/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16359810]

Did D&G invent idpol?

[Anonymous No.16359815]

>>16359810
no, they deinvented it

[Anonymous No.16359876]

>>16359810
lol if that's what you got from 1000 plateaus you are a truly terrible reader

>Identity and resemblance would then be no more than inevitable illusions - in other words, concepts of reflection which would account for our inveterate habit of thinking difference on the basis of the categories of representation.

[Anonymous No.16361019]

>>16359810
ur dumb lmao. gay dumb. have gay sex with me homo baby.

[Anonymous No.16361111]

D&G get misread about as bad as Nietzsche by midwit retards if not worse.
The only saving grace is probably that 90% of those shitters don't get past the first few paragraphs.
Probably doesn't stop most of them still talking about it as if they did study it completely.
Kill yourself OP.

[Anonymous No.16361124]

>>16361111
not an argument

[Anonymous No.16361167]

>>16359810
op i reccomend gilles deleuze by claire colebrook this is what im using to understand their concepts

[Anonymous No.16361188]

>>16361124
Dolce and Gabana repeatedly argue against fixed identities. These would lead to hardening of the edges on the strata leading to stuff like "micro-fascisms".
You know, all the lines of flight ideas along which one can and should move? Things happening at the speed of thought.
These are all pretty much diametrical opposed to idpol.
Also what >>16359876 psoted.

There is your argument. Let me see how you think that OPs statement is true instead.

[Anonymous No.16361287]

>>16361188
idpol isn't about fixed identities. deloser and guitar put too much focus on the individual for revolution and encourage experimenting with one's identity making the concept of identity fluid which has been co-opted by neoliberalism and invented idpol.

[Anonymous No.16361679]

>>16361188
>>16361287
>Dolce and Gabana
>Deloser and Guitar
Sides :
Just fine
Rekt

>>16359810
That's some fucking bullshit though. They didn't invent it, they just pointed to the lack of relevance that makes it a purely abstract notion, thus being a matter of everchanging thought and discussion. >>16359876
You're right, that's where OP got it from. Your little extract is clear enough to explain the trap of idpols. Representation being confined to pre-existing axioms, we're paradoxically forced to make mistakes. "Like a foreigner in his own language, a bastard of his own race, an alien in his own borders" or some similar quote, too lazy to go through the book right now.
>>16361287
Tell me how you're experimenting with thoughts, because the LSD isn't doing shit to my sexual orientation, life experience or ancestry.

[Anonymous No.16361822]

>>16361679
Sides obviously rekt, just came back to bump the thread and say I'll learn my ASCII keys well instead of shitty Unicode.
Remember you guys invented idpol, damn dirty 4channers. People were who they were from the dawn of civilization, as tribes, (chapter 4 or 5 of 1000 Plateaus with the march of the Israelites...), states, with their families, bloodines, dialects, religions, etc. What Dutch & Goombah allow us to do is go beyond the unspoken mechanisms of capitalism as a recalcitrant machine and explore our languages and ideas, history and culture, territories and relationships, as a positive force of humanity rather than a branded concept to enslave us.

[Anonymous No.16361825]

>>16359810
is this as worth reading as the early deleuze books (los and d&r)?

[Anonymous No.16361932]

>>16359810
>I've got a wife, and a daughter who plays with dolls and potters around the house. And you think that in the light of Anti-Oedipus this is a huge joke. You might have added I've got a son who's almost old enough to go into analysis. If you think it's dolls that produce the Oedipus complex, or the mere fact of being married, that's pretty weird. The Oedipus complex is nothing to do with dolls, it's an internal secretion, a gland, and you can't fight oedipal secretions except by fighting yourself, by experimenting on yourself, by opening yourself up to love and desire (rather than the whining need to be loved that leads everyone to the psychoanalyst). Non-oedipal love is pretty hard work. And you should know that it's not enough just to be unmarried, not to have kids, to be gay, or belong to this or that group, in order to get round the Oedipus complex-given all the group complexes, oedipal gays, oedipized women's libbers, and so on. Just look at the piece called "Us and the Arabs,'" which is even more oedipal than my daughter.

>What's interesting isn't whether I'm capitalizing on anything, but whether there are people doing something or other in their little corner, and me in mine, and whether there might be any points of contact, chance encounters and coincidences rather than alignments and rallying-points (all that crap where everyone's supposed to be everyone else's guilty conscience and judge). I owe you lot nothing, nothing more than you owe me. I don't need to join you in your ghettos, because I've got my own. The question's nothing to do with the character of this or that exclusive group, it's to do with the transversal relations that ensure that any effects produced in some particular way (through homosexuality, drugs, and so on) can always be produced by other means. We have to counter people who think "I'm this, I'm that," and who do so, moreover, in psychoanalytic terms (relating everything to their childhood or fate), by thinking in strange, fluid, unusual terms: I don't know what I am-I'd have to investigate and experiment with so many things in a non-narcissistic, non-oedipal way-no gay can ever definitively say "I'm gay." It's not a question of being this or that sort of human, but of becoming inhuman, of a universal animal becoming - not seeing yourself as some dumb animal, but unraveling your body's human organization, exploring this or that zone of bodily intensity, with everyone discovering their own particular zones, and the groups, populations, species that inhabit them.

