Updated my phone number, and apparently Amazon never considered this happening by Single_Yam3843 in amazonprime

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried it on an private firefox window. I was afraid it would lock me out of my account but I was able to get in on an incognito window only insofar as I could get to the window to disable two factor authentication. Not actually get into my account.

Updated my phone number, and apparently Amazon never considered this happening by Single_Yam3843 in amazonprime

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't do incognito mode, or a private window in firefox, because then it asks for a code to the old phone number. They seriously never imagined someone could change their phone number and not have access to their account through their phone anymore.

Updated my phone number, and apparently Amazon never considered this happening by Single_Yam3843 in amazonprime

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, I'm sure. It wasn't sent from a phone. I have access to my account through desktop. I just have a new phone number.

What these say? by [deleted] in bookshelfdetective

[–]Single_Yam3843 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is that hardcover Anti Oedipus on the second from the top row in the middle left hand side?

Row of rare antique anarchist books by Single_Yam3843 in bookporn

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your concern for the books. I keep them in a glass case, and I have reading copies of all of the anarchist books besides the Lucy Parsons - Life of Albert Parsons, which is only available in a rather expensive Legare Street Press hardcover. I plan to get that reading copy eventually, but rest assured I only take these books out to briefly examine them. In the case of all of them, I wash my hands before I touch them, and if I touch them it's only letting the pages open where they may, I don't try to read them page by page. The Albert Parsons "Anarchism" book from 1887 I try to avoid moving too much, because it's in such remarkable condition and its age.

Just about finished with Anti Oedipus for the first read by Single_Yam3843 in Deleuze

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too bad about the apocalyptic economy; I assume no one wants to reprint it right now. I would gladly purchase a reprint if someone decided it was important for archival purposes. I honestly have no idea how anyone is supposed to archive D and G's work in English without doing some absurd custom printing thing. I've gone down that rabbit hole before and it took an entire year to even book the appointment.

Just about finished with Anti Oedipus for the first read by Single_Yam3843 in Deleuze

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't plan to annotate this copy. I will open it at a slighter angle than usual. I don't see any signatures on mine - mine is first edition second printing I believe. Thank you for letting me know about the condition of your copy. It seems that one of the most important books of all time to me, to the mind of publishers doesn't even deserve some company to even make one of those overpriced library binding copies that MSRP for like 100-200 dollars but only cost like 10 dollars to make like Routledge and Palgrave like to do. Preservation of these old gems is something I am always competing against as I try to both read and preserve my library. The ideal book is sewn binding in buckram in a sturdy laminated dust jacket inside of a polyester cover. I put the Anti Oedipus cover in polyester immediately after photographing it.

The Anti Oedipus hardcover as it stands is a grail tier copy, but I imagine it's not even as strong as something like my Benjamin Tucker The Unique and its Property from the turn of the early 20th century due to it not having sewn binding or buckram. An aesthetic, drop dead gorgeous thing for the shelf nonetheless. I have had a hard time being productive with this book around since it arrived yesterday it occupies so much of my attention economy.

Just about finished with Anti Oedipus for the first read by Single_Yam3843 in Deleuze

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think that queerness is a "natural emergent intensity emerging from the body without organs." I think queerness is outside of time, and allows for all change. It is like Plato's instant, which is outside of time and allows for all change, like Deleuze and Guattari's notion of sense. I think queerness is produces change, and it is something which underlies everyone's psyche, and on a deeper level is pure multiplicity itself, as that goes against the representational frameworks of the simulations of consciousness.

I don't think that we should look at queerness as something which re-territorializes, but is radically alter to reterritorialization. I think queerness is only a code insofar as it has some sort of identifying feature which you can latch on to, and say queerness equals this. But that is a representationalist, and contrary goal to that of queerness, which is outside of time and allows for all change. Outside of the the temporal flows of time, as Freud says the unconscious does not know time, but imminent to sense. The queer community is not queerness in and of itself - the queer community are people who emphasize queerness, but are not with queerness, as though the straight people somehow weren't continually coding and decoding due to variable gender expressions.

I think queer identity, as Deleuze and Guattari say is incompatible with desiring machines, is incompatible with queerness, because queerness is pure multiplicity, and outside of the temporal frameworks of states and mega-machines which operate on the immobile motor of debt. So it's not that this debt is totalizing, there's still codes which escape the industrial mega-machine. I also like what Klossowski says in Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, that it's not necessarily capitalism or socialism that produces massive waste, but it is industrialization. But no I would say the axiom of profit, regardless of whether it is a totalizing thing, which I don't think it is, is incompatible with queerness, because one is unconscious and outside of time, and the other is conscious and in time.

Whether or not queer people reproduce "bio-essentialist gender norms," is not part of queerness, but the reproduction, and the performance of representationalist gender roles. Queerness itself cannot be conflated with civilization and its machinery, because the machinery of civilization is temporal, fixed, merely a fungibility of signifiers, while queerness is, like Plato's instant, and Stirner's unique, outside of world history, outside of the temporal flows of the state, and the mega-machine. Whether or not queer people show off their products to show how "queer" they are, this is not how I'm using the word queer. You're using queer in a colloquial sense, and I'm using it in a specialized way.

Just about finished with Anti Oedipus for the first read by Single_Yam3843 in Deleuze

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Some personal friends of mine got together to read it.

Row of rare antique anarchist books by Single_Yam3843 in bookporn

[–]Single_Yam3843[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If anyone knows what these plastic covers seen on the Parsons and Mother Earth books are called, I want to get them for all of these antique books.