the Church.

OHNONONO
>There’s this part of parenting that has to be active, it can’t just be like waiting … for your child to come out as counter-culture,” Kym said.

>The next day Elliott asked for magazines to make a collage about things people should know more about, adding glitter and photos of Beyonce and trans actress Laverne Cox next to words like bodies, consent, racism, gender, and decolonization -- which they asked for help writing.

[Anonymous No.11028446]

>>11028364
>zizek doesn't like buddhism and i think i can understand why
this is interesting. And why?

[Anonymous No.11028496]

>>11028446
>>11028364
>>11028364
I think this problem/question you are raising and the answer to it depends on what kind of axiomatic presuppositions you are using to approach it. If you're hegelian one point you must accept no matter what is the necessary immanent logic of history, history develops by conflicts no matter what. If you are loyal to Freudian psychoanalysis you start from the axiom that desire constitutes subject and there is no escaping it, Schopenhauer's detachment from the world as will is impossible in this sense. Now I'm not qualified to talk about Buddhism but I think it's presupposition and ethical goal is to detach/step back so theres inevitable conflict between hegelianism/psychoanalysis (that's why Zizek has a problem with buddhism or at least with the western version of it) and buddhism on the other hand. When Zizek says that we have to reverse tesis 11I think he means precisely that action is no longer as revolutionary and in some sense useful for current ideology (activism is a way of showing that you care etc.). Thinking for him is more actual and radical than before in this way.

That's why Badiou and Zizek focuses on thinking as a new revolutionary potential, I don't know how much buddhism neglects it, but I think there is conflict too. Badiou precisely talks about that part of Man which transgresses normal-everyday life so if you think the goals and ideas of buddhism can be cure to todays ills then if when you participate buddhism (in praxis and though) you become subject in Badiou's sense.

[Anonymous No.11028533]

>>11028496
>>11028496
replying to my own post

I think one more thing is useful to keep in mind is that hegelians/freudians,lacanians/spinozists dont think of freedom as something given apriori (I will stay out of politics or any kind of determination and will be free). These positions first go trough the postulate of determination; first you are determined (by history, desire and etc.) if you acknowledge, understand it trough the work of thought, only then there is a possibility of freedom. That's another reason why Zizek reverses thesis 11. True freedom is not breaking stuff and shouting, but understand what position you're coming from, what desires play part in it, how it is determined by history and so on.
And Badiou doesn't moralize as in; you must become subject! participate in politics! and so on. His point is ethical not moralistic; dont smooth over those moments in life when you feel caught up in something impractical, when you feel something new in your life is emerging that will shake all of your hitherto thinking about world.

i'm going to sleep, really appreciate the conversation, will look up the thread in the morning. have a great life you guys.

[Anonymous No.11028550]

>>11028496
>Now I'm not qualified to talk about Buddhism but I think it's presupposition and ethical goal is to detach/step back
I'm afraid mr. Zizek is completely lost here and has no knowledge of the subject he thinks he scrutinizes. It's a silly game. let's be painstakingly scrupulous when it comes to my own sub-species of post-Hegelianism, but let's treat an immense array of intellectual and mystic schools as an oblivious, ignorant foreigner would treat your own special materialist idealism. Also, he thinks that the Dharmic outlook "fails" (by what standards?) in the modern globalized world, but look who's talking, the leftism is the biggest goddamn failure there ever was (by any standards) in the new century.

[Anonymous No.11028575]

>>11028550
I think mr. Zizeks concern is not authentic buddhism as-it-is, read trough original sources while sitting in the forest, but western version of it, because in the end his goal is to critize western ideology.

[Anonymous No.11028740]

>>11028575
>I think mr. Zizeks concern is not authentic buddhism as-it-is
And I think what you think is wrong, it clearly is authentic buddhism as-it-is, read his books.
to begin with, read Lacan Against Buddhism in Less Than Nothing. In every second book you'll find Zizek's reprehension of Buddha.

[Anonymous No.11028753]

>>11028550
>the leftism is the biggest goddamn failure there ever was (by any standards) in the new century.
By what measure? Because, death of capitalism aside, leftists got everything that they asked for in the last century.

