What are lit's thoughts on Deleuze?

What are lit's thoughts on Deleuze?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg
youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A
youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1
youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel delanda
youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU
youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY
youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4
youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik
webdeleuze.com/
immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

madman

i'm trying to read ATP right now and honestly it seems like they just got really high, experienced derealization, and then tried to shoehorn the experience into a set of concepts.

i drew an image of what their system looks like but i got it wrong and have to draw a new one.

Difference & Repetition makes absolutely no sense. What do I need to read so it doesn't sound like made-up obscuratanist gibberish.

It's an annoying text, even Deleuze admitted that it was hard-going. Maybe read his Nietzsche and Philosophy and proceed from there?

Don't bother mapping it out, Deleuze pretty much said that it's more about feeling it out and connecting it to an outside than trying to understand it as a system.

Some links from the other thread:

A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

As for the books, start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts. As for the books, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro to the English translation by Michael Hardt even if you don't read the book in English). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: webdeleuze.com/

A decent bibliography:
immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

He is like Derrida squared in terms of inaccessibility and methodical sloppiness.

One of the anons from a previous thread recommended me pic related.

...

anti-white, postmodernist set out to destroy western civilisation

Looks interesting, will download.

This man gives you a set of tools to understand this clusterfuck of a world, and you resort to namecalling. Typical.

None of those things describe Deleuze. He was closer to a classical metaphysician than a postmodernist. Besides, there were even alt-right attempts to coopt his texts.

How is pic related?

How does his work help to explain the world? Afaik, he wrote about obscure topics.

He's crypto fascist

>Attempts
He's a huge influence on Nick land and NRx if anything.

His 2 follow up books, "And: Phenomenology of the End" and "Futurability" are both great. Berardi's very underrated imo.

quite irrelevant imo.

for such phliosophizing can only take place in a society where philosophy has lost its relevance and real role in the life of people, so it will be of no interest for those outside that society, and of little use for those inside it, save of course for those who make a living from of it.

it is just the manifestation of a culture that is blocked and has nowhere to turn, as if you were stuck in the middle of traffic and were to put your car in neutral, to then blast the accelerator to make some noise.

Incredibly difficult. He assumes familiarity with terms he developed in earlier works. I tried making this my first Deleuze and would not recommend.

Easily the most important philosopher of 20th century. Makes Derrida, Heidegger, and their ilk look like bivalves. Start with his very readable book on Nietzsche.

these should be read after a working understanding of Bergson and knowledge of the bodies of work of the directors mentioned (especially Griffith, Eisenstein, Hitchcock, Ford)

Heidegger is probably more important, but Deleuze is shaping up to be the most important of the second half, though Foucault arguably beats him out (if in nothing but influence)

You’re right, but why are you able to formulate such observations about the state we are in in the first place?

Because you read philosophy. So it’s sill useful, even if only as a diagnostic tool.

I like Deleuze a lot, perhaps most important thinker of today after Baudrillard.

Start here, go anywhere.

> He's crypto fascist

In what way?


Except Deleuze is useful to those who read him even if they don't do philosophy for a living. Even if it's just what he got from Nietzsche, but I claim Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, What is Philosophy? and other works take Nietzsche's concepts into present day, as arrogant as that might sound.

>ywn protest with the boys in 68' and join vincennes with deleuze, michel, alain, dj bauddy, lacan & negri

> Starting with The Logic of Sense

Are you trolling? That book is convoluted af.

>tfw we will never get a 1968-style revolt again, everyone has accepted the system

>Because you read philosophy.

that is not a necesary conclusion. i have indeed read those and others, not just philosophers, but have come to realize that if i can make such observations is not because of the readings but because of the assimilation that my organism, through the mind, has made of the world surrounding me. and that could have taken place with other materials as a language to express that assimilation, such as arts or science or any other convention, no matter how silly or ill reputed.

it all goes down to the innate life force of our organism. and nothing else. in a society that blocks that or leaves it unattended, those jokers making a spectacle of this block are worse than cancer.

as a side note, the french postwar philosophy is junk, and i say it after having widely read it in its original form and context. there is an immense variety of other approaches that treat the same phenomena in much better ways that will enable you to do more than publish a book or get a degree.

full throttle boys
we going left acceleration

You could’ve said that in a simpler way.

So which alternatives do you propose to French theory? I acknowledge that it often seems to be written for the sake of being written.

