/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10436339]

Wtf

[Anonymous No.10436404]

>>10436339
*holds up rhizome*

[Anonymous No.10436612]

>>10436339
understanding it makes it even more 'wtf'

[Anonymous No.10436775]

What should I read to into this? Guys please HELP

[Anonymous No.10436781]

>>10436775
Marx 'n' Freud

[Anonymous No.10436796]

>>10436781
wtf you stole by book title

[Anonymous No.10436814]

>>10436339
THE SOLAR ANUS
THE WAR MACHINE
THE GRID OF FACIALITY
LINES OF FLIGHT
ASSEMBLAGES
D&G!!!!!! AHHHHH

[Chronos No.10436819]

Wtf, its everywhere. Journalism to the rescue.

[Anonymous No.10436831]

Where do I start? Repetition or Anti-Oeidpus, I've actually read his work on Kant, but not Spinoza if that's relevant.

[Anonymous No.10436974]

>>10436339
You should see A Thousand Plateaus:

“For in the end the anus also expresses an intensity, in this case the approach to zero of a distance that cannot be decomposed without its elements changing in nature. A field of anuses, just like a pack of wolves. Does not the child, on the periphery, hold onto the wolves by his anus? The jaw descends to the anus. Hold onto those wolves by your jaw and your anus. The jaw is not a wolf jaw, it's not that simple; jaw and wolf form a multiplicity that is transformed into eye and wolf, anus and wolf, as a function of other distances, at other speeds, with other multiplicities between thresholds.” (p.36)

[Anonymous No.10436988]

>>10436339
Anyone want to do a reading group on this? Even just one or two people would be good

[Anonymous No.10436999]

>>10436974
I refuse to believe this means anything

[Anonymous No.10437029]

>>10436999
I’m pretty sure that whole chapter is just them making fun of freud but idk

[Anonymous No.10437037]

>>10436988
I actually just bought the book a few days ago, I would be down.

[Anonymous No.10437043]

>>10436974
Oh wow, this really clarifies things.

[Anonymous No.10437061]

>>10436339
>xhey haven't even read the lost chapters

[Anonymous No.10437064]

>>10437061

[Anonymous No.10437076]

>>10437061
>>10437064
yeah that’s pure genius, language can barely contain it

N would be glowing

[Anonymous No.10437090]

>>10436988
Just bought it, yes

[Anonymous No.10437721]

>>10437061
lol I fucking love this

[Anonymous No.10438914]

>>10437061
>>10437064
is this from a D&G-trained RNN? if so, do you have a link to it?

[Anonymous No.10438950]

>D&G

Literally (!) Shitposting: Phil'o'sophical Boogaloo 2

[Anonymous No.10440266]

>>10436831
I recommend reading the last chapter of Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (at least). Also Brian Massumi's Introduction to Capitalism and Schizophrenia is helpful despite being nonlinear.

[Anonymous No.10440348]

>>10436988
I would like that

[Anonymous No.10440354]

>continental philosophy is not just drivel they said

[Anonymous No.10440358]

>>10440354
>analytical philosophy is not LARP’ing they said

[Anonymous No.10440359]

>>10436988
im down

we should read ATP first though (NO you don't have to read them in order of release)

[Anonymous No.10440407]

>>10440354
t. arborescent brainlet

[Anonymous No.10440437]

Reading this now and it's really fulfilling. I'm taking it a chapter at a time, taking notes, discussing it with an old professor of mine. Trying to contextualize it in my own life is challenging but part of the fun. Read it, nerds.

[Anonymous No.10440563]

>>10436988
>>10437037
>>10440348

i made a discord, wanna get this going?

[Anonymous No.10440592]

>>10440563
I'm down, my copy doesn't come till next week but I'd definitely like that, gonna brush up on Marx and Freud in the meantime

[Anonymous No.10440597]

>>10440592
Same here, coming soon.

[Anonymous No.10440618]

>>10436999
lucky for us not up to you hoss

[Anonymous No.10440638]

>>10440592
alright, make a thread about it when you get the book and we can set it up

[Anonymous No.10441355]

Do not start a reading group for a FIRST reading of AO lol.

[Anonymous No.10441374]

>drunk as fuck with a friend a few months ago
>stumble back to his apartment at like 2AM
>students moving out of apartments often dump their books in the lobby
>normally shit
>this time there's like 10 massive stacks of dozens upon dozens of books
>start going through them
>it's 30% deleuze, 30% derrida, 30% great editions of freud/lacan, 10% misc philosophy
>all the major primary sources, plus all the top tier secondary sources that everyone refers to
>all brand new pristine unannotated
>friend doesn't want any of that shit, only a few side things from a different set
>walk home fully loaded with 100+ books
>tfw the next day i return a dozen deleuze books because i have my own copies now

[Anonymous No.10441376]

>>10441374
>>tfw the next day i return a dozen deleuze books

*to the library

[Anonymous No.10441430]

>bothering with word salad marxists who lack arguments

[Anonymous No.10441433]

>>10437064
>>10437061
Why obfuscate

[Anonymous No.10441615]

>>10441374
Your friend is clearly an idiot.