[Anonymous No.16362007]

bump

[Anonymous No.16362218]

>>16362007
Is >>16361825 (You)? Honestly I couldn't give a shit about Dovakhiin's philosophy. He was a sad old folk. The "Capitalism and schizophrenia" dyad is a good chunk of psychiatry, philosophy, a bit of history, even biology. Otherwise, you're better off reading other historically significant books such as Foucault's, Derrida's, Lacan's, or start jumping right in the new philosophers works.
See what your local university has to offer as new minds and theories. Since Marx and Hegel *sniff*, it's nothing new dude, people are dying in the streets right now *pulls on shirt*.

[Anonymous No.16362348]

>>16361932
>I don't need to join you in your ghettos, because I've got my own.
what did he mean by this? What were his ghettos?

Also, to OP, farther down the letter:
>Arguments from one's own experience are bad and reactionary arguments. My favorite sentence in Anti-Oedipus is: "No, we've never seen a schizophrenic."

[Anonymous No.16362418]

>>16359810
yeah they wanted you to hold on to cladistic metanarratives and reify muh skin color ethnonarcissism. that's exactly what they're saying, u figrrd it out mah nigga.

[Anonymous No.16362452]

>>16362218
>new minds and theories
like who?

[Anonymous No.16362632]

>>16362452
No fucking idea. I'm still reading the Thousand Plateaus, then I'll read some small non-fiction books and novels I don't want to miss out on. I'm fucking tired with philosophy, Drool & Grool bashed my skull hard enough that I want to insult everybody all the time.
There's an online publisher in France that's called Cairn.info, they release new books all the time. You may have something similar for you. There's another French philosopher who looks hip, Geoffroy de Lagasderie, probably not translated yet. Philosophy is mainly political now, again there's nothing new since the first worker strikes repressions...

[Anonymous No.16362737]

>>16361932
Wow he isn't saying much is he?
So to him distinctions don't matter, except for the all-important oedipus complex, which is:
-defined by him
-a biological gland
-cannot be denied
-must be confronted by experimenting with your desires
-and in fact you can't know anything about yourself unless you satisfy his criteria to do it in a "non-oedipal way."

He certainly had a dog in the race to justify human identity as "strange, fluid, unusual," how much time did he spend inside of rectums?

[Anonymous No.16362764]

>>16362632
>Geoffroy de Lagasnerie
More on him: reading his Wiki page, he looks like the regular antifa asshole, but his thinking is really nuanced from a far-left standpoint. He's actually very critical of the American liberal methods of silently supporting violent action, and he's more about killing the evil forces from within, by applying critical theory to the close-to-unborn theory so to speak, like it was intended by the D and the G.
This brings me to consider why I'm done with the French theory and what it brought to the world. I can't take how people are fucking stupid anymore. Critical theory is what fuels the alt-left and it's so gay even the commies and actual homosexuals are angry about it...

[Anonymous No.16363823]

>>16362737
>Wow he isn't saying much is he?
Not really, yet people still miss the point apparently.
>So to him distinctions don't matter, except for the all-important oedipus complex, which is:
>-defined by him
Defined by Freud rather. Deleuze wasn't really for it, it's just that his approach to undermining it from within can be misleading without full context.
>-a biological gland
>Don't take it so literally.
>-cannot be denied
Deleuze didn't say that.
>-must be confronted by experimenting with your desires
The phrasing there (opening yourself up to love and desire) matters. It doesn't mean randomly indulging every desire.
>-and in fact you can't know anything about yourself unless you satisfy his criteria to do it in a "non-oedipal way."
It's not that you can't know nothing, it's that the labels you put on yourself operate at a different level from the more fundamental level at which desire operates (which is both material and non-material, connecting all kinds of contingent and not so contingent flows and objects in the largest sense of the word, including said labels).

>He certainly had a dog in the race to justify human identity as "strange, fluid, unusual,"
If you're using the term "human identity" as some kind of essentialism and thinking about the need for it to be justified you're already moving away from the point and into a different framework that has nothing to do with Deleuze.

