/dg/ -- deleuze general

[Anonymous No.15050306]

Deleuzers unite! Share your deleuzeanal thought and/or deluzional thoughts, be they as they might be. Since this is a univocal thread please feel free to discuss anything as long as it relates. Remember nothing is a metaphor. Are you becoming-BwO? Please remember not to take becoming-women more literal than becoming-animal or -imperceptible.

>thread theme song:
https://youtu.be/UbkqE4fpvdI

Threadly question: AO vs ATP? D vs G?

Suggested readings...
>beginner tier:
Deleuze: A Philosophy of the Event and Deleuze Dictionary
Deleuze's monographs on history of philosophy
What is Philosophy?
>intermediate tier:
Books on cinema and literature
Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Anti-Oedipus Papers
Machinic Unconscious
Intersecting Lives
>advanced tier:
Logic of Sense
Difference and Repetition
Schizoanalytic cartographies
Chaosophy
Chaosmosis
>bonus materials:
Dark Deleuze
Hermetic Deleuze
Fanged Noumena
Ccru: collected writings
Cyclonopedia
#accelerate
>critical readings:
Clamour of Being
Organs without Bodies

Internet materials:

>deleuze's abecedaire:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3KuoFAFw68mZ9Qb_LtzjStwLxaIEC7DJ
>deleuze for the desperate:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCh5HOS_mbjLB4U_8IviyXTcOC8Z7NkC1
>delanda on deleuze:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD649C765D91C1120

Feel free to share any other links or articles. Look forward to good discussion.

Ps: one more link for fun...
>occult deleuze:
http://razorsmile.org/archive/deleuzeandsorcery.pdf

[Anonymous No.15050320]

this drawing is trash, the fingernails aren't nearly long enough

[Anonymous No.15050344]

>>15050320
You're right! I hadn't examined it that closely...

[Justin Murphy via twitter No.15050345]

Just read Based Deleuze.

Seems like a thinker about to come into his own.

Check it out.

[Anonymous No.15050357]

>>15050345
Where's the pirate link? I won't give twitterfags money but I might browse for lulz...

[Anonymous No.15050366]

pls
delete Body without Organs, i'ts nonsense

[Anonymous No.15050367]

>>15050306

Multiplicity and Deleuze were refuted by Guenon (pbuh) and Shankaracharya (pbuh), it's not too late to escape your ignorance

[Anonymous No.15050381]

Girardfag, I summon thee!

[Anonymous No.15050398]

>>15050366
You mean the Zizek work? Honestly, both him and Badiou are unsympathetic readings. Deleuze: the Dark Precursor is a good refutation. But if you're an orthodox Lacanian Marxist you might like their readings.

[Anonymous No.15050402]

>>15050306
Pedophile solidarity!

[Anonymous No.15050438]

>>15050402
Aristotle advocated for slavery. He still created useful concepts. We can be pragmatic in our borrowing of philosophical devices. Deleuze is no sage, and the ancient ideal of such is mistaken. To adapt any philosopher's image of thought uncritically without establishing a plane of immanence is boring.

[Anonymous No.15050440]

>>15050367
Forced meme

[Anonymous No.15050508]

>more on deleuzean occultism:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AUneTvcmrVqv3mFEeHRylM70kuecjLg4xMYyToT5P2s/mobilebasic

[Anonymous No.15050526]

>notes on a shamanic nietzsche:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/socialecologies.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/nick-land-where-do-the-lies-stop/amp/

[Anonymous No.15050567]

>posthumanism and esoteric praxis:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesca_Ferrando/publication/308942209_Humans_Have_Always_Been_Posthuman_A_Spiritual_Genealogy_of_Posthumanism/links/59d6d425458515db19c50436/Humans-Have-Always-Been-Posthuman-A-Spiritual-Genealogy-of-Posthumanism.pdf?origin=publication_detail

[Anonymous No.15050599]

EXPLAIN DELEUZE TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN DELEUZE TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOu! WHAT THE FUCK IS A BODY WITHOUT ORGANS? WHAT THE FUCK ARE RHIZOMES? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

[Anonymous No.15050716]

