How does one attempt to be a Bwo? what techniques do i use to allow intensities to travel thru me?

in double articulation there a set of building blocks that form into a scrutured organism or assemblage or whatever. where does the first articulation come from?

hell no. was what i was hoping someone would post

good luck

that fucking quote. it's always the same with deleuze for me. i get so amped up to be a redpill despot and i get completely disarmed by this gentle french metaphysician like he's the chosen one and i'm just another asshole minion of Agent Smith. some user passed this on to me in another thread here on Veeky Forums. it's from a-o:

>Once noticed, it continued to occupy one's mind. It even persisted, as it were, in going about its own business. . . . The striking thing was that it was neither simple nor really complex, initially or intentionally complex, or constructed according to a complicated plan. Instead, it had been desimplified in the course of its carpentering. ... As it stood, it was a table of additions, much like certain schizophrenics' drawings, described as 'overstuffed,' and if finished it was only in so far as there was no way of adding anything more to it, the table having become more and more an accumulation, less and less a table. ... It was not intended for any specific purpose, for anything one expects of a table. Heavy, cumbersome, it was virtually immovable. One didn't know how to handle it (mentally or physically). Its top surface, the useful part of the table, having been gradually reduced, was disappearing, with so little relation to the clumsy framework that the thing did not strike one as a table, but as some freak piece of furniture, an unfamiliar instrument ... for which there was no purpose. A dehumanized table, nothing cozy about it, nothing 'middle-class,' nothing rustic, nothing countrified, not a kitchen table or a work table. A table which lent itself to no function, self-protective, denying itself to service and communication alike. There was something stunned about it, something petrified. Perhaps it suggested a stalled engine.

I mean, some people will read that and go, kys. But for me at least I just think, holy fuck, how can you fucking do anything with that except nod and go, what the hell am *I* on about?

Fucking Deleuze man, jesus.

No problem. I forgot to mention, Sylvere Lotringer is also great at explaining Deleuze. He supervised some of Deleuze's translations in English.

youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

TL;DR "Make a conscious effort to change your habits"

"Just be yourself, bro."*

*We live in a world of becoming where things in an ordinary sense of the world are not identical to themselves therefore attempting to do so requires something metaphysical

I'm not making slight of Deleuze/Guattari, but that's what I get out of them, and why they jerk off to nomads so much, because the nomads can change their habits and adapt quickly so they don't get trapped.

someone explain deterritorialization
I think I mostly get it

Change in your habits in relation to how you live on the earth

I could be wrong, though. Not an expert.

It's a difficult concept. The way I understand it, it relates somewhat to von Uexkull's concept of umwelt that makes philosophers from Heidegger to Dennett fully erect. That is to say, living beings have a life world, a set of stimuli from their environment that trigger reactions. But for humans this is more fluid, hence the complex sign combinations (since we constantly think and this connects to the environment) and movements of deterry/reterry (not gonna write the full words since they're annoying). Life, as Bergson points out, is about plasticity and fluidity rather than mechanic rigidity and automation and so a movement of deterry/reterry is or should be more desirable than a rigid blockage. This is difficult since for D&G the mind (and body, immanence and all that) work through machines. These are machinic rather than mechanical, but the vitalistic details are the most difficult and I'd say mysterious parts of Deleuze's philosophy. In any case, since it is a concept, D&G use it in numerous ways so it can't be reduced to a single aspect of it as I just did for the sake of simplicity. For D&G even the Earth is a constant deterry because it is moving and, as far as I know (since D&G don't go into details) the movements of the planets are not Newtonian in the sense of fixed repetitions, but rather have a bit of very slow predictable change to them.

It's not exactly my favorite concept and it can be quite difficult given all the movements and fluxes that D&G describe, such as production-registration-consumption, that come into contact with it, but tl;dr become a nomad like the other user said.

Running out of Deleuze memes, gonna have to get more.

Damn, I was trying to post this and I posted some random nonsense instead.

Territorialization = living on the Earth

Deterry= change in relation to way you're living on the earth (this is always happening to an extent caused by many factors)

Reterry = same thing, but a conscious movement on the part of people

Ex. An army and state get big and threaten the way of life of nomads. Nomads become deterry'd (they can no longer hunt in same way, maybe they have to physically move their camp). So the nomads go full body without organization (start riding their horses differently etc) and become reterry'd, finding a new way to exist without actually leaving completely, and (ideally) they avoid being told what to do by the military/state.

That's it, I'm pretty sure.

I agree, but like I said, don't limit it to one thing. Deterry, BwOs, intensities, flows, etc. mean a great deal of things for D&G. It's why production for them is the common term between Capitalism and Schizophrenia, they don't limit it to a causal reaction or an element of the economic or industrial process.

Remember that Deleuze & Guattari, though they disagree with Lacan on some points—namely the ahistorical character of Symbolic law in the form of the Oedipus complex—they nevertheless presuppose his work as a point of departure.

I see deturfing as an attempt to move back to the Imaginary Real, the pre-symbolic, unlawful way of experiencing that consciousness bubbles out of. Once there, you're prepared, in theory, to grasp the relativity of Oedipal-Symbolic Law—so deturfing is a kind of historicizing operation that is radically "experienced" via the writing machine, as opposed to merely theoriZed as a method of writing. Returfing, then, is the reconstruction of a new Symbolic on the basis of your own machining of the Imaginary to which you've returned.

I say Imaginary is the place of deturfing because in Lacan it's essentially the place of the binary opposition, and of infinite regression, which is EVERYWHERE in D/G. Between the great opposition of paranoid/schizophrenic and their obsession with fractals, it's pretty clear that D/G are basically the psychonauts of the Lacanian Imaginary.

