Deleuzeheads of Yea Forums: Can some of you tell me what is it that you find the most valueable of this man's...

Also, it's very important to read Proust and Kafka. They're huge influences and really well describe ruptures of time, places where novelty arises in the destruction of an old preconception of mode of becoming. Like a particle accelerator inside a person

>novelty arises in the destruction of an old preconception of mode of becoming. Like a particle accelerator inside a person

Care to explain more? I haven't read Deleuze, but have Proust and Kafka extensively

degenerate

He has a book about Proust and wrote a book about Kafka with Guattari. Deleuze took the concept of virtuality from Proust (who probably took the initial version from Bergson since they knew each other irl) among many other concepts. He also wrote a lot about Kafka (especially his take on law and his humor) on his own before writing the book with Guattari and he has some very interesting takes on what Kafka was getting at (he rejects the symbolic and Oedipal interpretations of Kafka). Keep in mind though that Deleuze intentionally creates a new version of the author he's writing about, he's not trying to be faithful to the author.

Attached: 1535569020863.jpg (1670x1113, 584K)

Why is there so much material for Delueze?

>He's very applicable in a variety of ways. The most productive philosophical sysyem to have been conceived so far.
Can you tell me more about this?

Thank you user, very cool

He's really fashionable these days. He got translated later compared to Foucault and Derrida so they had a greater influence on American academia, but these days people got bored of them after so many decades so they aren't as visible on Youtube as Deleuze is. Also Deleuze was more of a materialist while many post-structuralists were more idealistic in their concerns (with society, signifiers, power relations etc.) so it's a novelty for most working on that era.

Attached: cats.jpg (1000x520, 117K)

In Metamorphosis, the main character wakes up as a beetle. The entire short story describes how becoming a beetle fundamentally changes your perception of things. His old habits & routine were completely destroyed, it was a rupture of a personal identity. But out of this shattering, new ways are opened. If you are familiar with Tarot, a rupturing of time is a bit like the cards Hanged Man and XIII.
Deleuze's becomings are modeled largely like Gregor's transformation. One can compare Gregor with the becoming-recluse of hikkokomori. Now one might ask "hikkokomori aren't ACTUALLY beetles though", but for Deleuze this is a badly proposed question. There is no stable identity, no actual identity, there are only how the flows are interpreted, repressed, transformed ect. Once one understands that, one can go ahead and consciously cultivate new alliances to choose becomings that one desires and that are useful to them. Think how becoming-beetle might be useful to a hikkokomori. Deleuze also warns us to stay on the edges of the pack of becoming. A hikkokomori has become-beetle so deeply that finding a way out is very difficult. The center is too intense, the self will not survive (Remember card XIII as not an end but a transformation).

Why is it that I'm interested in Deleuze and Foucault but I just don't care about Derrida?
I tried reading gramatology sometime ago and it was like "jesus christ who cares"

This seems very practical, in a good way.

so what has this got to do anything with Marx?

A core tenant of Deleuze's rhizome-tool is that every point is connectible to every other point. This means that a connection cannot be "made in error". Ideas are not like mini and micro USB's that you have to charge your phone with the one that fits. Since everything plugs into everything, no idea is excluded as wrong. (my reading of) Deleuze thinks of ideas like tools, and he gives us the widest variety of tools. If I need a tool for a specific task, I can assemble my own with no dogma to restrict me in what exactly I need to assemble. This includes tools that have been pre-assembled, the old worn out paths can still be treaded when they are deemed to be the best tools for the job at hand.

Imagine wasting all of your time reading this retarded frog pervert so that you can vote for ocasio cortez and starve or get shot when the economy crashes. Thank god most of you retards flock to metropolitan areas. I hope you realize no one is getting out of those cities alive when the trucks stop coming. We literally aren't going to let you, even it you make it to the freeway. The bridges will be blown and the cars will be miles-long roadblocks.

Precisely! This sort of "mind so open it falls out" has extensive risks though. Memetic hazards are very real. Your brain is prime real estate and constantly under attack by all sorts of propaganda (advertisements, politics, culture ect ect.)

this post lowered my IQ three points but it was still pretty funny

good job user, ty for giving us good content

reading Sloterdijk rn, good stuff

have a good day and keep with those multiplicities!!

people are already killing each other now because its preferable to one more minute in this shithole making $15/hr maybe with no future. All of you effete marxist retards are going to literally end the world with your welfare and immigration. The next crash is going to be civil war. There won't be another occupy wallstreet.

The most popular acolyte of Deleuze right now is an exercise to see how far you can take right wing fascism. I'm unsure why you think that Deleuze's system is coded as blue tribe. Sure he was blue-adjacent (yes I'm wrong but I'm doing polemics don't at me), but his tools are applicable in a wide variety of ways

80% of people in Europe and the U.S. live in cities. The world is evolving quickly away from your stagnation, Grandpa, such that your only hope is to wish for doomsday.

