Tfw no qt fwb to interview you

Despite the filename, Guattari was in fact a man. But yeah, maybe he did bang Claire Parnet (from that pic). Maybe his wife Fanny even joined them. Maybe Guattari joined in as well. If that were the case he probably initiated it since he was the weird one of the group.

Was Deleuze a poonhound? I mean he only married once, had kids, pretty normal life. While Lacan was banging every chick who came into his office and Foucault was getting his ass fisted, I know nothing about Deleuze's sex life. This is the important stuff.

Good question. It is something worth analyzing. This is why I like philosophy, you can sort of tell just by reading the texts. Here's a quote from everyone's favorite nofap monk, Nietzsche:

>"The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, amoung the Brahmans)."

So, Lacan was basically all about that mystical surplus jouissance:

>It's like for Saint Teresa - you need but go to Rome and see the statue by Bernini to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it. What is she getting off on? It is clear that the essential testimony of the mystics consists in saying that they experience it, but know nothing of it. [pic related]

Still, Lacan was pretty much a womanizer despite having criticized the Don Juan perspective as a perpetuation of failure (he never gets the perfect woman so he keeps trying forever despite never being satisfied). This is probably because he conceives desire as perpetuated by lack so the best non-mystic enjoyment comes from honestly trying again and again.

Foucault on the other hand was all about power relations so, despite what Zizek described as the maintained intensity (as opposed to climax as release) of fisting, the S&M clubs probably weren't just a coincidence.

Deleuze, despite being influenced by erotic writers such as Nin, Miller, Lawrence and Sacher-Masoch (as in masochism), disagreed with Foucault on the concept of power so he probably wasn't into BDSM as such. Deleuze was all about bodies without organs, planes of consistency, intensities, multiplicities and stuff. So, I'm guessing he didn't get a lot of poon, but his wife, a translator of D.H. Lawrence nicknamed Fanny of all things, I'm speculating, was an expert in sexual massages, prostate massages, nipple play, pegging and who knows what else? The perfect combination: wild sex and a family life that allows for an academic career.

Then there's Guattari...

>Under the mentorship of his friend Jean-Claude Polack, Guattari became an “impenitent womanizer.” The habit would last until the end of his life, a month before he died at the age of 62, he started an affair with a 26-year-old Serbian actress, whom Guattari encouraged to “have lots of lovers, but don’t leave me!”.

>Tales of Guattari’s philandering reached some of his family members in a rather unseemly way – at his funeral. Guattari’s old brother Jean was “surprised and disturbed by the enumeration of his various feminine conquest in front of his brother’s tomb”.

holy quacamoly, niggaroly she is FINE

>tfw no italian qt3.14 devout Catlick gf

>Catlick
it even sounds cute :3

For a second I thought you were implying Claire Parnet was an Italian Catholic so I looked it up.

>Claire Parnet is a French journalist. She is famous for having co-written with Gilles Deleuze (her former teacher) the book Dialogues (1977).

>(her former teacher)
He taught her alright. If you know what I'm saying.

Would you honestly measure a man's worth in number of sex partners though? Maybe if that number is 0 it says something about them, but for the rest it should be quality over quantity. Going for a high score definitely says something about someone's thinking, but not necessarily something good.

>>It's like for Saint Teresa - you need but go to Rome and see the statue by Bernini to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it. What is she getting off on? It is clear that the essential testimony of the mystics consists in saying that they experience it, but know nothing of it. [pic related]
this is false, or rather what normies say about the first or second jhana. In reality, there is nothing sexual in those states, but normies compare the pleasure to what they only know: sex.
Plebs will be plebs, so it is expected.

That quote might not indicate it, but Lacan insisted on the fact that surplus joissance is not phallic (neither object oriented, nor genital). The translation is forced since jouissance isn't "coming", but rather enjoyment (not pleasure as such though since masochists enjoy without obvious pleasure).

I dunno about Jhanas though since Teresa described her ecstatic episode as being pierced in her heart by an angel's arrow.

Wow, best post I've seen on Veeky Forums in a while. Thanks user.

I was always struck by the dissonance between Lacan's message and his life lived. I like your reading.

Since we're having some fun here, would you care to speculate on Hegel's love life?

The only thing I know about him is that he had a illegitimate son with a maid (I think it was a maid).