As useful as I find these explanations in Lacanian terms, I'm not sure that D&G would agree that their work is one of binary oppositions or infinite regression. In the first case, Deleuze always insisted on asymmetrical dualities that lead to new processes, new developments. In the second case, both tendencies are present in Deleuze: behind every mask there's another mask (infinite regress) and some fundamental differences that are indivisible.

I do think that D&G and Lacan have some common goals in mind. Lacan's formula "never give way on your desire" goes well with schizoanalysis' attempts at unblocking situations and making sure that desire flows without hardening (heh).

this is a good post

this too

another thing about d&g is how they address the riddle of the sniffler: enjoy. Z will say, Enjoy is an impossible injunction. but going full bartleby just isn't an option, i think. it always leads back to politics in ways that only repeat the situation. in the end you wind upconcluding, like z does, that humans are just awful, egotistical, horrible beings all the way to the bottom. of course in some sense he's right, but this conclusion seems to me simply the sensible result of the premises, that everything is Enjoy and therefore we must suffer or embrace paradoxes rather than deleuzian stuff.

i see no reason to disagree with z's take on lacan. z makes total sense.he knows full well that Enjoy is this impossible superegoic injunction. but it winds up becoming a trap, doesn't it? either you wind up falsely enjoying, or you falsely tell yourself you're not enjoying, or you become a kind of guardian, like in kafka, telling other people not to enter the city. but here it would be flipped on its head and the guardian would actually be the protagonist instead of the scholar, and the scholar would be a hero of the revolution instead of a total sufferer...

>i say dumb things
>whatever tho

zizek is Before the Law, and deleuze is more like Behind the Law or Below the Law or something. he sees the trap coming and just doesn't go there. it also has to do with i think for him the distinction between desire (which for him is good) and pleasure (which is not). that is a crazy distinction to make.

could it be that the difference is that following pleasure is what leads you to what you want now, to remain somewhere, and desire is what leads you what you to what could be all new places later? and forget about remaining in place, that's not going to happen.

the other thing i think is a mindfuck for me is that the nomad stays nomadic. there's no revenge, there's no exchange, there's no reciprocity, no reversal, no homecoming, no utopian stuff. the nomad remains the nomad. the despot thinks they're doing the right thing, but the nomad can't change their perspective on that. the hunt is on and the hunt continues. minor is better than major

can the more serious deleuzians in this thread (dare i say, the deleuzians of grandeur) - or anyone else, really - tell me if i'm being completely fucking stupid here? because honestly i'm not a scholar but deleuze is like one of the few thinkers who i think isn't full of shit or part of the edifice of continental philosophy that suffocates that which it is trying to keep alive

also, for what it's worth

I don't think the binaries have to be symmetrical, and it is precisely because they aren't that they fractalize so well. I think of the schizophrenic as something like the sum total of all signifying chains—but somehow it must be understood meanwhile that once you've done that, once you've entered, to use Lacanian terms, a place where only S2 is operative without S1 to center it and guarantee its meaning—and then at that point you can't really speak of signification any longer. Paranoia on this view is the arbitrary selection of a chain, and the instantiation, out of coagulated desire, of an S1. So it's clear that they are asymmetrical, if only quantitatively. Of course devising a qualitative symmetry is simple: the infinite versus the infinitesimal, for instance, is one route that you could take. But again, doing so would only be to speak of infinite significations as schizophrenia, and thus would be bound up again in signifying-paranoid logic. So your analysis of the schizophrenic field itself becomes a paranoid chain. You've returfed yourself, without even realizing it. Deturfing, realizing the schizophrenic once again, would require some radically dialectical internal leverage to your thought, to hoist yourself out of the new S1. So we can see just from this little movement how things tend to tesselate in the D/G system.

*and by crazy, i mean, crazy fucking interesting

can the more serious deleuzians in this thread (dare i say, the deleuzians of grandeur) - or anyone else, really - tell me if i'm being completely fucking stupid here?

It certainly makes sense to me, even though you should be careful when using the word "you" as much as when you say "I", but overall I like how you framed the desire-pleasure-enjoyment situation. Although I wouldn't say that pleasure as such is bad. There are ways of going about it that can be depressive because they interrupt flows or because they block desire (even if it's at a stable plateau, like a perfectly calculated alcoholic that's going for endurance rather than ecstatic episodes even when it no longer does anything for him), but Deleuze certainly criticizes those who only show the worst side of a phenomenon.

> So your analysis of the schizophrenic field itself becomes a paranoid chain. You've returfed yourself, without even realizing it.

I feel like this is a consequence of language more than anything else. D&G try to find ways of avoiding signifying chains, even if just to replace them with signifying links (or however it's translated) that put together imaginary elements (empirical phenomena) with words so that signifiers are not left to the dictionary's endless movements from one word to another for all eternity.

Language happens to be the medium we're using. D/G aren't against signification as such. That impression, I think, is a consequence of the polemical nature of Anti-Oedipus, the more widely read of the two volumes of Capitalism & Schizophrenia. But A Thousand Plateaus contains signifiers aplenty. What is the rhizome is not a signification of the mode of thought they're after? The D/G attack on signification is only an attack on its unchallenged hegemony. They want us to realize that it's a small, but important part of how these machines, these bodies of ours, operate once they are forced into the semiotic field—but, and here we agree, more importantly, that there are a multiplicity of other ways. BwO is the attempt to realize all of the, at once, a stage through which we pass pursuant to our own autopoetic retooling.