>If you follow some of the ideological discourse from people who are really influential in Russia, it’s postmodernism and Operation Mindfuck in the service of amoral raw power and political strategy. I know secondhand that there are people in Putin’s mindtrust who have read their Leary and their Discordianism and so forth and they are following a chaos strategy for disrupting the American consensus… or however you want to phrase the collapsing neoliberal order. And not collapsing towards a good end.
medium.com/@StealThisSingul/operation-mindfuck-was-too-successful-r-u-sirius-interviewed-by-douglas-rushkoff-6607e4edc522

One of the things I found important in D&G's book on Kafka was the fact that there (and only there afaik) they explicitly state that becomings have their limits. Namely, they discuss becoming-animal which is not imitating an animal, but rather connecting to an intensity, a self-sufficient and self-contained "plateau", like when Nietzsche/Bertrand Russell/Cioran stated that animals do not suffer from boredom or fear for the future but rather are perfectly content with the present and that we can learn from this useful ignorance, putting it to work in ourselves, without being ignorant or dumb. In that text they say that it can be a "line of flight" in that it helps you escape certain repressive situation, but it should not be seen as the end of the story, there are many becomings and many intensities which we must understand and make use of.

Their critics often missed the point of this and said that in fact not everything can connect to everything else at least physically (there are some ontological limits), but the main point there was rather that we have to be creative with what we take from each author and find out what works for us rather than simply reject ideas which we do not agree with. It's also according to D&G the logic of the unconscious which puts together all kinds of strange unintuitive things and that's what makes dreams appear so strange to our waking life.

Attached: 1545776350795.jpg (250x352, 20K)

>collapsing
>not good

i cant wait for those cool meltdowns

going rave weekly to be read

>nothing bad has ever happened to people and it never will!
That's nice user. You'll remember this exchange. I would say good luck but I genuinely want you to suffer the untold horrors you're bringing yourself.

it has been always a matter of strategy

haaretz.com/1.4990742

hard work!!! mental gymnastics

Is liberals the ones who are doing those thing, no "marxists", you retard

Well, the vital animating principle (desire) is deeply ingrained with Marx. The becomings described are produced by machines. You are a system of machines that plug into each other, note that the thing I just referred to as "you" is just another flow being produced. Think of it as a wall that is built between you and the rest of the world to keep the system operational. To deoedepalize yourself is a type of Marxist revolution, where the flows are unrestricted and reclaimed from the Big Gay (aka the state aka the despot ect ect). There's a big long 500 page tirade detailing this, it's called Anti-Oedepus

As the other user pointed out, the whole accelerationist trend was very popular with Deleuze's followers despite D&G writing very little about it explicitly. In fact often American leftists presented their ideas as what will keep the society from collapse or communism so maybe there is something to it. Besides, everyone keeps saying that a new economic crisis is on the way so you'll get to blame it on the progressives once they're in power regardless of whether it's their doing or not.

Attached: 16730473_1305293612870255_5426990167354702955_n.jpg (500x696, 66K)

Do marxists not vote for people who will champion these policies? I understand the distinction between liberals and marxists, and I also undestand that republicans aren't some saving grace. I just happen to know a lot of the people I'll reach in this thread are egalitarian faggots and in my opinion if they think the world they're creating is going to be comfortable for the next 40-50 years they're alive and that horrible economic conditions aren't coming and those in cities will suffer they are retarded. Every summer in america brings new riots and more disrest. In the next couple of years we will probably begin to see more things literally catch on fire.

Can't outrun entropy, user. Especially for societies. We are not exceptional

Only a retard who thinks he is a marxist but actually a (surprise surprise!) liberal would unironically vote. A marxist isn't an democrat, at least in the institutional sense.

Tools are value neutral (they are not, but OK let's sidestep this for now I'm doing rethoric and what I actually believe would be an even stronger case for Deleuze not being upset, but I'm on a phone and it's frustrating to make long-form arguments.) I don't frankly care if the military is trying to decentralize their soldiers. In fact, I would encourage them on. The article claiming that Deleuze would be upset is retarded. Deeper into the process ect.

I'm unironically interested in the fact that progressives have Russia Today as one of their main platforms, but I don't find it convincing that some very popular social democratic measures which are pretty common in Europe will lead to some great collapse.

I can kind of agree with the immigration part, there are leftist arguments against illegal immigration (that it undercuts and undervalues legal work and leads to exploitation). And welfare is a compromise of the current world order, ideally you'd want people working for a living wage so that state intervention of this kind is not needed. But a lot of the stuff that has happened in the US and is happening in Europe today related to how capital shifts globally leaving behind unemployed desperate people is because of corporations and kissing their ass further hoping they'll come to their senses is humiliating to say the least.

Attached: a thousand shitposts.jpg (642x454, 54K)

If i HAD to put Deleuze into a school, it would not be Marxist but Dionysian-Nietzchean.

The world is screwed either way because of climate change (man made or not) and because the economic and cultural problems are already there to begin with. I'm not saying the progressives will be able to save the day, but I don't really see anyone else truly trying. Hell, maybe they'll screw up so badly that it will result in fascism.

