/lit/ - Literature

>>12675318
If you're a roastie from the start then literally reading anything will make you into more of a roastie.

>>12223484
You do realize that D&G were basically against psychoanalysis and its approach to mental illness and the psyche in general, right? The only reason AO is so convoluted is because they were trying to kiss Lacan's ass to get him on their side with their convoluted reconciliatory logic. They admitted this themselves in interviews later. If you're the type to tell someone suffering from mental illness that it's genetic so they might as well give up, you missed the point in the opposite direction.

>>11342304
>All that speech about death drives and libido, no pussy for you, no satisfaction no CLOSURE of the biospiritual ouroboros, wax poetic anons, the pussy won’t be more available, you’re dying every second and becoming more autistic and neurotic with every day in your hovels. Enjoy 3njoi

Not sure if it's relevant to what you're saying, but Lacan was slaying a ton of puss and still constantly talked about death drives and jouissance and "there is no sexual rapport" and other stuff. He was rather conservative, at least in his theory, despite all this though (or perhaps because of it).

>>10977320
If only. Lacan was a chad no matter what other bad things can be said about him.

>>8947202
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.

>>8947218
> 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.

>>7994464
This.