/lit/ - Literature

>>18686987
There’s 0 transcendence in Deleuze, it’s pure immanence, “an immanence immanent to itself.”

>>18534779
>Derrida
Him and Baudrillard establish plenty of zones of indiscernibility as theorists

>>18475477
This will never work, you’re being too simple to make sense

>>17545166
>nature.com
>paywall article
Lol you can’t even mention a book, a school of thought or a theorist you’re engaging with. What a hack.

>>17107681
>try to explain Deleuze
>am reduced to do starting a stone sucking machine of which the role of the mouth qua sexual pleasure is in question

>>16973806
>and you're having a meltdown
Yeah man me calling you dumb is a meltdown. Great non-point about your inability to engage.
>>16973823
Based

>>15692229
This is the actual problem with these “advancements”; they produce models of humanity that look great on paper but fall apart with reality.

>>15674816
>I couldn't give less fucks bro, I mean, if it stratifies your dick then just don't go for it. Personally I recognize some molecular tendencies in the trapification process, as it's a part of the becoming-woman and that's as far as I can care
>What did you say Félix? Another cock&ball torture session? Sure, I'd love to go

>>12676023
Not him, but you need to read through A Thousand Plateaus since it addresses some of these questions quite directly (as directly as D&G could ever talk about anything). Basically nomadic organization rather than sedentary (including private property) which requires a lot of cooperation and self-knowledge and understanding of desire at the most fundamental level. It can be useful as a tool, but it's debatable how useful it is on a large scale since we can't just imitate the Mongols, at best we get some local organization and/or collective. So not really fascism since you're not trying to impose anything on anyone and not all power concentrations are bad if the flows are complex and fluid enough.

>>12676043
Deleuze liked Spinoza's idea of the mind having a special kind of infinity because you can have an idea about an idea about an idea ad infinitum. In practice though you obviously can't. Imo an assemblage has material limits so that paranoia paralyzes you either way. For example if you're scared of a predator hunting you, the biological mechanisms are the same no matter what the external source is (bear, wolf, lion etc.)

As for calling it schizophrenia, I don't really see the point since even everyday neurosis has its "drives and their vicissitudes" to quote the Freudian title. I recall D&G quoting some psychiatrist at one point in some essay footnote saying that the categorical differences between various forms of psychosis are far from concrete despite some obvious differences in symptoms so even setting up a paranoia - schizophrenia dichotomy is a bit superfluous (despite the fact that psychoanalysis does so constantly).

>>11692244
That anon is a bit off. He's right that D&G point out that from Plato to Lacan, desire is always understood as lack and temporary satisfaction. But for Lacan, whom D&G eventually attack on this point (not in AO, they were kissing his ass there to get him on their side). For Lacan there is a fundamental non-identifiable lack in desire. For example, no matter how many women you have sex with, no matter how many material objects you acquire, desire will never be exhausted. For Lacan this is because empirical objects are not the object a (called object small a, written just a) cause of desire which is unconscious and unidentifiable. Deleuze disagrees because he sees desire as inherently productive in its plurality of assemblages and multitude of syntheses (constantly putting stuff together, even stuff that normally doesn't go together like the content of dreams). So production and excess, but without lack. A factory rather than a theater (in the sense that for Lacan the unconscious is the theater where the inexhaustible desire is constantly displaced, the parents playing a key role).

Read the Body without Organs chapter of A Thousand Plateaus, you can find it online.