[Anonymous No.11028844]

>>11028753
>By what measure?
They are completely helpless against the advent of a neo-liberal realm despite their pervasive moralist hysteria, and have no decent vision of any possible future whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11028873]

>>11028413
thanks for starting a way cool thread OP. yeah, i agree that we're not really talking about deleuze so much but mainly it's because i really want to borrow this anon's knowledge of badiou. i'm well-ish read w/r/t deleuze and interested in what alternatives to him there are. not even because i want to criticize GD, i like him. and because badiou is not as talked about on /lit/ as deleuze is either.

>>11028496
>>11028533
so, you basically skilfully answered your own question here, and mine as well, in a way. i was going to respond to your question here (>>11028446) but you did this already, in a way.

because you've hit on it, which is the question of struggle, the immanent logic of history and conflict. this is the thing that i spend a lot of time dwelling upon as well. is conflict necessary? this is the thing. i referred to the harris/klein podcast because it seems to me emblematic of the situation we find ourselves in today, where one side, klein, says that if you don't look at history through the prism of class or race conflict, you can't comment on it, and the other side, harris, says, but if you only look at it that way you can't get at understanding or the truth. to which the first replies, see, that's my point, and so on. it is as you say, that everything does depend on the axiomatic presuppositions you bring to bear. in this case, although it is only one among others - though i think an illustrative one - we can see a clash between irreducible axioms.

and, to make a long story short, this kind of bothers me, because it feels like a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation. not only does neither axiom work for me but i'm skeptical about any idea of a higher synthesis between them also. and on top of that landian acceleration or pessimism isn't for me anymore either. so i'm really in a weird place.

so i think one reason why zizek doesn't like buddhism for this reason is because it negates the critical negation that hegelian thought depends on - and hegel is the political philosopher of both the extreme left and extreme right. history may not be hegelian-dialectical (nick land), or even cyclical (as the traditionalists have it). so what is it?

who knows...

now this is an extreme position in its own right, no more or less an axiom than any other, blah blah. but these days i seem to be thinking about the origins of conflict themselves from a different perspective. but, it's not like ego and psyche are simple things.

>his point is ethical not moralistic; dont smooth over those moments in life when you feel caught up in something impractical

it's hard to disagree with this sentiment. even psychoanalysis itself urges something similar about this, to stay with the painful disruptive part to better understand it rather than to wish it away.

>i'm going to sleep, really appreciate the conversation, will look up the thread in the morning. have a great life you guys.

well said. you too anon, cheers

[Anonymous No.11028875]

>>11028844
>neo-liberal realm
literally no where besides america

[Anonymous No.11028880]

>>11028875
>unironic cog diss from a yuropean fae literati out of touch with the economics of the West

[Anonymous No.11028976]

>>11028873
Not that guy but I wrote this >>11028600
on Harris and Ezra Klein. I think we are looking at the systemic failure of postwar liberalism as a form of people management. Digital media and the postfordist work environment demand total involvement, emotional and intellectual, you have to actively struggle to preserve the independent critical faculties associated with the literate bourgeoisie individual. Peterson is trying to save the Protestant middle class subjectivity that has accompanied capitalism from the beginning from the ravages of the therapeuthic state and digital media. He's an Ayn Rand fan for one. Many 'leftists' on the other hand seem more motivated by resentment and the righteous rush of legalistic punishment than by any genuinely positive vision of anything. After the end of history, there's nothing left to do but revel in your narcissistic persona: one of 'the good whites' indulging on fast food quick rush libidinal engagements. Same goes for the alt right, their existence has been hollowed out to such a degree the only thing left for them is performative mimetic transgression.

[Anonymous No.11029073]

>>11028976
i'm going to borrow your term 'neoliberal therapeutic capitalism' for sure anon. that's really ingenious, i agree with that totally. it does feel like that, the age of the commodity as therapeutic object. it is like that. and why shouldn't it be? pleasure - all pleasure - is addictive, it builds feedback loops. the consumer society of the 60s was great for people who grew up in the great depression and fought the war to get it. in the 80s it was cocaine, hookers and hedge funds - why not? and now it's some kind of combination of intensive ward and wires-in-your-eyeballs dopamine drip.

>peace has cost you your strength, victory has defeated you

bane spoke the truth.

so, thanks for sharing that post.

one of the things that is interesting to me, and maybe you can share your thoughts on this, is how the starbucks protest has actually turned into something that almost looks like classical marxism again, though twisted through 9 billion permutations of consumer guilt. it's almost like people are realizing their dreams and fantasies are incompatible with reality, but protesting capitalism itself is by this point meaningless and impossible. race, people understand. gender, okay. but capitalism itself is by 2018 a concept so completely transcendent that nobody can or would ever protest that. and yet, maybe, this is what is actually happening.

reading baudrillard and land kind of helped me to get where i am now with a lot of this.