[Anonymous No.10441853]

>DUDE LSD LMAO

[Anonymous No.10441862]

sign me the fuck up for that reading group

[Anonymous No.10441889]

>Anti-Oedipus is less a philosophy book than an engineering manual

[Anonymous No.10441895]

>While living with Arlette, Guattari had increasing numbers of affairs. His psychiatrist friend Jean-Claude Polack, an inveterate womanizer, encouraged him in this and considered Félix to be rather timid in this area. Under Polack's influence, Guattari became an impenitent womanizer. The late 1960s was, of course, a great period of sexual freedom, when the future of the revolution depended in some way on newly defined relationships between the sexes freed of moral constraints and closer to unbridled desire. This lent itself to general libertinage: a good revolutionary Often measured himself in terms of his ability to break things off, and in this respect, Guattari was virtually unrivaled.

>At a time when free unions rather than marriage were being advocated, when sexual exchanges became frequent, and when women's liberation flourished, it even became common practice to hunt down overly tight couples. Jean Oury observed these "erotic kamikazes" with a critical eye. "These kamikazes had their headquarters in Dhuizon. When any couple got together, they sent in a kamikaze within a week to break them up be• cause love was capitalistic. Erotic power was also very destructive, and when schizophrenics were involved, it became criminal." At Guattari's initiative, a group was created to root out couples representing "horrible conjugality." The psychiatrist Danielle Sivadon arrived at La Borde in 1972 and managed to get together with Jean-Claude polack, a veritable triumph. "We barely got away with our lives, We had a child, but it was considered very bad form.

[Anonymous No.10441900]

>>10441895
this is repulsive but not moreso than Foucalt’s bug chasing

[Anonymous No.10443098]

>>10441430
>D&G
>marxists
nice bait

[Anonymous No.10443118]

>>10436339
I really don't think it's that difficult

[Anonymous No.10443404]

>>10441895
I don't know whether to laugh or be mad

[Anonymous No.10443541]

>>10441895
these people sound borderline psychotic

[Anonymous No.10443811]

>>10440592
I'm also down - will order it. Been meaning to read through it

[Anonymous No.10443816]

I have not read any deleuze but his Cinema books and his Kafka book look interesting

would these be bad places to start?

[Anonymous No.10444046]

>>10443816
the cinema books pretty much require some knowledge of Bergson

[Anonymous No.10444060]

>>10443404
>>10443541
>>10441900
they're really just trying to break out of the paradigm they were born into and raised within.
too bad that paradigm has some psycho-somatic underpinnings.

[Anonymous No.10444065]

>>10443541
The absolute state of continental philosophy is getting AIDs and breaking up couples

[Anonymous No.10444503]

>>10436974
I have a friend who says shit like this as a joke.

[Anonymous No.10444818]

>>10437061
Is this from Hypersphere?

[Anonymous No.10444829]

>>10443541
this is something that women naturally do anyway, this is a form of sexually antagonist selection. they go out of their way to destroy relationships their friends have to increase their fitness and protect them from lower status males creating sons who won’t be loyal to their interests because they either won’t fuck them and thus need resources from them, or would not be favored if they became higher ranking members of the social strata. Only men with good relationships, aka can give resources and status, with their gf’s friends who are also fuckable by most of them and approved of by the hive mind are safe from cucking. Women have more power over each other’s decisions than they do alone or their make partner. The only solution to this is patriarchal societies where men pick their childrens’ partner.

Which is basically the only way to guarantee your kids will reproduce successfully. Otherwise you get a thunder dome except runaway strategies like fucking for pleasure-for status take over and the soul of the species is perverted into a contest to be the biggest sexual parasite or playboy-sugar daddy (but not an actual father, these men who would’ve had 100 strong offspring are now having 100 9/10 mistresses). Its completely perverse and a part of matriarchal, gynokratic social organizing.

[Anonymous No.10444845]

>>10444829
Can you shut the fuck up? Evolutionary psychology is the biggest meme there is and I'm sick of people talking about it like they have new perspectives.