I'm not usually a fan of chart faggotry but has someone ever compiled a chart with the different influences and resources that lead toward Capital and Schizophrenia?
Usualy every bigger Philosopher got one from /lit/ (even if they are sometimes bad and the author didn't read most of what he recommends)

[Anonymous No.15050736]

>>15050716
Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson, Whitehead, Proust, Masoch, Bacon, Foucault, Bataille, Kafka, Klossowski

[Anonymous No.15050744]

>>15050716
>>15050736
>Marx, Freud, and Lacan

[Anonymous No.15050752]

>>15050736
>shitehead
retard

[Anonymous No.15050766]

>>15050744
Good addition, thanks brah

[Anonymous No.15050782]

>>15050736
>>15050744
Thanks I guess but I was just asking if someone already made a chart.
I've worked through Capital and Schizophrenia since the beginning of this year with quite a few different resources, secondary literature and youtube lectures.
But to my knowledge I haven't seen a comprehensive guide that gives pointers as where to start.
Also quite a few of the things you listed here are interesting but not really that important to start with the whole process in my opinion.
It reads like one of those lists with way too many points to help with anything.

[Anonymous No.15050829]

>>15050782
Idk. I have not found any perfect secondary material. I have read some but not all of what's recommended. Interested in Hardt but heard mixed things. Massumi wrote a user guide on c&s but I have not investigated yet. I am still working my way through the labyrinth. But I am beginning to recognize the hieroglyphs on the wall through slow study. But isn't the point to start anywhere? Find a line of flight?

[Anonymous No.15050872]

>>15050752
H8r

[Anonymous No.15050916]

If you have nomadic thoughts they will shine out of your anus like sunbeams and you will always look lovely :^)

[Anonymous No.15050936]

>>15050829
>But isn't the point to start anywhere?
I guess that kinda makes sense in some way yes. After all everyone starts from a different position with more or less knowledge on each topic.
Personally I was quite glad I read a lot of Freud when I was just starting with my more serious reading 10 years ago. He is definitely one of the bigger topics in post structuralism in general when we want to use the term.

[Anonymous No.15050990]

>>15050936
Have you tried Intersecting lives? I am liking it so far. Pretty juicy lol.

[Anonymous No.15051004]

Any recommended predecessors or should i just jump right in this season?

[Anonymous No.15051057]

>>15050367
If I learn Advaita, will that help me towards becoming-pizza-delivery-guy?

[Anonymous No.15051064]

dilate

[Anonymous No.15051071]

>>15050736
Adding to that - Artaud and Beckett are also essential.

[Anonymous No.15051081]

>>15051004
It's written in an experimental style so don't be discouraged if you can't read it straight through and get everything the first time but it is quite rewarding once it all starts to click.

[Anonymous No.15051104]

>>15050736

Yeah this pretty much, although he talks about Lewis Carroll at length in 'Logic of Sense' so I'd say he's as worth reading as Kafka is.

[Anonymous No.15051123]

>>15051057
Perhaps you will even experience the enlightenment of lockup with nogs.

[Anonymous No.15051298]

How is C&S intermediate while D&R is advanced tier. D&R is hard but readable, but i couldn't get through a single chapter of ATP.

[Anonymous No.15051406]

>>15051298
Depends on what you bring to the table, I guess. I had the opposite problem. Most people are most interested in c&s anyway so good to get on it quickly.

[Anonymous No.15051446]

>>15051064
This
https://www.glaad.org/publications/series/accelerating-acceptance

[Anonymous No.15051458]

>>15050736
Did you just list all the philosophers Deleuze wrote a book on + Whitehead, Bataille, and Klossowski?

[Anonymous No.15051466]

>>15051458
What's wrong with that? Lol...

[Anonymous No.15051472]

>>15051406
Depends on what you bring to the table, I guess.

What do i have to read for ATP that i didn't have to for D&R?