>Peterson is trying to save the Protestant middle class subjectivity that has accompanied capitalism from the beginning from the ravages of the therapeuthic state and digital media. He's an Ayn Rand fan for one.

is this true? that's kind of interesting. i've listened to a bunch of his speeches and didn't hear the references there.

i'm not really into rand myself, mind. too shrill. i understand ofc where she came from - in the 20s and 30s the last thing you would want anywhere would be state intervention in the economy. she wasn't wrong to draw the conclusions she reached. in 2010s tho i think a different view is required.

>Many 'leftists' on the other hand seem more motivated by resentment and the righteous rush of legalistic punishment than by any genuinely positive vision of anything.

this for sure.

>Same goes for the alt right, their existence has been hollowed out to such a degree the only thing left for them is performative mimetic transgression.

trump happened too soon. for everyone. and now the hard right is bailing on him.
>trump voice: it's a disaster, a complete disaster

the internet really took everything tv did to a previous generation and cranked it all up to 11. there's going to be a kind of awakening from all of this, i think. but it really does feel sometimes like the rage virus from 28 Days Later has gotten out and infected the world.

>mimetics you so crazy

good post anon, thx for sharing.

[Anonymous No.11029203]

>>11029073
You should check out the works of Christopher Lasch. He was a psychoanalyst and dissident leftist social critic who spoke on the therapeutic state and the accompanying 'culture of narcissism' back in the 1970s. He also wrote a devastating takedown of the American right in this little article.

http://www.radicalcritique.org/2013/10/whats-wrong-with-right.html?m=1
http://thezeitgeistmovement.se/files/Lasch_Christopher_The_Culture_of_Narcissism.pdf

We gotta look into the origins of cyber culture both in the counterculture and in the MKULTRA spook deep state complex beyond the fog of conspiracy theory. I believe there might be truth to be found in the creative rememberance of the past, particularly WWII and the 60s, how did these events shape the modern world? What is the precipitate that remains after the past is past?

https://monoskop.org/images/0/09/Brand_Stewart_Whole_Earth_Catalog_Fall_1968.pdf

The story of Stafford Beer and project Cybersyn in Chile reads like a lost JG Ballard story. Maybe the real political problem lies in handling complexity. He did say we should build a cybernetic model of society, ie. a design for freedom, in an open and democratic fashion before authoritarian governments or private interests. eerily familiar

https://monoskop.org/Stafford_Beer

[Anonymous No.11029255]

>>11028880
>>11028880
>it's another economically illiterate american that uses "neoliberal" as substitute for capitalism, consumerism or everything he doesn't like about the current world, believes the (past, at this point) rise of the right is some sort of epic stop in the cogs of globalism and not a function of people getting dissatisfied as a result of 2008 crisis, probably believes the EU can be defined as "neoliberal" as well episode

[Anonymous No.11029280]

>>11029203
lasch i like, i read that book a while ago, maybe i should re-read it again. anything that addresses the fundamental underlying nature of homo consumicus gets what's going on, imho.

>We gotta look into the origins of cyber culture both in the counterculture and in the MKULTRA spook deep state complex beyond the fog of conspiracy theory. I believe there might be truth to be found in the creative rememberance of the past, particularly WWII and the 60s, how did these events shape the modern world? What is the precipitate that remains after the past is past?

no diggity. i mean this is what the badiou-anon was getting at earlier, this lingering shadow of WWII that hangs over everything. and it really does. it not only gives us the true age of Total Mobilization, but the holocaust as well, the emergence of US megapower, later hyperpower...the whole intellectual foundations of the present age really were birthed in war. and the dionysiac reveling that followed.

just to keep this on point, for OP's sake, the age of the 60s and 70s is not only very well articulated by deleuze, but he also is the leading light for land's Dark Enlightenment stuff, where capital removes its Scooby-Doo mask and turns out to be cthulhu mixed with skynet. deleuze is a cosmic mega-genius for all time in this sense, no doubt. he will take you some wild and crazy places, as much today as ever. the current darkwave/acceleration stuff that is going on absolutely has him at the centre. just so that we keep it thematic, is all i'm saying.