[Anonymous No.10444862]

>>10436339
If you guys ever have the opportunity, I would recommend reading this while receiving court-ordered schizophrenia treatment at a psychiatric hospital. It made a lot more sense to me then than it has since. Fantastic book, nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.10444882]

>>10444845
But that is a new perspective, I was able to figure this out from watching extended friend groups evolve over a decade and realized that women select their friends boyfriends and the only men who weather this are very high socio-sexual status and in that case they almost always get absorbed into the family or the man’s friend group (adopted as a surrogate daughter or sister, protected by a patriarchal group from the gynokratic selection machine). this is 100% irrefutably the case. Women are not sovereign they cannot make executive decisions on who they sleep with. Men just want a mother who is decent looking, healthy and will not kill or pervert their children. They could care less about any other aspect, its the complete opposite for women. They are always thinking about THEIR safety and then how good looking their kids will be to produce daughters who can be protected and sons who will protect high fitness members of THEIR race. They are a different type, they are a whole other group from men. they should never EVER be considered “equal” in the sense of identical. They are possibly equal intellectually at least in the sub 140+ iq range (not as geniuses, not a chance). Not equal morally for the reasons described and absolutely not equal physically or sexually. Men do not do the things women do sexually to women. ever, it would tank their fitness and cause them to get destroyed in this socio-sexual landscape. If you kept a woman as a beta orbiter, which is nearly impossible because of social media, their friends would step in and end your ties to her. this does not happen for males, the socio-sexual paradigm is oriented towards them. Because women are the ultimate greedy corporate robots, they’ll do anything for money or influence. They’re extremely dishonest in executive positions, even as a department head like HR they’ll do anything to take resources and protect their status. Different fucking race, they are not he same. You are blind and whipped. There is no other way to talk about it. If you disagree, go look up the rate of convictions for violent crimes between them (not charges, convictions). Go look up how settlements go for females, how their outcomes from infidelity or any kind of immoral behavior are. If a woman cheats she is fine, she loses nothing but the tie IF the man has any fucking fire left at all. She moves on and her fitness, as long as she is above certain threshold socio-sexually, is totally unassailable. If you cheat on a woman? its over for you with her and all her mutual friends. Unless you’re very high status then you can just do whatever you want. Not so for women. Why do women DEMAND 7” dicks, 6 ft tall guys but men are happy to just have a woman with positive canthal tilt whose below 25% body fat and has minimal facial asymmetries? because its uneven, women reproduce more, they win more. Fuck yourself you bug retard

[Anonymous No.10444925]

>>10444882
>Why do women DEMAND 7” dicks, 6 ft tall guys

This is the only part of your statement that matters. You are a cuck who is too scared/autistic to talk to a girl let alone date them. You are projecting so hard. To be fair I somewhat agree that in some ways socially/legally women have a unfair upperhand + orbiter culture disgusts me. But the fact you think women are subhuman because “they don’t have the morals/evolutionary qualities that would allow them to be decent human beings both in dating and with children” just makes me snort with fucking derision. You need to meet some actual women and not be blinded by autistic hate for a second and you’ll see that women can be smart, funny, likeable, friendly, humble and with “humanly” moral decision making.
You’re an idiot, fag

[Anonymous No.10444960]

>>10444925
no you’re an idiot you fucking subhuman pathetic loser. every single thing i said is based on inductive logic. you have nothing, you’re trying to lower my relative reputation in a rote (yes like an insect or robot) attempt to distance yourself from the argument. Pay attention to what I said, women have ZERO consequences for their actions and this is socially and genetically programmed because they are literally a different species. Go look at female preferences versus male, go look up female breeding success, prevalence of distinct lineages of mtDNA and time to last common ancestor for women versus y-DNA its not comparable. women can fuck up a billion times, cheat, steal endless resources from men and they are protected

>oh i admit they are legally and financially favored
yes which means biologically and socially they’d be favored in our current system, they are a different race they have an antagonistic survival strategy to ours. There is no question, none at all that they do not share our interests as a group. if they are not controlled by men or their families they become psychotic and it devolves into a pussy contest with no children because women don’t fucking care about procreation, its extremely costly and dangerous for them. Pleasure and longevity are all they give a damn about. We are expendable, they rely on group fitness to survive. They could give a damn if they don’t breed as long as pretty men fuck their close allies and protect them with resources in exchange for them granting access to other females holes or their own. You’re a lying cum guzzling cuck pussy.

[Anonymous No.10444971]

>>10444960
>>10444882
>>10444829

[Anonymous No.10444979]

>>10444971
death of discourse, /pol/ niggers, liberal scum bug humans, psychopathic technocapitalists and the now totally irony poisoned left wing. you can all rot in fucking hell and get raped to death by Leviathan

[Anonymous No.10444985]

>>10444979
elevated elocution my elusive elementarian

[Anonymous No.10444992]

>>10444960
Isn't it crazy that this guy could literally just go have a respectful conversation with a woman and realize he's wrong, but he's so afraid of learning that he's wasted so much time, that he won't ever do that.

[Anonymous No.10444998]

>>10444992
I have good female friends, and that guy is right desu. All of what he does not mean you should think of them as subhumans, or inferior, or any of that resentful crap.