[Anonymous No.15051480]

>>15051472
meant to greentext the upper part :/

[Anonymous No.15051522]

>>15051466
First of all, it's missing Leibniz.
Secondly, some of the philosophers Deleuze wrote about (like e.g. Kant), he isn't exactly sympathetic towards and he would fundamentally disagree with many of their core philosophical positions. Of course, that doesn't mean that they were not an influence at all, but saying that Kant was an influence on a 21st Century philosopher, is like saying that they were influenced by Plato in some way, because of fucking course that's the case.

[Anonymous No.15051528]

>>15051472
>>15051480
Atp is more sociological and psychological. D&r is more philosophical. Of course, they'd have different preparations. I suggest just plowing through until osmosis gets it for you.

[Anonymous No.15051544]

>>15051522
Agree and disagree.

Isn't that why phil majors start with the Greeks?

The more rhizomatic connections the better.

But, yes, list could be amended. Feel free.

[Anonymous No.15051684]

>>15050398
>>15050366
Im in the middle of this one
Mathematics and the Theory of Multiplicities: Badiou and Deleuze Revisited
https://philarchive.org/archive/SMIMAT-6
>>15050367
>>15050367

Deleuze is compatible with Guenon. You are misunderstanding his use of Multiplicity. Guenons critique is with the common application of Leibniz, which Deleuze is also a critic of. Guenons critique of the infinite does not apply to continuous multiplicities as described by Deleuze. Guenons argument that zero is not a number, but a represention of infinitely decreasing quantities that never in actuality expire, is in fact an echo of Deleuzes notion of desiring production as primary to lack. Univocity is non-dualism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplicity_(philosophy)

https://www.academia.edu/17057441/Genesis_and_Difference_Deleuze_Maimon_and_the_Post-Kantian_Reading_of_Leibniz
Genesis and Difference: Deleuze,
Maïmon, and the Post-Kantian
Reading of Leibniz


https://ia801305.us.archive.org/30/items/reneguenon/1946%20-%20The%20Metaphysical%20Principles%20of%20the%20Infinitesimal%20Calculus.pdf


related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ErY_-IJToc
>In What is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari define philosophy, famously, as an activity that consists in forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts. But this definition of philosophy implies a somewhat singular analytic of the concept, to borrow Kant’s phrase, and Deleuze’s concept of the concept, as it were, differs significantly from previous conceptions of the concept. One of the problems it poses is the fact that concepts, from a Deleuzian perspective, have no identity but only a becoming. There is a becoming of concepts not only within Deleuze’s corpus, but also in each book and in each concept, which is extended to and draws from the entire history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15051808]

Anyone read the chapter on Deleuze?

Is Frederic Jameson good?

[Anonymous No.15052078]

>>15051684
Do you think the creation of concepts can be reconciled with the idea of philosophy as a way of life? I like to think so and that there is an anthropotechnics of philosophy as it were. Read Laruelle if you want real cutting edge stuff. Badiou and Zizek are pseuds...

[Anonymous No.15052085]

>>15051808
Jameson is a bit old school but decent. Good if you're still in the Frankfurt phase. I was a bit disappointed by Postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.15052219]

>>15052078
I haven't read "What is Philosophy?". i think of the creation of concepts more as a substitute for the usual conception of philosophy that concerns itself with recognition of what is already there... from which you can then derive practical applications.

[Anonymous No.15052266]

>>15052145

[Anonymous No.15052267]

>>15052219
But surely those concepts must be useful and conducive to a superior mode of existence, nay? I don't mean to transcend the strata tho except perhaps individually

[Anonymous No.15052361]

>>15050736
>>15050736
Add Lawrence, Miller, Schreber, Bion, Klein, Reich, Clastres, and Leibniz. Deleuze and Guattari themselves. Bacon doesn't fit there.
Levi-Strauss, Boas, Maus, Jakobson, Saussure, Pierce, James, Hjelmslev, Althusser, Malinowski, Green, Cooper, Laing, Gorz and chinese history also are slightly referenced, is good to have them at hand. There were also things by Baudrillard, de Brunhoff and others, but one can just see the name index and start diving

[Anonymous No.15052401]

In the first paragraph of the first chapter of Difference and Repetition Deleuze implies the formula "two things are as alike as two drops of water" confuses repetition and generality.
Is "two things are alike" the generality and "two drops of water" the repetition or the other way around?