You sound pretty Deleuzian from what you're writing.

>ywn protest with the boys in 68'
>a 1968-style revolt

Believing in the myth of 1968 is worse than believing that only 90s kids will get this.

it is not about the particular content you choose to read but about being aware that the relevant work is done by our organism to the extent that it is part of the living world and its rhythm. and that has nothing to do with books in themselves. which is not to say they are useless or to be discarded, but certainly not to be taken as an end or as the essential thing. they are just one possible tool among many others to manage something else.

you might cook on a stove or in an oven, but if you lack the food to be cooked, those tools will be useless.

Vincennes was pretty crazy.

> After the events of May ’68, Paris-VIII, also known as Vincennes, was created to be a refuge for radical students. A committee of 20 peoples that included Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes set out to model Vincennes after MIT. Michel Foucault was named the head of the philosophy department. While Deleuze could not initially work at Vincennes, he later joined a staff that was comprised of Alain Badiou, Jacques Ranciere, Jean-Francois Lyotard and Judith Miller.

Lacan held courses there as well. It was pretty much "every French philosopher ever in one spot". Reminds me of University of Berlin when it had Hegel, Schopenhauer, Schleiermacher, Fichte, Schelling and others under the same roof.

Schizoanalysis via their metaphor of rhizomes is literally obfuscation and is intentionally unclear to how it is different from normal analysis.
The best way to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia is as literature first and theory second.

"But I'm struck by the way it's the people who've read lots of other books, and psychoanalytic books in particular, who find our book really difficult. They say: What exactly is a body without organs? What exactly do you mean by "desiring machines"? Those, on the other hand, who don't know much, who haven't been addled by psychoanalysis, have less of a problem and happily pass over what they don't understand. That's why we said that, in principle at least, the book was written for fifteen- to twenty- year-olds. There are, you see, two ways of reading a book: you either see it as a box with something inside and start looking for what it signifies, and then if you're even more perverse or depraved you set off after signifiers. And you treat the next book like a box contained in the first or containing it. And you annotate and interpret and question, and write a book about the book, and so on and on. Or there's the other way:you see the book as a little non-signifying machine, and the only question is "Does it work, and how does it work?" How does it work for you? If it doesn't work, if nothing comes through, you try another book. This second way of reading's intensive: something comes through or it doesn't. There's nothing to explain, nothing to understand, nothing to interpret. It's like plugging in to an electric circuit. I know people who've read nothing who immediately sawwhat bodies without organs were, given their own "habits," their own way of being one. This second way of reading's quite different from the fIrst, because it relates a book directly to what's Outside. A book is a little cog in much more complicated external machinery. Writing is one flow among others, with no special place in relation to the others, that comes into relations of current, countercurrent, and eddy with other flows-flows of shit, sperm, words, action, eroticism, money, politics, and so on."

"This intensive way .of reading, in contact with what's outside the book, as a flow meeting other flows, one machine among others, as a series of experiments for each reader in the midst of events that have nothing to do with books, as tearing the book into pieces, getting it to interact with other things, absolutely anything. . . is reading with love."

" So anyway,I got to work on two books along these meandering lines, Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. I know well enough that they're still full of academic elements, they're heavy going, but they're an attempt to jolt, set in motion, something inside me, to treat writing as a flow, not a code. And I like some passages in Difference and Repetition,those on tiredness and contemplation, for instance, because in spite of appearances they're living experiences. That's as far as it went, but it was a beginning".

tl;dr your statements sound Deleuzian af so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

> Schizoanalysis via their metaphor of rhizomes is literally obfuscation and is intentionally unclear to how it is different from normal analysis.

Pretty broad statements you have there. "Normal analysis" has an Oedipal and pre-Oedipal direction (infantile drives, etc.) while a schizoanalysis goes for actual (that is to say present) factors and tries to map out as much as possible of every relevant assemblage in order to open things up and leave behind what doesn't work even without understanding it. It has little to do with psychoanalysis as such except for the fact that D&G agree that assemblages have their own logic rather than rationalizations (social or psychological).

But I do agree that they might've been more explicit about how all of this is done.

If the tenor of his work is that “Capitalism causes schizophrenia”, I’m not wasting my time on it.

kek

It's not.

What's a good rebuttal to Baudrillard's criticism in Seduction and Forget Foucault?