[Anonymous No.10445021]

>>10444985
massive pseud
>>10444992
social signaling instead of arguing or supplying more rhetoric
>>10444998
the second part of this post contradicts the first

[Anonymous No.10445041]

Me and Nick land are among the few individuals to fully understand the implications of Deleuzean thought and achieve the BwO. It is no coincidence that we both went insane soon after. Six visits to the psych ward later after deterritorializing myself with hardcore psychedelics, I have now returned to the fold of Platonism. The ethics of difference, it would seem, end only in a padded cell or a coffin. For my mother's sake, I now adhere to virtue ethics. Kinda miss fucking bipolar scene sluts but then again that's probably how I ended up with HPV. I only hope my future wife can forgive me my immature philosophical infatuation.

[Anonymous No.10445052]

>>10445021
beta brainlet posturing

[Anonymous No.10445060]

>>10445052
jerking yourself off with words you got from others while you can’t even examine the social hierarchy of the incentives that drive mating and resource distribution is a sign of psychotic disassociation from reality. Your whole breed, which is what the bug is, a custom type of human incapable of defending itself or self-movement, is a plague.

[Anonymous No.10445063]

>>10445021
OP of >>10444925
Hahaha, women have zero responsibility for their actions?? You are retarded, what are female prisons for then? What are single mums then? How do any ever get fired from work?

>literally a different species
Do you know what the fuck you’re talking about. They’re homo sapien’s you drooling cunt. How come our chromosomes and zygotes and sperm/egg are in evolutionary proportion you drooling miserable cunt

I love how you make women out to be 100% evil conniving shrews like evolutionarily men have also created part of beta culture and modern attraction rituals.

>There is no question, none at all that they do not share our interests as a group
Sure buddy, is that why there’s no women in STEM, humanitarian, child care and maternal positions and occupations? Oh wait there are a CLEAR abundance of these women and it’s perfectly apparent upon sticking your head out of the basement.

>if they are not controlled by men or their families they become psychotic
I’m seriously starting to think you’ve never spoken to a female in your life. If you have, you fucked it up, embarrassing yourself and vowing to destroy womens reputation on the interwebz

>””knows tonnes of shit””about female biology and psychology, doesn’t know about maternal instinct.
Then why does the stereotype of epstay at home mum even exist. By your logic she would give 0 fucks about the child and just leave. Maybe divorcing him and taking the house plus leaving the baby

The last part is so stupid I’m not even going to respond in turn. Know this: you need to talk to either a female or a psychologist

[Anonymous No.10445066]

>>10445063
*like men haven’t

[Anonymous No.10445083]

>>10441895
Y'ALL KEKIN ?

[Anonymous No.10445085]

>>10445060
wait r u saying all ur words are sui generis?
that is 2 dope bro how do i got on ur level?

[Anonymous No.10445087]

>>10436339
You should not be allowed to read this until you
1) are 30+ years old
2) have had sex

[Anonymous No.10445094]

>>10445063
all fake premises for your counterarguments, if you could call them that since most of it is still rhetoric. you have no idea what im talking about and your social status is tied to your ignorance. go research sexual antagonistic selection and time to last common ancestor for mtDNA you fucking nigger
>>10445085
wowowow this is some biting nebbish, shrinking, vermin spittle you’re gushing here anon. holy goodness i’ve never seen a dung beetle of your caliber. do you have a preferred method for rolling your balls of shit around or do you just let instinct take over like when you pick your homosexual sex partners and caloric intake for the day? 9/10 wit, 8/10 detachment from social responsibility, 10/10 deceit; you’d make a fine attorney or hollywood rapist executive

[Anonymous No.10445101]

>>10445094
literally just scratch my asshole until the horrendous itching abates just a little bit like any most any other functional adult but like hey we all have to handle reality as it comes at us huh

[Anonymous No.10445104]

>>10445101
>schizophrenic self-deluding as preformance art on behalf of the cannibalistic social net
don’t wanna break any of the contracts you’ve made amirite anon, gotta make sure your cog diss collar bomb doesn’t go off if you aligned anything you believed with what you saw.

[Anonymous No.10445108]

>>10445104
we've read the same literature on the subject friend and yet we've arrived at different conclusions as to the general social ramifications of what this literature suggests as well as the manner in which we must comport ourselves in light of it

[Anonymous No.10445122]

>>10445094
>literally a different species
If you are going to use absolute statements be prepared to at least respond in a compelling way

>http://www.science20.com/news_releases/sexually_antagonistic_selection_a_darwinian_evolution_model_for_homose
I have no idea what you’re even talking about. When did homosexuality come into this? Is it because of the different rates and causes of homosexuality between genders that women are different? Please explain

As for your second argument I genuinely laughed at your chipping out. For someone who uses the word rhetoric so often that was really a break of form huh? When I make a argument providing examples from the real word and not psueding up a bunch of “”facts”” you have no response but to just insult me.

And you say I’m the subhuman?

[Anonymous No.10445126]

holy shit what happened to this thread.