Attached: 18010170_780225322140043_4883012697181687337_n.png (500x415, 257K)

>That whole "pre-individual" thing about differentiation where every thought carries a certain weight and you can no longer allow yourself "half-wills" (I'll do this one last time, starting tomorrow I'll do things differently, etc.) that get people addicted to quitting so to speak (probably the most common form of neurosis).
What? Can you help me understand what you are trying to say here?

I'm all for that. There's a Twitter writer with a website called xenocities or something who talks about this in a more Land-insane way. If anyone wants please throw a (you) and I'll dig up a link. Anyways this shit is great, makes for fun headlines. I live in the Baltics, so I can assure you that realpolitik wise I should be horrified, but this shit is absolutely fascinating. If I had a political statement, it would be a cry to end the long 20th century, and Russia's cornered mongoose cybernetic cold (lukewarm?) war could be a start

>I can kind of agree with the immigration part
Well the welfare part is also a huge portion of it because our immigration and social services are pretty indiscriminate right now. But hey don't worry, even Trump says he wants the most record breaking numbers of LEGAL chinks and poo in loos so we can gut our engineering and programmer wage costs here. Like I said, I recognize nobody is coming to help us. I'm encouraging people to leave the city and invest in lead before they can't and wish they had. Remember to put a 4 of clubs card in your wallet when it goes down so we'll know if we found or kill our own.

>not everything can connect
Examples?

That's a part of Nietzsche's eternal return in that if you only have this immanence to look forward to for all eternity (like a kind of reincarnation free from any judgment or karma, purely physical and uncaring) then your attitude towards making excuses would change since you're here forever literally so you'll appreciate the weight of your every action.

Of course this can be understood without the Nietzschean metaphysical aspect as well since for Deleuze "reason" is always stuck in assemblages, no thought is isolated as just a string of signifiers. Assemblages are basically put together and consolidated (through repetition) connections between strings of words, images, spaces (room, outdoors, workplace etc.), times (morning right after waking up, evening fatigue, quitting time at work), gestures, postures, feelings, past experiences, etc. So basically these contingent connections are at odds with one another and strive to actualize themselves even if this means blocking others. It's basically Nietzsche's will to power and perspectivism with a few more details (rhizomes for D&G were inspired by neuronal connections). So if you can learn to see repetition of words in your heads as not being genuine thinking (which takes place rather when you're struggling with something external or your own habits for example), you'll see each thought (and the assemblage it is part of) as carrying more weight and being a material part of you that you must consolidate or block. Literally meaning is material, like when you're in a good mood and even something you'd otherwise hate is more pleasant or when music feels more pleasant when you're drunk (even if it's the kind of music you hate when sober) or when the entire world feels meaningless for no apparent reason or because a contingent almost trivial reason got connected to a "metaphysical" worldview like with people who kill themselves over almost nothing. Sorry if I'm rambling, hopefully you got the point.

Attached: 27973312_331453537374321_8806602501403798155_n.jpg (868x960, 91K)

I know this isn't the most interesting example, but basically a square circle. Although the idiom exists obviously and you can feel like you dreamt of one (like when Dante describes waking up from a dream with a very vivid feeling yet unable to recall the details), but you cannot afaik construct one on paper or in real life.

Attached: and you wonder why he's so difficult to understand.jpg (400x300, 14K)

>Well the welfare part is also a huge portion of it because our immigration and social services are pretty indiscriminate right now

Fair enough, but that's still to a large extent to the benefit of the elite and not really Marxist. Back in the day in France being called a Social Democrat was an insult among the left, which is what happened to D&G as well.

Attached: 17952781_1370912576308358_5133531239231343694_n.jpg (576x378, 28K)

>4 of clubs
Interesting. Google is telling me that it signifies a bad omen. Is there something else to it?

>"jesus christ who cares"

Kek. That does describe a lot of philosophy, but Derrida did have some interesting ideas if you have the patience to go through all the boring stuff. In fact a lot of the stuff Derrida said can be found in a very similar form in other authors (including Deleuze), although this is probably true for most French philosophers of the time. They were all obsessed with excess in some sense or another for example.

Attached: 13680558_1613539638976090_4095982779136291606_n.png (826x436, 521K)

Ah, so we are dealing with contradiction. This is a particular interest of mine, so I'll give you my two cents. You absolutely CAN draw a square circle.
>but that's not a circle user!
Here's the thing. One of the most important lessons of Deleuze is when you are faced with an unsolvable problem, you can change frameworks to dissolve that problem as if it never existed. Is it cheating? Absolutely, but there is no such thing as cheating :' )
Now clearly there are more difficult things than squaring a circle which is relatively trivial. Things that Land proposes, Gnon & other all powerful demons ect. I actively can't give you an answer or line of attack against those, but I have faith that we can overcome those. Laws of nature are not laws, they are merely habits. And if nature is unjust, change nature. All nice taglines, but very telling of how a Deleuzean deals with contradiction.

