/lit/ - Literature

>>13385286

There's an artist who illustrates D&G

>>11821053
Hegel does not apprehend multiplicities.

>reads Deleuze once

>>7508032
To define post-modernism would be to imply it has 'definitions', and I mean that in a kind of metaphor, the spacial sense of an outline or limit which isolates and totalises the postmodern concept from the non-postmodern. The problem of definition arrises from postmodernism's insistence on the fact that these limits are always shifting, breaking off from or bridging connections with new intellectual or artistic territory, however tenuous the link might be. Trying to give it a static definition it is to limit its capacity for creative free association

>>7038129
>What is superficial is your dismissal of biological and environmental differences.

see
>>7037943
>when it has lead us into both the domain of science and aesthetic truth

I fail to see how calling scientific practises 'superficial' is in any way challenging its ability to function without the benefit of humanistic knowledge - scientific practises, if nothing else, deal with the surface, the observable phenomena of natural biological processes. even neuroimaging can only offer a correlation between brain activity and outward physical 'symptoms' of the experience, and not the genuine perceptual experience of the subject.

It seems only natural, along with all our other evolutionary behaviours and capacities, that we have creativity to allow for both direct and general expression, which in its most powerfully suggestive mode can be defined by its artistry: the potential to never finally breathe its last word, but remain in public and personal discourses for generations to come.

>I fail to see how art can be understood without experience in reality, all art maps back to one's own experiences and common senses
Memories cannot hold up to the objective stability of the empirical world around us. They disintegrate and shift, not only into the delusions we experience through our relationships with others, but into the mind's incredible capacity for dismantling and rebuilding experiences into fictional, artistic and even abstracted territories.

The ability to 'communicate' reorganised and repurposed experiential facets can be gauged through its artistry, a necessary movement of creativity and the stem of 'poetic' knowledge which are certainly value claims. However, even the word 'value' presupposes some quantitive measure by which we can gain an estimation of the subject's interiority - if you wish to remain as objective as possible, it would seem necessary to have a spectrum of artistic potentiality, IE. the ability to communicate and express ideas through representational or evocative gestures/signifiers/performances/expressions etc etc. Neuroscience is capable of correlating the emotional 'expressions' of the patient's body with brain activity, but the more complex and radical movements of expression are left inaccessible other than through interpretation and analysis of the produced material itself. I believe analysis of the cultural consciousness - including textual interpretation of art - is a necessary process through which we may confront and overcome the truths of bias, injustice, cruelty and apparently interminable manipulation pervading the population, but also celebrate, value and perpetuate the truths which inspire and raise appreciation for our fellow beings. Why should science be undermined by this? we cannot forget that we are mortal, under the ephemerality of our material bodies, part of the world just as much as it is a part of us. Science is as necessary in the route towards truth as humanistic or poetic knowledge.

>>6770652
>tfw raised secular
>tfw questions about life after death were swatted away by my parents
>'there's no such thing as hell anon, don't worry'
>tfw spend most of my childhood reading and writing
>teachers notice my talent for writing, encourage me to study literature at university
>full marks in my literature A-Level gets me into a top 20 uni
>start learning about critical theory, psychoanalysis, deconstruction etc.
>start taking hallucinogenics frequently, reading Deleuze, Derrida, Spinoza in my spare time
>find spirituality in the rhizomatism of the transcendental signifier, and the infinite permutations of Being experiencing itself through semiotic, phenomenological and physical systems over and over again
>tfw managed to concretely theorise faith without ever actually believing in God

>>6577330
>Now that such an ability would not only be absurd, but not extreme, referencing now the case of Newtons contents of that every action has an equal or opposite reaction being disproved; or more simply: you can do something and nothing will happen, but back to the point that's being mentioned, can be considered very extreme in classical mechanics! But! If we can consider for a second that the ego is something singular but brought to a point considerably nearer to infinite than one would imagine then folded, looped, and traced so much and then some, that could it not be argued that everything, hard and soft, old and new, has an sense of self entitling itself to a presence as sentient as its byproduct and initial limit was its ability to have limitless infusions or restrainings of and with reactionless variables?

Pic very much related

I'm always a little cautious about deleuze-esque conceptions of identity. A labyrinthine network of passages which have neither beginning nor end but expand infinitely outwards from the middle, some colliding with others, some cut short. It's a strangely invigorating idea, that the distinction between 'we' and 'I' has been so arbitrary as the rhizome grows. even the oedipal trinity necessitates the dissipation of the difference between the two, insofar as the familial 'we' is a specific alignment of the subject within the symbolic order. Yet we already know that the oedipal complex is ineffective in reaching the schizoid; how can we allow it to explain the self if it cannot step into the threshold of the schizoid's dissolution of identity, when one can neither say 'we' nor 'I' for certainty?

>>6501595
Somebody illustrated paragraphs from a thousand plateaus to make it easier to understand. They make no sense.

I want to read A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari but I don't know why. I don't know a single thing about the subject, but I want to.
Should I really go for it?
Is this even the right board for it?