[Anonymous No.15052439]

>>15052401
Other way around

[Anonymous No.15052467]

>>15052439
but to say "two things are alike" means they resemble each other, and resemblance is one of the orders of the general.

[Anonymous No.15052713]

>>15052401
Neither is repetition because both are generality. Two things being alike implies a likeness that is a generality common to both, while "two drops of water" names two objects which share the generality of being water drops.

[Anonymous No.15052756]

>>15052713
I don't understand why did Deleuze say this then. Maybe it's a translation error? I'm very autistic with these things, I don't think I can keep on reading without having this clarified first. An anon from another thread told me the drops of water could be considered repetition if they are actual drops of water in a succession >>15052411
would you agree?

[Anonymous No.15052758]

>>15051684
>Univocity is non-dualism.
fundamentally wrong. Scotus' conception of univocity is non-dualist, and perhaps even Spinoza's; but Deleuze's univocity affirms the ontological difference over a univocity of being, it literally turns around the modes (IE the modifications of substance) and not Being itself (IE. non-dual God).

[Anonymous No.15052774]

>>15052758
It's a middle way then

[Anonymous No.15052791]

>>15052756
yes, that post explains it well. just make sure that you understand it's the succession /in itself/ that is the repetition. the second drop does not repeat the first drop, but the succession of all drops is what constitutes the repetition.

try not to get too bogged down. the beginning is admittedly frustrating because it takes deleuze a while to state what repetition actually is since he spends so long trying to undo convention understandings of repetition

[Anonymous No.15052830]

>>15052774
There is no middle way. Deleuze's version of univocity is irreconcilable with non-dualism because it affirms the ontological primacy of difference over the whole. If you want to argue the theological concept of univocity fits with non-dualism, then sure, that's a claim you could quite easily justify. But deleuze's use of the word is a very specific inversion of it, and cannot be understood in the same way.

[Anonymous No.15053797]

>>15052830
>affirms the ontological primacy of difference over the whole

Can you explain this because my reading is that there is nothing primary Being is difference and pluralism = monism.

> There are many Spinozist inheritances in Deleuze, but one of the most important is certainly the notion of univocity in ontology. Univocity—as opposed to its great rivals, equivocity and analogy—is the key to developing a “philosophy of difference” (Deleuze’s term for his project in Difference and Repetition), in which difference would no longer be subordinated to identity. The result is a Spinozism minus substance, a purely modal or differential universe. In univocity, as Deleuze reads Spinoza, the single sense of Being frees a charge of difference throughout all that is.

[Anonymous No.15054699]

>>15050345
People are reading Based Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.15055558]

>>15053797
>a Spinozism minus the substance, a purely modal or differential universe
This is the crux. If being is difference, then the equivocation between pluralism and monism does not hold up. This is the key difference between Spinoza and Deleuze. Unlike spinoza’s being of beings, in which univocity affirms all modes in one and the same voice (The monist substance), Deleuze only sees the modes or differential relations, and not the totality by which all differences can be subsumed. This is what I mean by “affirming the ontological primacy” of difference, because the alternative (as in Spinoza) can only affirm what is non-dual or whole.

[Anonymous No.15056281]

anybody here give deleuze and the naming of god a try?

[Anonymous No.15057001]

>>15055558
>If being is difference, then the equivocation between pluralism and monism does not hold up.
Oh so you just disagree with Deleuze.

>Deleuze adapts the doctrine of univocity to claim that being is, univocally, difference.

> "With univocity, however, it is not the differences which are and must be: it is being which is Difference,

>in the sense that it is said of difference. Moreover, it is not we who are univocal in a Being which is not; it is we and our individuality which remains equivocal in and for a univocal Being."[39] Here Deleuze at once echoes and inverts Spinoza, who maintained that everything that exists is a modification of the one substance, God or Nature.

>For Deleuze, there is no one substance,

>only an always-differentiating process, an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding. Deleuze summarizes this ontology in the paradoxical formula "pluralism = monism".[40]

>not the totality by which all differences can be subsumed

why must they be subsumed?