Attached: pi-4.png (574x574, 49K)

Yes, Yea Forums. I guess you newfags or people who never used old Yea Forums or /arcanine/ (/r9k/ before the fall), or /k/ would never know. When the apocalypse happens all anons should put a 4 of Clubs in their wallets as a symbol for each other.

Attached: OKEjdMm_d.jpg (640x6389, 482K)

I think I kind of get but it I still don't undestand everything after the repetition thing

Good poast,affects are ftw. Rainy days is my waifu ect

Does he have materials with Guattari that are not C&S? How are Guattari's solo work? Has Deleuze talked about aesthetics anywhere?

What Deleuze sees as thinking is active, creating novelty, destructive to the old paths, blitzing through new ones. When you say "tomorrow" habitually, you are not thinking. It is a motoric function like breathing.

pic related cancerous

Fair enough, I get your point. And that squaring the circle pic works quite well with Deleuze's own take on space and infinity, like those images of fractals and the sponge thing in A Thousand Plateaus.

I guess what I was trying to get at was that it's easier to imagine something like a fire hound in fiction than it is to create one in real life (setting a poor dog on fire doesn't count).

Attached: Hell_hound_art.jpg (550x500, 83K)

>this response to that pic
You have to go back

Fair enough, I can't notice the obvious these days, I was already thinking of some alt-right symbols trying to find the connection when in fact it was literally right in front of me. Also I haven't really thought of Yea Forums or anonymous as an entity in ages, these days it seems like every possible group is hijacking this site.

Well it counts (no it doesn't, it's an ugly connection that I reject, I'm quite fond of dogs). And of course some things are so difficult that making the connection isn't worth it practically. I think the notion of every point being connectible holds.

The Great Game is very inclusive nowadays - everyone can play! Isn't that exciting?

le anonymoose CIA hacker was never us. That probably is what destroyed green-user, along with the destruction of old /r9k/ and /new/ being around the same time. If any other oldfags who haven't thrown their laptop down the stairs have clubhouse images from a decade ago I would probably shed a tear in nostalgic appreciation

Attached: 12407_1184083496838_1670772903_395233_158850_n_1_.jpg (478x720, 38K)

>Does he have materials with Guattari that are not C&S?
Off the top of my head, they wrote the Kafka book in between Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, they did some interviews together (Deleuze interviews are always worth reading, they explain a lot) and they finished their collab with What is Philosophy? which is also worth reading, although rumor has it that only Deleuze wrote it and Guattari just signed it.

>How are Guattari's solo work?
Even more bonkers than the one with Deleuze (who was supposedly the stabilizing force), but if you're used to the style they're readable. Some of Guattari's concepts like transversality are just as good as Deleuze's contributions.

>Has Deleuze talked about aesthetics anywhere?

Implicitly all the time since Nietzsche was all about the philosopher-artist and turning life into a work of art. Explicitly, he wrote a book about Francis Bacon (the painter) and two books on Cinema. He also talks about music constantly. Not sure about aesthetics as a discipline, but there are many connections to be made like with D's theory of encounters which he talks about in the Abecedaire among other places.

Attached: 26055688_309160796270262_7321194838972127730_n.jpg (956x960, 108K)

Bataille (i've heard) connects Nietzsche and post structuralism. Might want to give him a read first.

Fuck. I was hoping more of an explicit reference to aesthetics. I guess I have to go read What is Philosophy? now, that'll at least provide me with some thoughts on art.
I thought his books on cinema were "" just"" Bergsonian metaphysic-rambles.

Well the book on Francis Bacon discusses art history quite a bit so maybe that's the place to search for a Deleuzian theory of aesthetics.

Also holy fuck that image do you have more Deloogie mems Mister?

I was referring to the old anti-scientology style anonymous. It got stranger and stranger from there on.

Fuck me when will I get off this wild ride of delooz. I just want a cute postgrad gf to summarize Deleuze to me while adding her own stylistic flourishes and connecting those ideas to intimate events that we shared together. She also needs to have dark hair, maybe redhead. Blondes suck ass.

chanology has always been the benchmark for whether or not you are a newfag. If you never heard of Yea Forums or used Yea Forums before the guy fawkes mask was on the news you are cancer and a newfag and always will be.

Attached: Yellowvan.gif (240x184, 352K)

The van did nothing wrong :((((( desu

Attached: tumblr_ovdm62IzzR1vs69vco1_500.jpg (500x260, 52K)

Also, for what it's worth, I got most of these from google images, in case the filenames give people the impression that I actually browse tumblr or other such sites.

Attached: golls doloz and folox gottoro.jpg (1242x1133, 73K)

Deleuze isn't too keen on analyzing art in terms of "aesthetics" because for him this is a framework locked into the Kantian notion of a disinterested observer that is ontologically separated from the art object. (He mentions this in his book on Kant and Difference and Repetition.) Rather, he would take so wide a view as to say that any repetition is aesthetic. For instance, he mentions in the Abecedaire and the "Refrain" chapter of ATP that an animal's creation of a territory involves a repetition of signs that form a very primitive art. A bird has a specific color, song, gesture, and locations that it frequents--all this taken together forms a basic aesthetic that has many functions, such as attracting mates and marking a territory that other species are expected not to intrude on. On the metaphysical level, a species like a goldfinch is an expression of a specific intensity that is unique to the conditions under which it is possible. We can locate the biological/geographical factors that make the goldfinch possible, but the actual existence of the bird itself is an irreducible expression of these factors. The bird's "art"--its colors, song, gestures, etc.--allow us to intuit the unique metaphysical intensity its existence expresses.