Cool guy

>Cryptofascist
Read Dark Deleuze by Culper

Baudrillard always with the cutting analysis ... His takedowns are so precise and crushing dang

That is very interesting. To be fair there's probably no way out of that, no matter what method you choose, if I understood it correctly.

Going the Hans Jonas or Habermas route of saying that genetic manipulation goes against freedom is something that doesn't work politically (it's a matter of power so of course many countries will do it, even in secret) and isn't that persuasive to begin with (Christians arguing for the freedom of the soul against biogenetics are just about as convincing).

I suppose for Deleuze the fact that desire can be fundamentally transformed isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it's used for Puissance rather than Pouvoir. So power understood as capacity to do something rather than control and limitation.

I haven't read much Baudrillard, does he have a better answer to all this?

> blocks your neoliberal deleuzophrenie

> B-but Deleuze and Guattari are social-democrats for not going with every inane crap Maoists say.

When will this meme end?

that book is trash and full of cringeworthy quips about 'full communism'
reads like a leftbook blog post

Agree with this statement. Hopefully people realize that much of what Foucault did implicitly rested on the methodologies that Deleuze explicitly writes about. The way I see, where Foucault wrote about explicit historical trends, Deleuze writes about HOW these concepts can even be developed in the first place. (For instance, map how Foucault's analysis of "madness" being created as a concept can be read in Deleuze as mental smooth space being subjected to the tracings of scientific striation enforced by the micropolitics of the therapist-patient relationship that creates a molar aggregate resonant with state power.)

Deleuze is the abstraction to Foucault's concrescence. Both are fantastic philosophers, but Foucault's influence is 99% misreadings of shitty literature professors who fail to realize that Foucault's project was to show how certain ways of thinking developed SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK THAT WAY ANYMORE. Foucault only talks about discourse because it's the ONLY thing to talk about, but not the only thing that EXISTS, but instead his idiot commentators believe that have to expose every last enunciative formation in history as if this will suddenly give rise to the emancipatory discourse that has been suppressed all along. It's an academic perversion of his work from professionals who make a living on creating endless streams of discourse, whereas Foucault's whole project was in teaching you how to recognize the traps of discourse SO YOU CAN LEAVE IT BEHIND when you try to understand yourself as a subject of thought and action. Writing a complete history of the world according to discourse analysis is a waste of time and never what Foucault hoped for, yet it's what his disciples are ruining academia attempting to complete.

> For instance, map how Foucault's analysis of "madness" being created as a concept can be read in Deleuze as mental smooth space being subjected to the tracings of scientific striation enforced by the micropolitics of the therapist-patient relationship that creates a molar aggregate resonant with state power.

While I'm glad to see someone else so interested in Deleuzian terminology, the reason this stuff isn't as popular as Foucault's analysis is probably the fact that it sounds like the ramblings of a psychotic hobo.

I do agree with what you're saying though.

I went to middle and high-school with his grand-daughter. She was a bitch therefore he was too

Piggybacking on this thread. Deleuze and the words 'virtuality' and 'rhizomatic' have been coming up a lot in my readings this week but I have no idea where to start understanding them. Even my lecturer told us not to bother just yet.

Would be nice if some user could provide a link to a basic introduction. If not I'll start with the Stanford article and see what I pick up.

Looks interesting. Not sure how relevant it is for me but good to know.

Are you the same guy who knew Guattari's son and grandson as well?

The Deleuze for the Desperate series has some stuff on various concepts.

Not sure what the best way to learn about the virtual is since it is a Bergsonian concept that is also used by Proust before Deleuze so it comes up all over Deleuze's work. It depends on how much time you want to invest in understanding the concept. tl;dr it's real without being actual and ideal without being abstract. A sort of possible that's always present and differs in quality for the actual, making differenciation possible (everything actualized is already differenciated, but still in becoming since it differs from itself so to speak).

As for the rhizome, that only really comes up in D's work with Guattari, in A Thousand Plateaus to be precise. Although there are some mentions of it in other places, ATP is probably your best bet. tl;dr open system that connects all over the place, especially in improbable ways, inspired by the way the brain makes connection and applied to all sorts of domains and it's important because for Deleuze pretty much everything is constantly connecting and disconnecting from everything else.

The encyclopedia articles you can find online probably explain it better than I can.