>>10443816
Cinema is usually what they assign for university Deleuze readings

[Anonymous No.10445137]

>>10445122
oh look not a journal article and the link don’t work
>hue hue i don’t have to think about what i said because i know im socially in the right
>genuinely
>haha
>i was amused
like pottery hahahahaha cause its a meme hHahahaha

[Anonymous No.10445152]

>>10445137
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/sexually_antagonistic_selection_a_darwinian_evolution_model_for_homosexuality
there, it's unbroken
it's a summary and interpretive presentation of this journal article http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002282#s2

[Anonymous No.10445160]

>>10445152
this is tangential to what we were discussing you spastic

[Anonymous No.10445169]

>>10445126
schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.10445179]

>>10445137
Still waiting for a proper response. I have a feeling I’m going to be waiting a long time

[Anonymous No.10445180]

>>10445169
not even real

[Anonymous No.10446923]

bump

[Anonymous No.10446948]

>>10441355
expand on this please

[Anonymous No.10446951]

Who are some fiction writes inspired on Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.10447004]

>>10445087
fuck

[Anonymous No.10447012]

>>10446951
Houllebecq maybe but retrospectively

[Anonymous No.10447050]

>>10446951
all of them if your smart enough

[Anonymous No.10447141]

Any epub/pdf for Difference and Repetition or this ? Preferably in french.

[Anonymous No.10447205]

>I want undergrad pussy: the philosophy
why do people take him seriously?

just imagine if #metoo took place during the heyday of french "theory"

[Anonymous No.10448775]

>>10446951
Nick Land

[Anonymous No.10449162]

>>10447205
there was already a gender/sexual revolution going on at that time

[Anonymous No.10449391]

>>10436775

spinoza

[Anonymous No.10449888]

>>10446951
I see what you want to try to do with this thread

[Anonymous No.10449919]

>>10446951
Cyclonopedia

[Anonymous No.10450459]

>>10445094
>holy goodness i’ve never seen a dung beetle of your caliber. do you have a preferred method for rolling your balls of shit around
Fecal preoccupations of the Jew on display here

[Anonymous No.10450471]

>>10449162
Indeed....

[Anonymous No.10450667]

Wtf does he mean by machines
Wtf does he mean by BwO and its relation with de desaring machines
Wtf is his notion of schizophrenic
Wtf is the solar anus

[Anonymous No.10450719]

>>10447205
makes him relatable

[Anonymous No.10450728]

>>10450719
But not credible

[Anonymous No.10450737]

>>10450471
lmao

[Anonymous No.10450773]

>>10450728
we aren't reading continental for the credibility

[Anonymous No.10451272]

>>10446948
It really is a difficult text. If you haven't read it already, there's probably a good chance you're not going to even understand half of the first chapter. It took me around 30h of secondary sources and a background in philosophy to really grok what he's blabbering on about, and I'm still struggling on some parts in my second reading.

Take your time. Read it at your own pace. Do not introduce ten other pseuds to the mix to muddle up the waters.

[Anonymous No.10451360]

>>10450667
desiring machines are the source of libinal desires (compare to will). why machines? deleuze says that (1) this desire is inherent to matter and (2) that it's machinic in the sense that it has an input and an output. the machine is always plugged into another machine and always provides for another machine. desiring machines break down all the time, because that is how they function (think Lacan).

BwO is Deleuze's most important concept. think of this as rejection that hammer is FOR hammering nails. a hammer has an infinite amount of uses that aren't its intended purpose. BwO is an absolute rejection of prescribed purpose - freedom to approach/do in non stratified ways.

a schizo is essentially BwO - you are everything at once, not only is a=a, a=b, a=12, a=wednesday, a=queen of england, a=whatever you want. schizo rejects the identity he is told, he is everything he wants to be.

ugh, I was thinking about this the other day and figured it out, but failed to retain. he's a BwO, and the anus is the producion, the end of the flow. something about the production of BwO being intense and energetic like the sun? not sure. mby some other anon will help you out.

[Anonymous No.10451392]

>>10447141
b-ok DOT org/book/783747/1349a9

[Anonymous No.10451543]

>>10451360
>>10450667
First off you have to understand that D&G are Spinozists, it's all about connections being maintained, strengthened or broken. When an internal relation becomes / acts like an external one you get a breakdown like in the case of cancer or autoimmune disease.

> Wtf does he mean by machines

For D&G machines are different from the mechanical in a deterministic sense. Think Spinoza or Leibniz's efforts to introduce the infinite into the finite of representation, but with difference rather than identity (which is fundamental to representation). If machines didn't function by breaking down and interrupting each other (as >>10451360 points out), you'd have an unbearable experience of the infinite (constantly hungry or horny or scared, etc.). They function through difference and repetition, differentiating from one another and reinforcing themselves through repetition.

The desiring machines of Anti-Oedipus produce all of experience through Kantian synthesis: they connect things, often things that don't go together by nature of their substance (weird dream content, delirium, or, in nature, the orchid and the wasp). D&G changed the term to assemblages to better reflect how contingent the connections can initially be. Haecceities (this-ness of a thing) become part of assemblages: 5 o'clock in the morning is nothing special, but if you wake up daily at that hour and suddenly find yourself unable to do otherwise that's because a new assemblage has been formed.