When we think of human arts, the situation is complicated while the metaphysical expression is the same. When we consider an artwork like Turner's "Slave Ship," there is a wide multiplicity of milieus that make it possible. Physically, only certain pigments and painting techniques were possible then. Historically, we see the shift from realism to impressionism. Politically, we an Englishman, his country's fortunes based on shipping and imperial conquest, railing against the moral disaster of the slave trade. On the personal level, we see an artist severely skeptical of his contemporaries and wanting to shock his complacent milieu. None of these factors can be separated from the other. "The Slave Ship" is a masterpiece because it is the convergence of factors that may have seemed disparate at first. It grabs your attention with a "Thisness" (haeccity) that could not be communicated any other way. Thinking about this more in terms of the history of philosophy, Deleuze adores Leibniz, specifically the notion (in L's conception of monad) that everything is a "point of view" below all its other attributes. The great work of art is one that is so unique (as in, it couldn't exist in any other form) that it implicates as much of the world as possible in its expression. The greater the work of art, the more "machines" (in the ontological language of C&S) it activates.

Well, this pretty much my research-so-far, although I appreciate the detail. I was hoping he would have more stuff to say, but I guess giving you the tools and then telling you to put in the legwork is very late-Deleuze. I would summarize your post thus - as the notion of geneology is replaced with epidemic, so is aesthetics replaced with one's style.

Great post and spot on. Reminded me of this:

youtube.com/watch?v=6D5CuXW6bT8

Attached: 17457402_1441473079220875_4017246284892773668_n.jpg (640x595, 42K)

Have you read What is Philosophy? The notion of percept is a little bit different than what is commonly thought of as Deleuze's "aesthetics." At heart, Deleuze is a traditional aesthetician in that he finds in great works an element of the eternal, only for him, the eternal is filtered through a permanently becoming Idea/Event/plane of immanence/machine/rhizome/etc

Have not. It's in The Pile. Am excited

nice, you're in for a treat and what might be the most straightforward answer to your question of aesthetics.

>Percepts are no longer perceptions; they are independent of a state of those who experience them. Affects are no longer feelings or affections; they go beyond the strength of those who undergo them. Sensations, percepts, and affects are /beings/ whose validity lies in themselves and exceeds any lived. They could be said to exist in the absence of man because man, as he is caught in stone, on the canvas, or by words, is himself a compound of percepts and affects. The work of art is a being of sensation and nothing else: it exists in itself.

What about paranoia?

what about it?

Oh, you know! You're one of them!

hey man, you walked into my house and laid down on my couch.

Will reading Deleuze turn me into a Sasha Grey/Vice News editor type roastie or is that just a meme?

SAMEFAGGIN

you can alter someone, user

look at this guy
it's cool man, have yourself a sit down
tell us about your day

seems like nonsense to me desu and i actually had a genuine interest in him.

I'm unsure what you mean by that comment

i mean i understand the words but they don't make any sense when connected together. i have genuine interest in learning what deleuze was about but i can't shake the feeling it's just a case of the emperor's new clothes where a bunch of people pretend to see something that just isn't there. or david lynch fags that pretend to see meaning where there actually isn't any.
>inb4 brainlet

First of all, you can't inb4 your posts. Second of all, I can understand his posts if I put some effort in, and if you scroll up a bit, some of my posts are far more lucid (I hope). Third - Deleuze is a product of his time, and he is difficult to understand. Put effort in and I swear there's a wealth of brilliance waiting. Fourthly - self doubt, embarrassment, feeling like a pseud, ie neuroses are things to be conquered. You've seen the Nick Land croaking stage pasta, I'm sure. Bold and brash, user, not belongs in trash. These neuroses are your brain stopping you from experiencing the trauma of actually thinking

>neuroses
do you know what neurosis means?

Check out this paranoiac.

I don't know, feel free to enlighten me

I was mostly brainstorming and writing down some concepts that I liked, I didn't explain much in that particular post. Some of it I explained in other posts itt. If you have any questions about what I said I'd be glad to answer.

Post-structuralists require a lot of effort in general to understand (and quite a bit of general knowledge about the history of philosophy and the historical context), but imo there is a payoff to all of the famous ones (although not in equal measure).

Attached: 29542774_570578566640776_670955000718104205_n.png (668x515, 332K)

not necessary, just look it up.

DSM and state propaganda. Powerful agents for the uninitiniated. But we are initiated, aren't we, Bruce

Anyway shitposting aside I really am unsure what your complaint is. A'la "Gaddis isn't writing about narcissists because they don't fit DSM"? Come on man, I would much rather have ANY other conversation than "define your terms"

>shitposting aside
>continues shitposting
you sound unhinged nigger, talking to you is like accidently walking into some dadiast circle jerk and asking for directions.

