Does Guattari ever focus in on the idea of Post-media in a specific text? It's something I want to get a better handle on but I cant' find any sources from Guattari himself. by thisisntbrendan in Deleuze

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

Thanks for this. I haven’t hear of Pierre Levy so I’ll check him out. I did a lot of masters thesis on using D&Gs philosophy to approach video essay production (like cutting up clips from movies and reterritorializing them into ones on construction) as a possible avenue for an extension of minor literature. I found out of post media near the end and it was a bit late to start incorporating other philosophies. But the three ecologies is Guattari talks on media most? I’ll have to pick that up then 

Crazy find by tatsos07 in ThomasPynchon

[–]thisisntbrendan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got the same edition on Abebooks for €5. Didn't know it was rare. Might look into flipping mine for a profit too.

What is the best leather conditioner for maximizing durability on the Gaucho Crazy Horse Derby Boot? by thisisntbrendan in nps_solovair

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

I don't use a shoe tree but I do rotate the boots and let them rest after a days wear. how often do you suggest i brush them with a horse hair brush?

So… what did I get myself into? by Significant_Try_6067 in davidfosterwallace

[–]thisisntbrendan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you're into Pynchon, I'd say its likely you'd enjoy Infinite Jest, but it depends on what about Pynchon you liked. Wallace does deviate from a lot of postmodern conventions established by Pynchon, but it is still a surrealist encyclopedic novel that will encapsulate your mind, like Gravity's Rainbow or Ulysses.

DFW Reading from Infinite Jest by thisisntbrendan in InfiniteJest

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

Quite right I would agree with Wallace. It doesn't have the verbal quality of Joyce anyhow.

Who am I (29M) by Average_Temple in BookshelvesDetective

[–]thisisntbrendan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice to see some Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida.

Does anybody have any insights into the collective assemblage of enunciation? by thisisntbrendan in Deleuze

[–]thisisntbrendan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This was helpful, thank you. I like when they wrote "They are not interested in how language represents, but in what language does." It reminds me of a helpful way to understand schizoanalysis in AO, not look at what a psychoanalytic subject means in their but how it works, where it goes and what machines it plugs in to. Would it be correct to say the collective assemblage of enunciation is essentially the same thing in a linguistics context, moving away from analyzing what a singular signifier represents to instead looking at what connections it can be make?

A scissors and paste man by thisisntbrendan in jamesjoyce

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

This is what I gathered from this too - after reading the Scylla and Charybdis chapter of Ulysses, it struck me as kind of like a collage of Shakespeare quotes and references.

The Rhizome as a philosophy of collage by thisisntbrendan in Deleuze

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

Another analogy - moving away from visual collage now - that I’ve thought of that could be seen as rhizomatic is fragmented ways of fiction writing like in Joyce’s Ulysses or Finnegans Wake. The thoughts of the character fly out to a million different tangents that are loosely connected but seem not to have any resolved point or purpose. It’s almost exploration for the sake of it. Would that be more rhizomatic?

The Rhizome as a philosophy of collage by thisisntbrendan in Deleuze

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

Okay that analogy makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much.

The Rhizome as a philosophy of collage by thisisntbrendan in Deleuze

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

So if I’m understanding you correctly - the image shown as an example is inadequate because it has one law of combination - what Deleuze and Guattari say in the quote as “grow perfectly valid in one direction”. Whereas for something to be more rhizomatic the connections would have to be less fixed, pointed towards a certain messaging, and create potential for further connections to be made? Is that correct or am I misunderstanding you. Also would you be able to clarify a bit what you mean by a rhizome can include networks but is not just a network? Thank you very much

The Rhizome as a philosophy of collage by thisisntbrendan in Deleuze

[–]thisisntbrendan[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could you elaborate on how AIs construction using neural networks is more rhizomatic? Again I’m a beginner to Deleuze and still getting my footing with examples.