> Wtf does he mean by BwO and its relation with de desaring machines

Think connections directly to matter, such as when animals act on instinct in strange ways based on apparently external imperceptible forces (pressure, magnetism, etc.) and change their migration patterns like is often observed with sea lions or how animals sense earthquakes before they happen. Now associate these connections to experiences that affect your entire body: falling in love (activation of erogenous zones and shift in connections between perceived object and feelings, etc.), masochism (the contingent connection between pleasure and pain where pain is transformed without ceasing to be pain) and obviously drug fueled experiences.

> Wtf is his notion of schizophrenic

For Deleuze especially, following Nietzsche, there is a pluralism of material unconscious forces and series that dictates life. If your daily subjective connections differ based on various cycles (if you're tired you're not in the mood to do something else despite having a job to do, if you're hungry you start thinking about food a lot, etc.) then you get a very mild version of the imperceptible changes that make a schizo go from normalish (between certain thresholds) to full on paranoiac without realizing it until it's too late for example. The problem is that many internalize the discourse about them, becoming psychoanalytic or psychiatric stereotypes even if their condition wasn't that severe to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10451553]

Reading Deleuze makes me feel very nauseous

[Anonymous No.10451565]

>>10451553
that’s good, it also means you’re becoming psychotic. push farther, take some acid, run wild through the woods howling in Aramaic about the blood sun

[Anonymous No.10451571]

(continued.)

>>10451543
> Wtf is the solar anus

Schreber's experience of anal stimulation (which doesn't mean that he was diddling himself, only that that particular erogenous zone was activated) and his association within the imagination: anus looks like a sun therefore the tingling in the rectum must be God's solar rays. Sadly many defer to the imaginary to explain their internal sensations, which feeds Jungianism a bit too much, such as those who state that a snake is moving through them (forgot the name of the disease, Charcot or Cotard's syndrome or something similar).

For D&G the stimulation is real and material before being connected in the imagination: Schreber did not state that he had tits because of identification with the mother but rather because both men and women have intensive strips (erogenous zones) in that area and his got activated.

[Anonymous No.10451594]

>>10451571
>>10451543
>mfw thought I was starting to grip D&G
CAN YOU FRENCH FUCKS USE SMALL-BOY WORDS CHRIST

[Anonymous No.10451597]

>>10451543
Wew lad, nice explination, thanks you :)
Have a nice life

[Anonymous No.10451647]

>>10451597
No problem. Gonna repost a pasta of link in case people want more info.

A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

As for the books, start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts. As for the books, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro to the English translation by Michael Hardt even if you don't read the book in English). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/


A decent bibliography:
https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

[Anonymous No.10451673]

Just wondering, is anything in >>10451360 wrong, or simply surface level?

[Anonymous No.10451707]

>>10451647
>>10451673
?

[Anonymous No.10451718]

>>10451707
you annoying unthinking faggot

[Anonymous No.10451752]

>>10451543
>Think Spinoza or Leibniz's efforts to introduce the infinite into the finite of representation, but with difference rather than identity
im trying

[Anonymous No.10451769]

>>10451543
>internal relation becoming external resulting in a breakdown

example?

[Anonymous No.10451783]

>>10451543
>>10451647
yes!! This is why i come here thanks

[Anonymous No.10451795]

>>10451673
>>10451707
It's correct as far as I can tell. Maybe the "think Lacan" part can get Lacanians confused since for D&G the production that characterizes desiring machines is part of their immanence, the joy they take by simply doing what they do (being who they are so to speak) as opposed to the object a which for Lacan sets things in motion by being the unattainable object CAUSE of desire (the impossibility of jouissance which is nonetheless inscribed in the bit of enjoyment that we get out of moving from one empirical object of desire to another).

> Every time desire is betrayed, cursed, uprooted from its field of immanence, a priest is behind it. The priest cast the triple curse on desire: the negative law, the extrinsic rule, and the transcendent ideal. Facing north, the priest said, Desire is lack (how could it not lack what it desires?). The priest carried out the first sacrifice, named castration, and all the men and women of the north lined up behind him, crying in cadence, "Lack, lack, it's the common law." Then, facing south, the priest linked desire to pleasure. For there are hedonistic, even orgiastic, priests. Desire will be assuaged by pleasure; and not only will the pleasure obtained silence desire for a moment but the process of obtaining it is already a way of interrupting it, of instantly discharging it and unburdening oneself of it. Pleasure as discharge: the priest carries out the second sacrifice, named masturbation. ^ Then, facing east, he exclaimed: Jouissance is impossible, but impossible t jouissance is inscribed in desire. For that, in its very impossibility, is the Ideal, the ^manque-a--jouir that is life."10 The priest carried out the third sacrifice, phantasy or the thousand and one nights, the one hundred twenty ^ days, while the men of the East chanted: Yes, we will be your phantasy, your ideal and impossibility, yours and also our own. The priest did not turn to the west. He knew that in the west lay a plane of consistency, but he thought that the way was blocked by the columns of Hercules, that it led nowhere and was uninhabited by people. But that is where desire was lurking, west was the shortest route east, as well as to the other directions, rediscovered or deterritorialized.