>If it is a question of showing that rhizomes also have their own, even more rigid, despotism and hierarchy, then fine and good: for there is no dualism, no ontological dualism between here and there, no axiological dualism between good and bad, no blend or American synthesis.

> It is not a question of this or that place on earth, or of a given moment in history, still less of this or that category of thought. It is a question of a model that is perpetually in construction or collapsing, and of a process that is perpetually prolonging itself, breaking off and starting up again.

>No, this is not a new or different dualism. The problem of writing: in order to designate something exactly, anexact expressions are utterly unavoidable. Not at all because it is a necessary step, or because one can only advance by approximations: anexactitude is in no way an approximation; on the contrary, it is the exact passage of that which is under way. We invoke one dualism only in order to challenge another. We employ a dualism of models only in order to arrive at a process that challenges all models. Each time, mental correctives are necessary to undo the dualisms we had no wish to construct but through which we pass. Arrive at the magic formula we all seek—PLURALISM = MONISM—via all the dualisms that are INTRODUCTION: RHIZOME □ 21 the enemy, an entirely necessary enemy, the furniture we are forever rearranging.

[Anonymous No.15057086]

>>15057001
>For Deleuze, there is no one substance
Explain to me how does this not go against non-dualism.

And further, If you don’t understand why the formula pluralism=monism is paradoxical/ironic, then you simply don’t understand Deleuze.

See:
>we employ a dualism of models only in order to arrive at a process that challenges all models.
That includes the model of non-dualism that Guenon describes, which must necessarily be challenged in order to move forward. despite rejecting dualist thought, you are still clinging to a particular structural (dual) binary, that of dualism and non-dualism, and in doing so cannot overcome either. The reason why the formula is paradoxical because it is an end point that we work towards, but one that is not actually achievable, because otherwise the rhizome would end, we would blunt all offshoots, and inhibit any further growth. Also See:
>the furniture we are forever rearranging
There is no “monism” at the end, because the plural is in perpetual renegotiation with itself.

[Anonymous No.15057252]

>>15057086
>Explain to me how does this not go against non-dualism.
Because there is only being, there is still one whole, just because it is not a substance does not make it dualistic.

>>15057086
>you are still clinging to a particular structural (dual) binary, that of dualism and non-dualism, and in doing so cannot overcome either.
no u

>>15050306
>Remember nothing is a metaphor.
Deleuze is a materialist(marxist) not a physicalist and not a whiteheadian mystic. Its a paradox, but not ironic.

>>15057086
>There is no “monism” at the end

what "end"

[Anonymous No.15057324]

>>15057252
Deleuze is no marxist materialist but a supersensualist like William Blake and Austin Osman Spare.

[Currently Reading Based Deleuz(...) No.15057368]

>>15057324
Yikes

[Anonymous No.15057370]

>>15057324
Yeah nah. Hes a marxist. His entire project is to reconcile Marx with modern psychology by the rehabilitation of marginal philosophers that were rejected by the state. He never mentions Marx or Hegel because they are taken as a given in his line of work.

[Anonymous No.15057438]

>>15057370
I do agree that Hegel is far to underlooked in reference to Deleuze. However materialism is a monism. Deleuze (pbuh) is nondual

[Anonymous No.15057450]

I'm currently reading Anti-Oedipus and trying to make sense of the contents in the first chapter. Are there some complementary materials available to help me understand what Deleuze and Guattari are trying to establish here? I only understand small portions of the text and it's all extremely blurry. I'm particularly interested in the three syntheses which as far I understand are the main point of this chapter. Am I wrong? Also, what the fuck do they mean when they say that breaks and interruptions are essential part of the producing that these machines do? Or do they say that?

[Anonymous No.15057478]

>>15057450
Think of the breaks/interruptions in terms of morse code. Desiring-production is a single continuous flow (IE, holding down the button perpetually, creating one long tone), but one which is broken up into dots and dashes. That’s the way I think about it anyway. Or like traffic flow: alternating signals of stop and go.