Freud was state propaganda? It's all starting to make sense now...

Attached: that's a big book.jpg (1280x715, 118K)

>dadiast
dadaist

Understandably it is rendered as a totalizing épistémologie, giving it résonances with fascism and whatnot, but could it not be considered as emulating a rhizomatic method? Aside from its overdeterminations, the paranoiac traces lines of flight, encodes flows and decodes them similarly to the schizophrenic. Why would Deleuze not reserve some redeeming characteristics to the paranoiac method? Maybe I need clarification on how he caters to the differences between paranoia and schizophrenia.

I am sincerely baffled in what way that was a shitpost. Am I too attached to polemics? Yes, but only because I find that polemics often have a lot of philosophical content in them. Phosophy is supposed to be joyous. It's supposed to be something one loves. Nietzche understood this, but I'd champion someone over Nietzche in that regard, and thay someone would be Kierkegaard. I'm unsure how familiar you are with his work, but the man laid the bases for psychoanalysis and diagnosed modernity among other things with, lets riff off of you a little bit, with pure shitposting. The man just couldn't stop shitposting! I literally have to stop myself before I go off the deep end and start greentexting about him dumping Regina, but dismissing people because they seem to be enjoying themselves kinda limits your options, doesn't it.

Paranoia is a type of neurosis, and neurosis is approaching the oedepal wall, and then going "oh fuck" and reterritorializing yourself, but now with the full acceptance of the father ect. This results in patterns such as the paranoic "father is watching me all the time, he's looking to castrate me". Anti-Oedepus has a more detailed explanation, I can look up the chapters if you want.
From what I understand, he does not trace lines of flight, quite the contrary. He accepts his role in the triangle and then becomes it as fully and deeply as possible. I haven't thought about it much, but if you have thoughts you want to share, shoot

What about pronoia?
>Pronoia is a neologism coined to describe a state of mind that is the opposite of paranoia. Whereas a person suffering from paranoia feels that persons or entities are conspiring against them, a person experiencing pronoia feels that the world around them conspires to do them good. In 1993 the writer and Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow defined pronoia as "the suspicion the Universe is a conspiracy on your behalf"
Healthy pronoia is realizing that that everything you need to thrive exists. This doesn't mean that you will necessarily find it, but realizing its potentiality is necessary for finding it. In a greater sense it is analogous to the anthropic principle, that the universe itself must be suitable for life for it to exist. In a personal sense it is relating to the categorical other as an equal having an organic nature just as you do, not as a God or a demon.

To add one more reply - no, I do NOT want to talk like everyone else. Why would I want to talk like everyone else?

Shit, the alphabet is state propaganda. It's a fucking retrocausal psyop to stratify recording information to reduce the costs of Indian Tech Support training. I have footage, man

Very good and refreshing post. I wish I had anything interesting to contribute to this, but I have never even heard of this before.

yes, Deleuze agrees that paranoia is rhizomatic to an extent--its ability to find its paranoid fantasies everywhere shows how it operates as a BwO (i.e. rhizomatically). However, this line of flight is one that leads back to the regime it initially escapes. Paranoia is created by the schizophrenic process, but only when the schizo process regresses to encode itself on the body of the despot. Instead of a schizophrenic becoming that abolishes all identity, the paranoiac find his own identity as a sufferer of a grand conspiracy everywhere he turns. Whereas the schizophrenic deterritorializes the codes around him to destroy his identities, the paranoiac only deterritorializes the codes around him so he can re-code them into the paranoid fantasy in which his identity as a sufferer always remains the same. D&G really abhor paranoia, since it is the worst of both worlds between the dangers of fascism and schizophrenia. While schizophrenia can be liberating, its danger is that it will territorialize you into a worse situation than before, which is what happens in paranoia. Instead of following a line of flight, you suffer all the dangers of schizophrenia only to end up in a fascistic servitude to a symbolic order that demands your complete devotion.

They talk a lot about this in chapter 4 of Anti-Oedipus. The diagram here shows what you end up with when the schizophrenic process reencodes itself at various stage of the development of the socius.

Attached: anti-oedipus-diagram.gif (907x679, 9K)

Sounds like the concept of freedom in Spinoza--through reason, you become so aware of the eternal essences of things that everything becomes something you can use to increase your power.

why haven't you increased your power user?

