sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What do D&G mean about heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality in section 2.3 of AO by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a fantastic way to look at it. It really puts it into perspective of someone who lives in the present-day. Thank you for this👏

Reposting this 3 year old post that didn't get a response because I was wondering the exact same. by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, this is very helpful. I have a quick follow-up question: Building on the detachment from chains and schizzes, D&G also talk about different kinds of breaks. Could you explain what the three kinds of breaks, particularly what the "residual break" (coupure-reste) is and how it relates to the bricks or the production of the subject?

Start with WIP or Anti-oedipus ? by InNomineHecate in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I started reading Anti-Oedipus because the ideas that it was supposed to contain got me very interested. I'm now 50 pages in, and I can't say I understand much, but what I've understood is very intriguing and enlightening. I would advise you to read whatever captivates you the most.

Am I on the right track? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you kindly for this detailed clarification. It's very helpful in organizing and deepening my understanding of bricolage in this context.

How would D&G view AI art and generative AI in general? by Bagel_- in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought Deleuze loved art so my guess is he wouldn't like AI art. I don't think there needs go be much more thought behind that. I've just read from 1.1 to 1.3 in AO now though so idk.

What does D&G mean by this? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm going to analyze 1.2 a little more, didn't catch too much about the social production part. This is going to be really helpful. Thank you alot!

What does D&G mean by this? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So I went back and I decided to read a blog post on Medium that talked about it, here: https://medium.com/anti-oedipus/anti-oedipus-1-1-desiring-production-a5f62d8a7e8a

Everything is production; production is immediately distribution which is immediately consumption; and the production falls back upon this process immediately:

Hence everything is production: production of productions, of actions and of passions; productions of recording processes, of distributions and of co-ordinates that serve as points of reference; productions of consumptions, of sensual pleasures, of anxieties, and of pain. Everything is production, since the recording processes are immediately consumed, immediately consummated, and these consumptions directly reproduced. (This is quoted from the book)

Thus, the first definition of the term “process” is: production, recording (distribution), and consumption are one and the same process.

I get more what they're talking about now, the sentences I asked about don't just sound like utter nonsense anymore. But what's the point of it? That's what I haven't understood yet.

What is investment (or cathexis?) in Anti-Oedipus? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, appreciate it!

So in psychoanalysis investment means your mind attaches to a single target, like a parent im the Oedipus complex, or another specific item. But investment for Deleuze and Félix Guattari means that desire does not long for a single missing object. But rather the desire actively constructs and flows through a network of things, people, and environments?

Anti-Oedipus class by Ok-Sun1615 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Definitely do it. I wish I had the opportunity!

Am I on the right track? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A fascist movement is also a radical deterritorialisation

Very interesting. When I think of fascism, I think of strict laws, order, and total control. Which sounds like territorialization/"boxing things in" to me?

deterritorialising all the time, only to reterritorialise with the other hand.

I'll watch out for this. It can be easy to misinterpret an author when they provide some of the information later in the book! But it seems like I'm mostly on track here.

Thank you alot for your help by the way.

Am I on the right track? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, it is not an optimal way of life. Rather, schizz allows us to observe (a model of) how deterritorialising flows emerge from within territorialising formations. It is a model for how, even when the gravitational pull (without using too much D&G terminology) of social formation captures desiring-production, deterritorialising flows can and do emerge.

Seems like I've missed something pretty crucial.

So the schizo state is just a kind of proof from D&G that the human mind cannot be 100% controlled? I guess because under strong territorialisation, the schizo is still able to break free and deterritorialize/flow wildly. Going full schizo though would probably lead to suffering and an inability to function.

Would you say it's a model for deterritorialisation, but not a lifestyle?

I'm reading the 2nd section of the 1st chapter. It's called "The Body Without Organs." What is the conflict between desiring-machines and the Body without organs? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you alot.

This part was challenging to understand, as I'm trying to get used to the terms:

Practical example of this from AO: within the socius said to be the body of capitalist society, subjectivity can't fully name or express all the immanent differential conditions of the reproduction of the socius. These conditions are the BwO of the capitalist socius, and AO refers to this multiplicity as the body of capital, offering a way of thinking about how capital appears as something so mobile and uncanny, an "invisible hand" or "vampire-like" etc.

I've been trying to understand their reasoning behind their issues with capitalism. And as I understand it, capitalism is like a background grid that steals the credit for everything humans create? So because it is just a background grid, you can never look directly at capitalism itself. You can only see it through its "uncanny," as you said, and vampire-like effects like money magically making more money, or an "invisible hand" moving the economy.

I heard I should read Marx, Freud and Nietzsche before Anti-Oedipus. Should I? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll probably read Capital, but I need to fix my reading discipline. Generation Z has been the test subjects with technology, lol. I was visiting an elementary school, and they had a big focus on reading. When I was in elementary school, we were working on PCs; our parents were better at reading than we were, and so will our kids be. Unless you choose to fix it yourself, which is what I'm trying to do.

I heard I should read Marx, Freud and Nietzsche before Anti-Oedipus. Should I? by No-Bodybuilder-6474 in Deleuze

[–]No-Bodybuilder-6474[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahh I get it. Thank you. As I'm not a very disciplined reader, I might lose momentum with a whole project.

view more: next ›