[Anonymous No.15057526]

>>15050402
Ad hominem doesn't work in philosophy

[Anonymous No.15057620]

>>15057438
>Monism is the doctrine that there is only one kind of substance, for instance, mind or consciousness. Berkeley's idealism and Yogacara Buddhism represent this view. ... Non-dualism is the view that there are either more or less than two substances. Therefore, monism is a species of non-dualism.

Materialism(marxism) is a poltical and social philosophy not an ontology. Materialism(physicalism) is physical monism. Dialectical materialism is epistemic, it does not preclude ontology, though it is often assumed. This is similar to many STEMlords not understanding the mind body problem and insisting that everything is matter because "science". Christian scientists and Buddhist Marxists still exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism#Transcendental_materialism

[Anonymous No.15057649]

>>15057450
Desiring-production is composed of three syntheses, the connective, disjunctive, and conjunctive; these syntheses perform three functions: production, recording, and enjoyment. You can associate production with the physiological, recording with the semiotic, and enjoyment with the psychological registers.

[Anonymous No.15057663]

>>15057620
The transcendental position invariably centers on nondualism in a way in which monism fails to by its mere collapsing of dualisms. Nondualism is trinitarian and dialectical.

[Anonymous No.15057960]

>>15057663
>Nondualism is trinitarian and dialectical.
Yes.

Deleuze was the first transcendental empiricist and coined the term.

>Of course, Deleuze never simply proclaims this as a bald thesis, but develops a genetic account of subjectivity in many of his books. Taking all this into account, Deleuze summarized his differential, immanent and genetic position by the at first glance odd phrase of “transcendental empiricism.” This is cashed out in terms of two characteristics: (1) the abstract (e.g., “subject,” “object,” “State,” the “whole,” and so on) does not explain, but must itself be explained; and (2) the aim of philosophy is not to rediscover the eternal or the universal, but to find the singular conditions under which something new is produced.

and marx
>Also, in his Theses on Feuerbach (1845), in which the young Marx broke with Feuerbach's idealism, he writes that "the philosophers have only described the world, in various ways, the point is to change it," and his materialist approach allows for and empowers such change.

[Anonymous No.15058376]

>>15057960
I'd never heard materialism described as a method rather than a metaphysics before but that is quite interesting.

[Anonymous No.15058550]

>>15050345
His favorite philosopher is diogenes ...

[Anonymous No.15058551]

>>15057960
>empiricist
>believes in don juan
Hmmm

[Anonymous No.15058895]

>>15058550
Is smoking cigs the modern equivalent of jerking it in public?

[Anonymous No.15059013]

Is What Is Philosophy easier than Practical Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15059075]

>>15059013
WiP is great to start with

[Anonymous No.15059117]

>>15059013
whats the deal with this picture again. isn't there another one?

[Anonymous No.15059145]

>>15059117
It's me, a moment after ordering another book that's above my reading capabilities to put on the stack with AO, ATP and D&R

[Anonymous No.15059157]

>>15059145
Get LoS

[Anonymous No.15059405]

What does /lit/ think of Cinema 1 and 2?

What do I need to read before tackling them?

[Anonymous No.15059434]

>>15058551
>>believes in don juan
what does he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15059477]

>>15059434
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda

[Anonymous No.15059560]

>>15059405
Bump cause I want this answer.

[Anonymous No.15059885]

>>15059405
>>15059560
>>15059405
If possible, erase any possibility of Zizek-like interpretations of films. You will find Spinoza and Nietzsche as usual, even some Kafka but Cinemas also require some background in Bergson (specialy Matière et Mémoire;L'Évolution Créatrice; Durée et Simultanéité; and Essai sur les Données Immédiates de la Conscience) and Whitehead (Process and Reality). Rohmer and Chabrol's Hitchcock might be useful, as well might be getting a grasp on some cinema concepts and reading Eisenstein, Epstein and Pasolini
As far as I know, his classes are only in french and spanish. Those even explain some basic background concepts like Whitehead's superject or Simondon's individuation, so are worth even more if the end is reading Cinema I and II, but they're not mandatory

[Anonymous No.15060362]

>>15051808
http://xenopraxis.net/readings/jameson_valences.pdf

Based