>how much time did he spend inside of rectums?
Probably not much, he banged some actress and then got married to an anorexic and had two kids. There are no other such anecdotes about him that I'm aware of, unlike Guattari who was a notorious womanizer in the most French of ways.

[Anonymous No.16363839]

>>16359810
no

[Anonymous No.16363855]

>>16362764
Sounds like not all critical theory is created equal. Maybe the worst examples dominate?

[Anonymous No.16363887]

>>16363823
The french are motivated solely by indolence and sexual perversion it is a mistake to take them seriously

[Anonymous No.16363899]

>>16361825
Yes. It's variation similar themes (since Deleuze's philosophy is pretty much an exercise in repetition with difference/variation), but you won't get a complete picture unless you read many of his books despite this. Even his articles/interviews can be very revealing even if they're mostly about the same stuff.

Some of the newer concepts and their developments (such as desiring machines then becoming assemblages between AO and ATP) will make his theory of pluralism clearer and allow you to analyze it and apply it more precisely.

[Anonymous No.16363936]

>>16363887
I know, that's what makes them interesting. Well, some of them at least. Deleuze clearly has his limits, but I still found his insights very useful. And he wrote beautifully at times even if he's often a chore to read.

[Anonymous No.16363965]

>>16363899
If you check the footnotes youll realize Deleuze and Guattari were just mindlessly chugging CIA/OSS/Tavistock. Mkultra spook brainwash all those laings marcuses and batesons. Familiar themes of "democratic education" like paranoia being fascist, patriarchal sexual repression being bad cybernetics good, praise of the american ethos of pluralism and self expressive individualism .

[Anonymous No.16363991]

>>16361111
>D&G get misread about as bad as Nietzsche by midwit retards if not worse.
ah yes, the gatekeeping poster that never adds context or substance to discussion.
please break your mold and tell us what D&G meant else you're no better than the people you easily dismiss.

clearly you're one of the handful of people that know the minds of D&G and Nietzsche; you surely should easily be able to distill their wisdom for the masses.

[Anonymous No.16364010]

>>16362764
American "critical theory" is not critical at all maybe some of the concepts originally come from european philosophy, mostly from foucault, but in practice it has degenerated into just another form of hypernormalized bureaucratic discourse.

[Anonymous No.16364034]

>>16363965
I don't disagree about their sources, but I'm not sure how much of it was itself just CIA propaganda though. If the CIA uses scientific theories that doesn't invalidate the theories, far from it. Of course when it comes to values things are different, but even there you'd have to go case by case.

I can't really deny a link between paranoia and fascism to be honest, in fact in recent years it seems more obvious than ever. It's not as simple as equating the two nor dismissing one or another because of their link, but there's probably something fundamentally biological there (which doesn't mean it's reduced to the most material aspects, assemblages always go beyond that). And I wouldn't expect two French Lefties to not be against patriarchal repression, especially since they were going after Freud. As for pluralism and expressive individualism, those two things are at odds for Deleuze. He doesn't use pluralism in the sense of a plurality of individuals, but rather a pre-individual situation that always threatens to transform the individual, for better or for worse.

[Anonymous No.16364066]

>>16363991
He's not wrong though, D&G are misunderstood constantly, even by academics. It's not that they're so profound or so obscure, it's more that their unconventional style allows the reader to get maybe a little too creative with the interpretation (which D&G would argue is a productive thing rather than a flaw). It's probably why there was for a while even an alt-right interest in them.

[Anonymous No.16364090]

>>16364034
Jews are fucking us all in the ass the sheer chutzpah of these people is astounding! They are not even trying to hide it anymore! You could have the thick greasy jew schlong up the rectum and youd still be calling me a paranoid anti semite and telling me im sexually repressed.

[Anonymous No.16364168]

>>16364090
Paranoia isn't the same thing as anti-semitism, no. In fact paranoia doesn't have any predefined target, which is why in pathological cases it can constantly jump to new targets or even make up imaginary (borderline hallucinatory) ones. It's a state of mind or predisposition which opens up to certain interpretations more than others, including to anti-semitism and fascism. Which is why we probably could never see eye to eye, even if that sounds dismissive, because we're predisposed to think in different ways, both about what the exact problems are and about their solutions.

Also, it sounds like you took the "have sex incel" memes too seriously.

[Anonymous No.16364183]

Here's an interesting piece on Guatarri's social activism.
https://salvage.zone/online-exclusive/the-function-of-autonomy-felix-guattari-and-new-revolutionary-prospects/
>This is, in fact, more about transsexuality than homosexuality: at issue is the definition of what sexuality would be in a society freed from capitalist exploitation and the alienation it engenders on all levels of social organisation. From this perspective, the struggle for the liberty of homosexuality becomes an integral part of the struggle for social liberation.