I kekked audibly. Great description.
>oh fuck
>reterritorialize yourself
I agree with that description. The essentialist causalities of paranoiac knowledge/hermeneutics seems to be restricted by and dependent upon the Oedipal triangle. Yet, I’m trying to think of non-Oedipal paranoia (if that’s even possible in Deleuzian terms). The structure of paranoiac epistemology is what interests me as a rigorous activity of seeking objects/subjects out, building connections that are themselves pleasurable, but not essential in a totalizing sense. I think maintaining a distinction between paranoia and schizophrenia is important, but I also want to see capacity for the deterritorial potentialities in similarities between the two.
And yes, I’d definitely like those chapters. I finished Anti-Oedipus not too long ago. I just haven’t found anyone to discuss it with yet.

human bondage :(

A buddy of mine told me about it a couple days ago. It’s interesting for sure, but I’m left to ponder what that would be like. What’s interesting about paranoia is that everyone has experienced it to a certain degree. Pronoia seems like a relentless optimism that is equally as narcissistic as paranoia, but less concerned about self protection/preservation, which almost seems suicidal. Not to say that it is of course, but I haven’t really though about the theoretical/philosophical implications of such a neurosis. Could it be considered an epistemology that lacks any critical capacities? That is, both of self-critique and external critique?

The thing is that paranoia always leads by definition to some sort of ME in relation to THEM. It can't break down essences, it fails to capture the useful ontology of things as composed of multiplicities. I think you are wrong here that the paranoic isn't totalizing. It is precisely the opposite - the paranoic totalizes everything. "Man that fucking WAITRESS over there she is PLOTTING to POISON my COFFEE SHE IS ONE OF _THEM_" ect. Everything is related to groups or groupings. "If only those JEWS would stop FUCKING US" ect. There certainly is something that outwardly smells like liberation. "we got rid of the Jews, I can breathe free now" but as you can think it's probably not going to end well. Could this be plugged into something useful? Certainly, but as with any form of fascism one needs to be SUPREMELY careful or you end up like pic related.

Attached: file.jpg (480x360, 38K)

Pronoia just might be the way to Outside if you manage to rupture the self. "we are all one, we are all looking to do good". The issue is that the paranoic can't rupture the self, it's walls are entrenched,its production or self & selfhood are turned up to 11

I mean, isn't pronoia just a synonym for faith? "I trust in God. Even my misfortunes will make me better. No matter what, I'll be OK."

Not him, but I think he was talking about a broader approach to reterritorialization in paranoia or at least some initial (or in-between acts) movement of deterritorialization that can be used in a different manner than in the "standard" catatonic body of the paranoiac. Maybe paranoia is then a misnomer, but there is a certain fear of words in psychosis that's well known, like those fearing curses or names like "he who shall not be named" etc. Deleuze talks about some of this in Logic of Sense (such as the stuff on the depth of the body or the parts about eating words). On some basic level it makes sense because a phrase can activate an assemblage, maybe not in the dramatic manner in which it is sometimes portrayed in movies about hypnotists (a hidden phrase triggering unquestioning loyalty in a hypnotized enemy or something similar), but it can cause distress, like when you describe rape to a rape victim or war to a soldier with PTSD. Point being that a certain fear can be justified, like when an alcoholic fears that a single drink can lead to a relapse binge. At that point you're fighting reterritorialization with reterritorialization which is not ideal, but can be warranted. I know this is far from the standard definition of paranoia, but it is still directed towards an external influence that doesn't strictly speaking exist (words can be powerless and easy to ignore just as well). Hope this makes sense.

Attached: 17098520_1132291666882493_3274405550524035680_n.jpg (280x429, 28K)

Gotcha. Thanks for this. I am interested in those potentialities, understanding that one must be extremely careful navigating through them. Tabling that, what about fascism? What about schizophrenia?
Is not any system of organization a spectrum of fascism? In the most diluted sense, authority and its structural supports (whether they be progressive or not) always retains elements of fascist impositions to maintain the intelligibility and longevity of those discourses/systems. How does Deleuzian philosophy propose alternatives (if at all) to those nexuses of power? Operating outside the Oedipal dynamic is one thing, but these notions of trancedence through multiplicities remains an abstract praxis. It’s certainly one I’d wish to believe in, but, just like intersectionality, it’s still something we have to think through to attain an adequate understanding of what it really is/means.
And to schizophrenia. What if someone is paranoid about their paranoia? Would that bear correspondences with the schizophrenic method?

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Well, maybe. Like I said in a different response being paranoid about your paranoia
>fighting reterritorializatiom with reterritorialization
Does this lead us to schizophrenia as an odd kind of meta-cognitive paranoia?

Not him, but you need to read through A Thousand Plateaus since it addresses some of these questions quite directly (as directly as D&G could ever talk about anything). Basically nomadic organization rather than sedentary (including private property) which requires a lot of cooperation and self-knowledge and understanding of desire at the most fundamental level. It can be useful as a tool, but it's debatable how useful it is on a large scale since we can't just imitate the Mongols, at best we get some local organization and/or collective. So not really fascism since you're not trying to impose anything on anyone and not all power concentrations are bad if the flows are complex and fluid enough.

Deleuze liked Spinoza's idea of the mind having a special kind of infinity because you can have an idea about an idea about an idea ad infinitum. In practice though you obviously can't. Imo an assemblage has material limits so that paranoia paralyzes you either way. For example if you're scared of a predator hunting you, the biological mechanisms are the same no matter what the external source is (bear, wolf, lion etc.)