>The story of Stafford Beer and project Cybersyn in Chile reads like a lost JG Ballard story.

this is dope

>Maybe the real political problem lies in handling complexity.

mos definitely

>He did say we should build a cybernetic model of society, ie. a design for freedom, in an open and democratic fashion before authoritarian governments or private interests. eerily familiar

this is the deal. wow, that's fascinating stuff. i agree. some need to rehabilitate our utopian projects is in order, because i think they're fucking killing us all...

stuff like zeitgeist/jacques fresco of course lights me up in some nostalgic way but i am dead certain we are headed for cyberpunk city. but i think maybe you've nailed it already:

>Maybe the real political problem lies in handling complexity.

it is this. the internet has given us the insane kaleidoscopic view of human process, the horrors of unadulterated perception. the oedipus goggles are not holding any longer. but i don't know if i'm cut out for deleuze/spinoza meta-sorcery and black magic either. maybe OP will sell us on it. it deleuzians and spinozans makes for fascinating reading tho and have the coolest twitter feeds ever, by far.

ah, what a great thread.

oh, and the wiki for Project Cybersyn is fucking wild. that's amazing. how long before failing governments in the future start handing themselves over to AI super-managers? you're right, this is like a lost ballard. awesome

[Anonymous No.11029284]

>>11029203
Wow, I had no idea about Lasch. That article is fantastic. I had mentally categorised him as "grumpy insightful paleocon," basically a useful grumbler who went off his soma long enough to realise the psychopathology of modern society. But he's fucking legit. Thanks man, great post.

What do you think of Dupuy's critique of cybernetics? I am terrified of anything that tries to "manage" people, especially when it claims to be community/fraternity "deep down, just better run."

To introduce an irreducible element of freedom will require an inner transformative component - which can and should be disseminated systemically and intelligently, but which cannot be synonymous with systematic and intelligence management of discourse. Free people create free institutions, not the other way around. In my opinion anyway. A spiritual aristocrat, anarch, samurai, whatever the fuck you want to call it, precisely insofar as he stands outside the mechanical tendrils of systematisation and homogenisation by attending to his own bildung, is what creates real communities and societies.

What do you think of Bakhtin?

[Anonymous No.11029326]

>>11029280
>anything that addresses the fundamental underlying nature of homo consumicus gets what's going on, imho.

Do you like Stiegler's libidinal vs. drive-based capitalism?

If someone could just write one touchstone book that encapsulates the gestalt of machine-capitalism, one little fucking book that captures all the lightning in a bottle of techne-critique and gemeinschat-critique and etc etc etc, and makes it available to people who are out looking for it. That would do so much good.

That gestalt needs to be an aspect, a concrete vision that can be granted to others, and then function as a whole "way of seeing" (aspect, seeing-as), like a pair of They Live glasses that makes visible the interconnections that originally constituted the glasses themselves: the unitisation of the human, the homogenisation, the raising of machines to be like men, the lowering of men to be like machines.

Above all, the fact that this process has gone beyond mere primitive capitalism, in that it has penetrated the individual's body and brain and no longer functions by interacting with "individuals" who make "choices" by "deceiving/manipulating them." It has penetrated the body, penetrated the psyche, it's now lashing the drives and impulses and urges of the human directly into machines than then form-fit back into the brain.

We are being programmed, controlled, directed at a pre-conscious, reflex, instinct level now, and all this is happening JUST as the obsession with "mind-machine interfaces" and AIs comes out, just as algorithms and evolutionary networks are increasingly misinterpreted as reproducing meaningful intentions or autonomously "understanding" meaning in the way a human does. None of this is coincidental.