...

Deleuze's views in analytic terminology

Pretty much this. I don't know much else, but judging by his Phenomenology of Right, marriage goes beyond sex so he probably showed his wife the text to convince her to receive his bastard child as her own.

hahahahahah

So what's a good book for studying this stuff?

Also, how does the yogi know that he isn'y deceiving himself with that Divine Eye, past lives, etc. stuff? Also, since ot allows him to see future events, does this mean that this practice involves a deterministic theory of time?

>So what's a good book for studying this stuff?
The_Mind_Illuminated_A_Complete_Meditation_Guide_Integrating_Buddhist_Wisdom_and_Brain_Science_-_Yates,_Culadasa_John

>>
>Also, how does the yogi know that he isn'y deceiving himself with that Divine Eye, past lives, etc. stuff?

once you see the dhamma, you gain certitude about it, because it changes you and changes you permanently (this is the sole permanent event that you can find in life), you know that you must practice it, because you know that are not awaken yet.
the practice of the dhamma is the same for people who go by faith beforehand or by knowledge, so you cannot separate the two kind of people on their behavior.
plenty of people think that they are awaken because they are strong meditators, just like it was the case as narrated in the suttas thousands of years ago...
the principle of the meditation is to see the dhamma. the meditation decreases the intellectual entry level required to see the dhamma through pure introspection. plus it never makes you un-happy, contrary to the path making you see the dhamma through pure introspection.
also, the paramitas [=equanimity+benevolence] are designed to be applied, once the choice to speak of a subject and an object, towards the objects as well as the subject. People call *morality* the application of the paramitas towards what they think is NOT their self , and they call *mediation* the application of the paramitas towards (what they think is) their self. Of course, there is no difference between being moral towards one self and towards others (humans, animals, nature, and so on).

for more:

pastebin.com/UpP9QBZJ

...

Thanks user!

Still, I'm not sure how the fact that something changes you permanently is proof of anything.
For example, I recently read about a study that linked DMT use to tangible change in consciousness (all the test subjects were smokers, and 80% of them successfully quit after taking DMT), but it did not prove that what they saw was during the psychedelic trip was real, only that the change in themselves was real.

Why this century is still not Deleuzian?!
>tfw

I'm glad I can disassociate writers from their work, especially the French, because all French philosophers are these theatrical fucking dolts I can't stand listening to in interviews.

youtube.com/watch?v=mHYrxP-0ksU

...

>>Still, I'm not sure how the fact that something changes you permanently is proof of anything.
the concept of proof is just a fantasy by a few rationalists.
what you want is to be happy, once you see the dhamma, you understand that it is not worth it to take seriously what you think and feel, when it comes to hedonism of the body, so that you stop acting on them and focus on the hedonism of the spirit, mind, aka the jhanas, then once you make cease even your mind, you access nibanna and are happy.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but that happiness of Nibanna that goes beyond hedonism of body and mind, isn't it still a hedonism since you're searching for happiness in the first place in order to get there? I'm not sure if that matters, it just makes me wonder why anyone would ever leave that state in order to return and teach others (I appreciate the fact that you do though!).

the two fucked btw

Proof?

he sounds like a pseudointellectual faggot to be honest family

So what would be the summery in analytic terminology of a true intellectual™?

*summary

You just know

Meh. I'd like to know that a girl is kinky or at least open to some unconventional stuff. Being a 'catlick' might mean she's only into benis-in-bagina lights out for procreation only love making.

Who is the sexy woman?

the look in her eyes

blowjob eyes :^)

deleuze was a loser only thing he ever sexually satisfied was a copy of spinoza's ethics

wew

Gilles Deleuze

...

you have forget "rhizome"

Rimjob?

what?

Rhizomatic thinking is the principle of un-hierarchical links.

Reminds me of tentacle porn.

was rhymezones proto-hip hop?

could they be called the fathers of hip hop?

she looks shy to be in the presence of a great philosopher is all.

and nervous about his immanence

it is well known that female students sleep with their teachers, especially in literary fields

...

How does one sexually satisfy a book?

in doing modern art

it's hard
she will be reluctant at first but you should try

>this is you

I thought Deleuze was gay? lul

He was Beyond Gay and Evil.

bump

how very Deleuzian of Seto

[Lenny face]