As for calling it schizophrenia, I don't really see the point since even everyday neurosis has its "drives and their vicissitudes" to quote the Freudian title. I recall D&G quoting some psychiatrist at one point in some essay footnote saying that the categorical differences between various forms of psychosis are far from concrete despite some obvious differences in symptoms so even setting up a paranoia - schizophrenia dichotomy is a bit superfluous (despite the fact that psychoanalysis does so constantly).

Attached: deleuze the marlboro guy.jpg (500x378, 64K)

h-hot

Attached: 1538717530876.jpg (1125x862, 86K)

Bump

Just wanted to say that I find Deleuze & Guattari's use of fractals to understand space fascinating (and the Sierpinsky sponge in pic related which goes to infinity despite the impossibility to actually draw it). I don't know anything about physics or mathematics, but the idea of actual infinities like in Spinoza and Leibniz is really cool and seems to fit with the quantum physics idea of empty space even within formed bodies.

Attached: menger4.jpg (700x205, 38K)

Not strictly a Deleuze meme, but still one of my favorites.

Attached: 1533571729083.jpg (750x420, 39K)

Other poster here. I still dont understand.

Again me. Actually I do understand, but how do You actually... apply this? Keep reminding oneself?

What a load of bull

Not him, but I've mostly just internalized the lessons I've learned. I read Deleuze as a pragmatist of sorts, so my answer would be "apply him in any way you want". This is a shit answer though, so let me refer you to the square circle post. The application in the abstract is the awareness of possibilities that might not seem reasonable at first. Reject common sense. Steal ideas from everyone and everything and combine them in new ways. Stroll with an open mind, don't forget to seize opportunities to learn and apply new ways. Be aware that minute things can have major consequences. A pebble, placed in the right spot can part a river. People categorize puzzles as linear and lateral thinking puzzles. Nonsense. Linear thinking puzzles are just lateral thinking puzzles that have been boxed in and captured. Break the boxes! Or don't, if you need the box. Ect ect

Pretty much. Despite the approach being philosophical (metaphysical), the conclusions are very similar to today's mainstream cognitive-behavioural therapy. It's not just a matter of reminding yourself, but rather of treating every connection as distinct so for example someone can get good at pushing through a depressive state by blocking the thoughts that arise in such a state (even though the feeling doesn't go away by itself necessarily) yet still be unable to control their anger or procrastination. This might seem like a failure overall, but in fact it is only a partial failure because the connections themselves are individual and only secondarily part of the "project" of reminding yourself. Of course Deleuze sees this as more than merely a method of control, he wants it to be an affirmation and he quotes Henry Miller iirc by saying that you must learn to get drunk on cold water.

Also it's not just a matter of thinking, every assemblage has many aspects and severing some connections can help with controlling others which is why for example it's important to keep addicts away from their typical environment at least until they can strengthen some helpful connections. I remember an interview with some CBT psychologist who recommended that a fit of anger should immediately be treated with a completely different response (such as listening to calming music) rather than encouraged (which was also considered a viable approach, a release so to speak, for a time).

Attached: me irl.jpg (960x615, 67K)

Imagine spasming with some inane phrase every time you see a thread about something you decided beforehand that you don't like. Is there a more surefire sign of being underage?

Attached: 1516930418827.gif (320x228, 1.55M)

>image
Me at family gatherings verbatim

being 18 is fun

>I read Deleuze as a pragmatist of sorts

D&G are pretty explicit about being pragmatic. Their Anglo influences such as Charles Sanders Peirce or William James fit in that tradition and even those that don't fit exactly were retroactively coopted (like Gregory Bateson). Also Emerson had a significant yet rarely mentioned influence on Nietzsche which explains a few overlaps. I remember a Deleuze translator mentioning that he wants to work on this Deleuze-pragmatism connection at one point, not sure if he followed through.

Attached: atp-1.jpg (1000x288, 152K)

If you're a roastie from the start then literally reading anything will make you into more of a roastie.

Attached: freud-lacan.jpg (1210x962, 245K)

Bump

>>Freud was state propaganda? It's all starting to make sense now...
you really need to watch 'century of the self' my man, one of the best documentaries ever made tbqh

deleuzanons, sincerely thank you for this thread

Thank you for browsing : )

Yes but notice the ironclad "me" there. A black hole of subjectivity. Unawareness of one's producing machines. Still a retreat into the stable me, the stable self. And if you can be counted and labeled, the state can make you pay taxes.

>cats

Attached: 1200px-Pentti_Linkola_2.jpg (1200x1465, 260K)

Bump

>tfw no qt toxoplasmosis philosopher bf

Attached: 13781930_1335212606494182_1234778910853135244_n.jpg (883x563, 68K)

Bump

If there were a button I could press, I would kill you and every single cat in this world without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die.

Attached: linkola-1.jpg (500x503, 60K)

nice pic

Bump

>mfw rn

Attached: 17264213_1328723570527259_4027822966611453229_n.jpg (270x480, 38K)

No need to bump friend. The thread seems to have run its course. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them