[Anonymous No.11029343]

>>11029284

>To introduce an irreducible element of freedom will require an inner transformative component - which can and should be disseminated systemically and intelligently, but which cannot be synonymous with systematic and intelligence management of discourse.

not the guy you are responding do but this sentence is 144% exactly what i believe. with all attendant problems.

bret weinstein has taken to calling solutions to this, i think, 'Plan B.' you could call it an Exit strategy as well, although i'm trying to will myself to be more optimistic than the acceleration stuff tells me to be. it's a great name and explains exactly how a whole cluster of thinkers are beginning to prepare salvage ops from babylon. Plan B. the question about freedom

>henry, we need to talk about skynet

so just wanted to throw that out there, you crushed it. searching my pics folder i can find only this marginally appropriate slice of twitter memery, so, enjoy

[Anonymous No.11029353]

>>11026601
>hates Plato
>hates Nietzsche
Where can you go from here?
>unironically

[Anonymous No.11029382]

>>11026693
>Closely engaging with literary texts, Edelman makes a compelling case for imagining Scrooge without Tiny Tim and Silas Marner without little Eppie. Looking to Alfred Hitchcock’s films, he embraces two of the director’s most notorious creations: the sadistic Leonard of North by Northwest, who steps on the hand that holds the couple precariously above the abyss, and the terrifying title figures of The Birds, with their predilection for children. Edelman enlarges the reach of contemporary psychoanalytic theory as he brings it to bear not only on works of literature and film but also on such current political flashpoints as gay marriage and gay parenting. Throwing down the theoretical gauntlet, No Future reimagines queerness with a passion certain to spark an equally impassioned debate among its readers.

[Anonymous No.11029400]

>>11029326
>stiegler

i read technics and time a few years ago - weirdly, before reading heidegger - and was basically floored by his conclusions. i might need a brief refresher on this distinction now, tho, it's been a while. but if you like stiegler, you should probably get to know yuk hui as well. he's following from stiegler and the largely unknown pic rel here and has interesting things to say about the need to get over the hump of subjectivity and into inter*objective* and technical relations. i've been quietly shilling for him for a while now. he's got a pretty dope essay here if you're interested.

http://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/179224/on-automation-and-free-time/

he gets bonus points for having had lunch with land too and had a good conversation with him.

>If someone could just write one touchstone book that encapsulates the gestalt of machine-capitalism, one little fucking book that captures all the lightning in a bottle of techne-critique and gemeinschat-critique and etc etc etc, and makes it available to people who are out looking for it. That would do so much good.

agreed. until then, there's teleoplexy:

https://track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf

>the raising of machines to be like men, the lowering of men to be like machines.

peter galison has some good stuff to say on norbert wiener's discovery of cybernetics as black-box psychology as well. basically, the day that the human brain was discovered to be a necessary servomotor component in a machine that tracks and kills other human-piloted machines was a red-letter day for...well, Not The Past. but postmodernism is kidding itself if it thinks the way out of this is Moar Subjectivity.

>Above all, the fact that this process has gone beyond mere primitive capitalism, in that it has penetrated the individual's body and brain and no longer functions by interacting with "individuals" who make "choices" by "deceiving/manipulating them." It has penetrated the body, penetrated the psyche, it's now lashing the drives and impulses and urges of the human directly into machines than then form-fit back into the brain.

yup

>We are being programmed, controlled, directed at a pre-conscious, reflex, instinct level now, and all this is happening JUST as the obsession with "mind-machine interfaces" and AIs comes out, just as algorithms and evolutionary networks are increasingly misinterpreted as reproducing meaningful intentions or autonomously "understanding" meaning in the way a human does. None of this is coincidental.

nope

and this is what it means to be conscious. this is the deal. that, just as you have said it, it is the story. that's the real news. exactly as you have said it.

protesting starbucks is not the answer. nobody knows what the answer is. but this death carousel is unquestionably our death carousel. we are stuck inside it, where we are at once most a prisoner of it and simultaneously where it is also most intimate and most remote. mechanosphere, wat do?

[Anonymous No.11029425]

figure we should splash in one of the greatest essays ever written on these subjects since the untimely meditations. just to show the kinds of kwisatz-haderach level chops gilles deleuze had when he wanted to explain the nature of the beast.

https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

[Anonymous No.11029489]

>>11029203
>Unironically talking about "neoclassical" economics
>Saying that consumerism brought low skilled jobs when clearly the opposite it's true as every first world nation invests into the education of its citizen and competes with the others to attract skilled immigrants
Other than that, decent article. The characterization of american conservatives as being incoherent is something that I agree with and I had already realized, and the critique of american liberals is the same old stale stuff you read everywhere nowadays, but is fundamentally correct.