The virtual is one of Deleuze's hardest concepts. did a good job explaining it in an abstract sense so I'll offer an example. In Anti-Oedipus, D&G argue that capitalism has always been virtually present in human history, even before the "rise" of capitalism after mercantilism. Although we think of capitalism as a system of distribution through which things receive a specific type of monetary value and become commodities to be exchanged on the open market, this is only capitalism in its actualized form (which has existed for roughly 300 years), but just because capitalism has been actualized for this long does not mean it came into existence with the development of free market principles. Before then, capitalism was a virtuality that exerted an indirect force on societal organization: while capitalism did yet not explicitly dictate organizational structures, pre-capitalist societies actively organized in order to ward off capitalism. They might not have bee able to formulate exactly what capitalism was, but they were aware, at least on a subconscious level, that creating commodities for the sake of stockpiling and exchange would displace the power structure to the point that it would disrupt the codes of these societies. This is why many primitive societies actively destroyed or used up resources that they could have easily stockpiled (think of a huge feast before winter to use up extra food). It wasn't that those in power didn't realize the potential of keeping extra commodities for exchange, but they realized that if they let a new form of power emerge by allowing resources to have "value" in reference to a market (as opposed to value only within the codes of that specific society), those in power were at risk of losing control of organizing the flows of resources that structure a society. So, to return to the main point, pre-1800 (or whatever you want to argue as the cutoff), capitalism was present as a virtuality, even if it was not yet actual as a social system. There was nothing in the physical or political world that you could have pointed to and said, "This is capitalism," but at the same time you can't say, "Capitalism didn't exist then," because it was always exerting force as a potentiality.

Has anyone been able to successfully apply Deleuze's theories to their everyday thinking, or is it only possible for schizophrenics? I've tried so hard to undo the 'common sense' and structuralist automatic thinking that I've been conditioned into in favor of Deleuze's concepts of things like difference and the plane of immanence, but it's seemingly an impossibility. My brain refuses to assume any of Deleuze's thought or theory without great conscious effort, and even then, it only lasts for a moment.

> everyone who think's I enable liberalism to gain almost fascistic power is a Maoist!

deleuzophrenie, everyone

>or is it only possible for schizophrenics?

It's only possible for deluded baby boomer "artists."

t. zizekfag

It's 2am and I'm just about to go to sleep but thanks a bunch. Both very helpful.

For every one of these posts there's a 1000 shitposts. Thanks and very good

t. badiou

Thanks a lot!

This reminds me of some developing countries, wherein corrupt leaders still meddle with market mechanisms, since these would displace theirnoen power.

i have tried to read him in the past. anti-oedipus mostly. so much went over my head, but i was able to get to some basic understanding of the BwO and deterritorialisation and shit but that was years ago, im gonna have to go back and let the sunbeams into my anus again

When applied to everyday life a lot of it is common sense. You don't need to be a genius to see that thinking is caught in a plurality of assemblages out side of itself that transform it so that the way you think when you're hungry or tired or sad or horny or happy, etc. differs and connects to different things differently than in other states. Getting used to certain subjective thresholds and thinking in terms of assemblages isn't difficult, but actually effectuating the difference can be. There's a reason why people struggle with all kinds of addictions even when they know very well that what they are doing is wrong for them and want to stop.

Unironically thanks

On top of these notions, you get the psychoanalytic bend to the expense of excess. This is where knowing Bataille comes in handy. Or even Heidegger at this point. The notion of "excess" is very important for all of these thinkers, including Deleuze/Guattari, and even Baudrillard. What constitutes a "remainder?" What pressures do the "outside" of the system (excess) have in the operations of the system itself?

Glad to see someone else recognizing that excess plays a crucial role for all those thinkers.

Although the inside/outside distinction doesn't hold that well when it comes to excess since many if not all those thinkers tried to go beyond any such dualism. Whether they succeeded or not is debatable. Still, for D&G the excess is what grounds the system not as lack (which may be considered outside in some sense), but as surplus (both as in the example, with stock, and in "personal" matters as differences irreducible to their simulacra yet inexistent without them).

Nope, that's not me, but I'd be interested to know who he was. Did he say how he knew her ?

Supposedly he was friends (or acquaintances at least) with Guattari's grandson so he knew his dad (Guattari's son as well). The dad, if I understood correctly, was a failed musician who owned a protein bar factory or something. The grandson was a bit of an asshole. That's all he mentioned, it was in a thread about Foucault.

>In what way?

his ideas about BwO and rhizomes can be corrupted, Badiou thinks it's polycentrism.