(to be cont.)

[Anonymous No.10451801]

>>10451795
(cont.)

> The most recent figure of the priest is the psychoanalyst, with his or her three principles: Pleasure, Death, and Reality. Doubtless, psychoanalysis demonstrated that desire is not subordinated to procreation, or even to genitality. That was its modernism. But it retained the essentials; it even found new ways of inscribing in desire the negative law of lack, the external rule of pleasure, and the transcendent ideal of phantasy. Take the interpretation of masochism: when the ridiculous death instinct is not invoked, it is claimed that the masochist, like everybody else, is after pleasure but can only get it through pain and phantasied humiliations whose function is to allay or ward off deep anxiety. This is inaccurate; the masochisfs suffering is the price he must pay, not to achieve pleasure, but to untie the pseudobond between desire and pleasure as an extrinsic measure. Pleasure is in no way something that can be attained only by a detour through suffering; it is something that must be delayed as long as possible because it interrupts the continuous process of positive desire. There is, in fact, a joy that is immanent to desire as though desire were filled by itself and its contemplations, a joy that implies no lack or impossibility and is not measured by pleasure since it is what distributes intensities of pleasure and prevents them from being suffused by anxiety, shame, and guilt. In short, the masochist uses suffering as a way of constituting a body without organs and bringing forth a plane of consistency of desire. That there are other ways, other procedures than masochism, and certainly better ones, is beside the point; it is enough that some find this procedure suitable for them.

(One more to be cont.)

[Anonymous No.10451810]

>>10451801
(continued)

> [...]
> Similarly, or actually in a different way, it would be an error to interpret courtly love in terms of a law of lack or an ideal of transcendence. The renunciation of external pleasure, or its delay, its infinite regress, testifies on the contrary to an achieved state in which desire no longer lacks anything but fills itself and constructs its own field of immanence. Pleasure is an affection of a person or a subject; it is the only way for persons to "find themselves" in the process of desire that exceeds them; pleasures, even the most artificial, are reterritorializations. But the question is precisely whether it is necessary to find oneself. Courtly love does not love the self, any more than it loves the whole universe in a celestial or religious way. It is a question of making a body without organs upon which intensities pass, self and other—not in the name of a higher level of generality or a broader extension, but by virtue of singularities that can no longer be said to be personal, and intensities that can no longer be said to be extensive. The field of immanence is not internal to the self, but neither does it come from an external self or a nonself. Rather, it is like the absolute Outside that knows no Selves because interior and exterior are equally a part of the immanence in which they have fused. "Joy" in courtly love, the exchange of hearts, the test or "assay": everything is allowed, as long as it is not external to desire or transcendent to its plane, or else internal to persons. The slightest caress may be as strong as an orgasm; orgasm is a mere fact, a rather deplorable one, in relation to desire in pursuit of its principle. Everything is allowed: all that counts is for pleasure to be the flow of desire itself. Immanence, instead of a measure that interrupts it or delivers it to the three phantoms, namely, internal lack, higher transcendence, and apparent exteriority.13 If pleasure is not the norm of desire, it is not by virtue of a lack that is impossible to but on the; contrary, by virtue of its positivty, in other words, the plane of consistency it draws in the course of its process.

Quotes from the Body without Organs chapter of A Thousand Plateaus. It should probably be read before Anti-Oedipus (this particular chapter at least, the rest of the book is far more difficult) despite being 8 years after AO.

[Anonymous No.10451814]

>>10436339
does anti-oedipus imply a man fucking everyone who isn't his mother, or just a mother unknowingly fucking her son?

[Anonymous No.10451858]

>>10451769
Well the simplest examples are the ones I gave, autoimmune disease and cancer. Life is a series of internal relations being maintained. When one or several of them no longer maintain the internal status that allow life to go on, when they act like external relations and block previous internal ones (in this sense for Spinoza these diseases I mentioned are hardly different from an "external" sword cutting off a head: an internal relation is severed), life starts to lack what Bergson calls the indivisible (that which can be divided, but not without losing it's fundamental properties).

[Anonymous No.10451881]

>>10451858
*its
I should get some sleep.