[Anonymous No.11029581]

>>11029073
>is this true? that's kind of interesting.
[not that anon] it's half true. he said he enjoyed reading her novels and thought that she had a point especially given her family's persecution by the Bolsheviks but that she's fundamentally second-rate as a thinker and artist - so not exactly a ringing endorsement

[Anonymous No.11029650]

>>11029581
yeah, makes sense. given how much he loathes the marxists he would pick up on this, but objectivism does not compute with jungian christian symbolism. atlas does produce some dope computer wallpapers, though. plus art deco, always a dapper look.

the rand/jbp connection is kind of interesting tho. there are parallels there, larger-than-life contrarian intellectuals with a gospel of heroic individualism to preach against the socialists.

and rand was as big a believer in the psychological power of writing fiction and non-fiction as anyone. things you will never see, the great Rand-Peterson debate.

with special guest slavoj zizek, to ensure maximal incoherence and total bewilderment.

[Anonymous No.11029746]

>>11029650
>but objectivism does not compute with jungian christian symbolism
or any kind of Christianity at all. re: Rand I wish Peterson was even more of the Christian apologist he gets taken for. he's taken to retweeting stuff by libertarian think tanks that deny climate change and think we're all going to beam up into some kind of ray kurzweil gnostic machine god. what about Mammon? where's Mammon in your theology there Jorgie?

[Anonymous No.11029800]

>>11029746
yeah.

i went through a ken wilber phase for a while, basically before i knew or understood any of the things or people he talked about. because he had all of these references going on, and a system, and kind of a snazzy way of talking, i really thought he was a boss. for sure, there are still some things about him that i like, but now that i've read a little more deeply some aspects of what he does strike me as being a kind of incredible hodge-podge of things borrowed from all over creation and whipped up into a package that seems...i don't know, there's just something slightly not right about it. even though i like the kinds of stuff he talks about.

with peterson i kind of wonder if it's a similar process, except with more references to christian hermeticism and so on instead of the new age stuff. he's definitely tapped into something, and absolutely at the right time to do it, and he has the conviction of what he's saying, there's no doubt about that. but it's assembling it all together into the total package that kind of eludes him, together with the fact that he just won't seriously engage with the other side. and of course it's easy to see why, we know why, it's because it's a black hole and you can get sucked all the way in and spit back out. this is what we are coming to understand about contemporary radical leftism, it's a total black hole.

the thing is...wilber was actually *really right* about 'boomeritis,' that something really was something fundamentally fucked up about postmodernity. and this was in the early 1990s. and peterson is almost certainly right about basically that exact same force working today in academia.

that to me is the really mysterious, really interesting part. they're wrong about so much, but at the core of it is something they are 100% correct about. so correct they can barely fucking talk about what it is and so they have to go to the four corners of the cosmos and back to explain it. and you're left kind of...well, feeling something.

peterson at least wrote a book, and it's readable, and his aims are noble. it's not new age in the slightest, which makes him the opposite of wilber, but it's kind of a riddle, where academics get involved in saying What's Right For Humanity.

fascinating stuff. learned men getting swamped by the waves and so on. psychology and all.

[Anonymous No.11029891]

>>11029800
part of what that thing is, too, i would say, is just the craving for acceptance, the desire to be liked.

wilber called it the green meme, the need - from tolerance - to be maximally tolerant, which actually leads in the end to intolerance. postmodernity was an evolution from earlier forms of social organization, but had a potential to become viral and basically induce commitee fever.

here we are 20 years later and, this problem not having gone away, metastasizes into the rage virus and its attendant horrors: microaggressions, diversity czars, bias retraining, all of it. the left didn't only lose the election, they spawned trump as well to go through with it, and that man is basically a gigantic tumor created by this disease, the insane need to be liked, to be validated, to be affirmed.

heidegger used to talk about authenticity, and this was - at least, i believe this was the idea, i wasn't there - part of the idea of the 70s, be yourself, all this. and that got passed down through the generations until it came to today, where this unholy craving for attention and likes and eyeballs and so on has made us ultra-sensitive and brittle as all fuck.

for peterson to dig in his heels and invoke the Gospel of Carl or whatever makes all the sense in the world in that way. i would be more impressed if he didn't have to paint the frankfurt school like it was the second coming of SPECTRE because those poor fucks were on the run from the nazis anyways.

>and jesus christ, JBP, roland barthes? you're attacking roland barthes? seriously

so for me it's the irony of ironies that this could indeed how social movements wind up falling apart. but maybe it's a good thing also. the real thing to do is just to make individuals capable of love and work, not necessarily revolution. and not martyrdom either.

so to keep it thematic, this is something relevant about badiou in this sense. you have to form yourself as a subject, subjectivity actually isn't just given to you de facto, which is what JBP himself says: responsibilities, not rights.

but hopefully that other anon will have more to say about this later..