>Has anyone been able to successfully apply Deleuze's theories to their everyday thinking

literally do drugs my dude

> his ideas about BwO and rhizomes can be corrupted

They're way too general to just be leftist concepts anyway.

> Badiou thinks it's polycentrism

I guess. D&G did inspire anarcho-communists like Toni Negri and others.

I'm not sure why all of this makes them cryptofascists though. Again, there were attempts to use their texts (and Deleuze's solo work) as conceptual tools for the alt-right (and not just weirdos like Nick Land, but regular alt-rightists). But that doesn't make them necessarily fascists of any kind. It's almost the same as saying that Nazis used science therefore all science is fascist.

Or fall in love.

>Fingernails

>The dad, if I understood correctly, was a failed musician who owned a protein bar factory or something
sounds like the yuppie theory was indeed correct

By the sounds of it he wasn't that interested in philosophy though. The only relative of theirs that I know is interested in philosophy is Deleuze's daughter and she's into cinema mostly afaik.

I had a professor who attended Deleuze's seminars at Vincennes. Apparently he would constantly be interrupted and all students addressed him in the 'tu' form and generally showed him no respect.

Foucault was the only one who could really command attention

>for such phliosophizing can only take place in a society where philosophy has lost its relevance and real role in the life of people

t. capitalist realist

The seminars were rather informal so that's maybe they used the "tu" (in fact Vincennes was a whole "grades are capitalist propaganda, let's give a diploma to a horse" lunacy), but the irl shitposting that went on was real.

> It wasn’t very long after the publication of “Rhizome” that the philosophy department turned into a veritable Game of Thrones. Badiou, wary of Deleuze’s popularity, led a group of Maoists who pledged their loyalty to Badiou, whom they referred to as the “Great Helmsman.”


> Badiou declared Deleuze an “enemy of the people” and penned several anti-Deleuze articles. Under the psuedonym “Georges Peyol”, Badiou penned “The Fascism of the Potato,” because if I know anything about resisting fascism, it usually involves declaring enemies of the people and creating a cult of personality around yourself.

> Speaking of fascism, Badiou and his gang of merry Maoist decided to stage invasions of Deleuze’s class room.

> At the height of the conflict, Badious “men” would prevent Deleuze from finishing his seminar, he would put his hat back on to his head to indicate surrender. Badiou himself would occasionally turn up at Deleuze’s seminar to interrupt him, as he admits in the book he wrote on Deleuze in 1997.

> Badiou, who is still totally not a fascist, created brigades to “monitor the political content of other classes in the philosophy department.” Deleuze responded to most interventions calmly, and would avoid conflict even when “groups of up to a dozen people bent on picking a fight would show up.”

> Sometimes these brigades would show up with copies of Nietzsche to ask trick questions in an effort to embarrass Deleuze. And when that didn’t work:

> Often the “brigade” would end up imposing the “Peoples Rule,” commanding the student to quit Deleuze’s classroom on the pretext of a meeting in Lecture Hall 1 or a rally in support of a workers’ struggle. Deleuze reacted calmly, pretending to agree with them and retaliating with irony.

> And when that also didn’t work:

> Only once did [Deleuze] get angry, when he found on his desk a tract by a “death squad” advocating suicide.”

Is he Glenn Gould's dad?

jesus christ is this furreal

You don't need to be a psychoanalyst to feel that long strings of Deleuzian terminology sound otherworldly.

I'm not saying they don't make sense, just that to someone unfamiliar with them it will sound like gibberish.

>Deleuze getting triggered by suicide pamphlets
Lol. Isn’t that how he went out?

No but oddly enough they both had a thing for rickety old chairs. Gould when he would play and Deleuze when he gave lectures

>Glenn Gould radically lowers his seat so his fingers hang and pull down on the keys rather than pressing them from above
>Gilles Deleuze radically lowers himself over his balcony so his fingers hang and pull down on the ledge of his 6th story apartment, rather than pressing on it from above, and subsequently flinging himself to his death

true pottery

Yep. Although some claim that he was having something like an asthma attack so he attempted to lean out further in order to get more air (those with lung problems tend to do that) and he fell out.

wow badiou is a fucking dick

Well he now calls Deleuze his friend so maybe he's changed. Or maybe he just doesn't want to be remembered as a villain.

The communism angle not convincing sure but the arguments against capitalist reintegration of Deleuze and the need to find new ways to utilise theory was tight imo