>>10451752
It's something I'm struggling with myself and Deleuze's explanations don't really help as he wasn't trying to make those authors clear, but rather to surpass them. But the way, for example, Spinoza influenced Cantor's theories (transfinites and whatever else he worked on) makes it seem worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.10451936]

>>10444882
>>10444960
I wish /pol/ would make posts like this, god teir entertainment and funny insight

[Anonymous No.10452456]

reading group when

[Anonymous No.10452675]

>>10444960
>every single thing i said is based on inductive logic

[Anonymous No.10452736]

>>10444862
someone explain this painting to me

[Anonymous No.10453724]

>>10452736
For D&G it's basically about the child's functioning being about machines so that the machines he plays with are connected to his own machines. They mention the case of some schizophrenic child iirc who was unable to sleep unless he did a ritual of playing with some improvised machines beforehand, kind of like how some have to take a shit just by smelling their coffee because it activates that particular assemblage even before the actual chemical effect of the coffee takes place.

[Anonymous No.10453816]

>>10440563
Where's the discord, my man?

[Anonymous No.10454573]

>>10447050
>>10446951
this unironically

[Anonymous No.10455253]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10455276]

>>10436814
>>10450667
>>10451571

It's not a meme:

https://theoutline.com/post/1249/what-happens-when-you-stare-at-the-sun

[Anonymous No.10455373]

>>10451543
>If machines didn't function by breaking down and interrupting each other (as >>10451360 points out), you'd have an unbearable experience of the infinite (constantly hungry or horny or scared, etc.).
Isn't that what depression is? And also the eternal bliss (which is not happiness or pleasure) of enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.10455416]

>>10455373
>the eternal bliss of enlightenment
Hahahaha. Nigga please. You serious? You still believe in Santa too?

[Anonymous No.10455575]

>>10455416
I don't know, the "unbearable experience of the infinite" is a very good description of the Garland Sutra's style, and that's supposed to be the school of Buddhism which tries to describe how a Buddha's experience is like. And it also describes my own thinking while in depression; and such a type of feeling (saṃvega) is supposed to be the material with which one starts Buddhist ascesis.

I'm not really interested in the empiricity of Nirvana, rather on the relationship between the two things and whether one is a repurposing (BwO) of the other.

[Anonymous No.10456110]

What should i do in preperation for reading this book?
What do you recommend i should read beforehand?

[Anonymous No.10456118]

>>10455373
> Isn't that what depression is?

Depends in which framework you're using the term. The futility of everything may be part of that way of thinking, which leads to being physically unable to act (unable to find the motivation to do anything). For D&G it's one drive, one interpretation, among others as far as I can tell because already for Nietzsche nihilism in this ordinary sense (not his remarks about Christianity being nihilistic) wasn't in itself something bad as long as it meant a transvaluation of all values where forces finally stood on their own in the plurality of their differences. Perspectivism (that a phenomenon has just as many valid meanings as forces capable of taking it over and giving it interpretation and evaluation, that is to say value) is true just as much for infinity.

Basically, of course one who's desiring machines are materially broken (people who feel chronic pain simply due to genetics, or people who due to brain damage are constantly thirsty, etc.) will have a bad time, but equating their experience to every experience of the infinity (if that's what you're getting at) is already one differentiated interpretation and evaluation among others. Not invalid, just not "the one truth".

Hopefully I didn't miss your point by translating it into D&G's Nietzschean side.

Read the three passages here: >>10451795
The infinity that desiring machines bring about has it's own inner ("intensive") joy for D&G. Even depression can affirm itself, even being narcissistic which is not to say that it is also desirable for life.

[Anonymous No.10456139]

>>10456110
see >>10451647

D&G's work together builds on Deleuze's prior work (and some of Guattari's, but that's kinda optional; Guattari even got depressed because most people just focused on Deleuze and his work) so being familiar with it helps a lot. The books on Nietzsche, Spinoza and Bergson, despite being very difficult are also brilliant once you see how Deleuze brings them together into his own project.

[Anonymous No.10456161]

>>10456139
Alright thanks man

Im going to dedicate most of my 2018 reading to understanding d&g's works

[Anonymous No.10456257]

>>10456118
>Hopefully I didn't miss your point by translating it into D&G's Nietzschean side.
Well, it's kinda my own fault for not defining my own terminology, being too abrupt.

The thing is that depression (as I define it and experience it) is to me always a retrospective event. Depression isn't simply being sad at failure or suffering, but one can be depressed at getting precisely what one wanted, even when there was no desire for defeat. It's not a matter of simply giving up because of the inevitable or the impossible, but due to the conditions of the present. It removes from memory any irrelevant experience to the present undesireable condition with: "Yes, but what does it matter that my stomach is full? This was, is and will always be there." -- in that sense, it's precisely against lack as an existential foundation and desire being something that's only rooted in its fulfillment. Rather than giving up, depression is precisely stubbornness in the face of a million other possibilities for escape; therefore why it can be affirmative in the means that it won't let its own pain be ended by an external phenomenon or development. Depression is unbearable out of its desire not to bear. Likewise enlightenment is the cessation of bearing but is conceptually unbearable.

(But that's enough sidetracking; thanks for your time, Anon.)

[Anonymous No.10456916]

Bump