[Anonymous No.11029993]

>>11029800
>11029800
wilber eh

two things come to mind - "comparisons are odious" and Nietzsche in the gay science i believe, "seeing things as similar and making things the same is the sign of weak eyes"

i haven't read anything by wilber but my hunch from skimming his wikipedia page a few times is that he's an old buddhist who stalled or got nowhere in his meditation practice and tried to work around it with intellectual speculation.

i dont know if peterson is interested in What's Right For Humanity, at least not on that level of analysis. part of his thing as a good would-be Christian (and Nietzschean?) is smashing the idol of Humanity, arguably modernity's most vicious Aztec death-god. We like human beings; 'humanity' can and will go to the pit.

[Anonymous No.11030172]

>>11029993
>two things come to mind - "comparisons are odious" and Nietzsche in the gay science i believe, "seeing things as similar and making things the same is the sign of weak eyes"

kek. too true. and there is no arguing with nietzsche. he's always brilliant like that, exposing the pseud within for getting cozy with its hot takes on these things. it's hard to make nietzsche happy, because his love is a tough brand of love indeed, but i believe that it is still love in the end.

ah well. i hope in whatever plane he now inhabits he can run a small 19C medicine shop or apothecary, sort of like the road to wellville, and be as dazzlingly interesting there as he is here. nietzsche is only ever good times.

>an old buddhist who stalled or got nowhere in his meditation practice and tried to work around it with intellectual speculation

that's basically it. more advaita vedanta/neoplatonist than buddhist - plotinus and aurobindo are his guys, jean gebser too...but i think he secretly wanted his public image to be a kind of mystical foucault, shaved head and glasses and everything, a transcendental problem-solver for psychology, science and religion. he hypes foucault a fair bit. a very interesting fella with a kind of a beautiful early 90s vision. but it is very early 90s in that way.

and he seemed to have had a kind of aura around him then that peterson has around him now. a kind of guru or sage that everyone was looking to, who seemed to have an aura of the mandate of heaven. right place and right words at the right time.

>i dont know if peterson is interested in What's Right For Humanity, at least not on that level of analysis. part of his thing as a good would-be Christian (and Nietzschean?) is smashing the idol of Humanity, arguably modernity's most vicious Aztec death-god. We like human beings; 'humanity' can and will go to the pit.

Humanity is a tough one indeed. it's hard to love the whole enchilada, that's for sure. Aztec death god is the right metaphor. i have some visions of my own about a hegel-nietzsche fusion in which we just understand that optimizing humanity for the best is the way to go: shedding the need to take everyone along in totalitarian political adventures, but recognizing that in the end you can't really hold to the master/slave distinction either. the masters, if masters they really are, invariably wind up getting sacrificed one way or the other and the slaves do slave things. reading land, bataille and girard showed me that the darkness is really, really fucking dark. like way darker than i thought i could handle. coming to terms with that is rough. i'd prefer to detach from those cycles.

but i wonder about deleuze too, about being a body without organs. i'd rather be that more boring thing, a body with a few interesting organs. like a magical kaleidoscopic glass eye. to be able to see all of the crazy and wield or deflect it as necessary, but maybe not need to go full paisley psychedelic chaos-music myself.

[Anonymous No.11030181]

>>11030172
damn, i forgot the picture.

[Anonymous No.11030565]

>>11030181
BwO is like imagine that for sex.

-deleuzefag

[Anonymous No.11031364]

bump

[Anonymous No.11031469]

>>11026707
yeah, literary critics actually apply their concepts instead of reveling in mystification and sophistry

[Anonymous No.11031493]

>>11026670
>He gained international recognition for his books about queer theory, post-structuralism, psychoanalytic theory, and cultural studies.

> Don't read Nietzsche, Badiou and Deleuze, but rather the queer theory professors that they inspired

If this is bait, I'm impressed. If it isn't, kill the milieu of pluralist multiplicities that is your body, that is to say, "yourself".

[Anonymous No.11032949]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11032956]

>>11031493
>the milieu of pluralist multiplicities

[Anonymous No.11032963]

>>11031469
>sophistry
stop right there criminal scum