Stop using language

Stop differentiating between things.

why?

youtube.com/watch?v=i20VWKO9Sdk

calculus>set theory

It's Deleuze actually

It's DIRTY

shits gay af

Language can not not being used, but you can refuse to limit the endless possibility of semiotics and stop being a stupid hierarchic treefag and use it like a ninja, to strike the heart of BEING. and also fuck phenomenology

Dictionaries are portals to hell - Foucault

source?

Muyard recounts:

He [Deleuze] said ‘I discuss psychosis and madness, but I don’t know anything about it from the inside.’ But he was also phobic about deranged people and couldn’t have spent even an hour at La Borde.

When Deleuze would visit Guattari, he “avoided the unbearable madness at La Borde.” One dinner in particular with Felix was interrupted by a some chaos as La Borde. Deleuze’s response was less commendable:

We got a call from La Borde saying that a guy had set fire to the chateau chapel and run off into the woods. Gilles blanched, I froze, and Felix called for help to find this guy. At that point, Gilles said to me, ‘how can you stand those schizos’?”

Source - François Dosse, in Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari: Intersecting Lives

This really hurts me as a schizo and long time fan of Deleuze, I don't know how to feel.

People always have their share or regressive beliefs, no matter how enlightened. Deleuze's thought is for you to use and make alive now, the man and his personal feelings are dead, for better or worse.

Deleuze also hated intellectuals and cultivated people. Pretty much everything Yea Forums aspire to be.

...

just threw Anti-Oedipus in the trash

Intellectuals are dark magicians in Deleuze's view so that's justified

No they're just narcissistic pseuds

You gotta be fuckin kidding me

Permadropped
what a hypocritical piece of shit

based

shizoposters seething at being disowned by the one philosopher who pretended to understand

LANGUAGE

Pass the bong.

Attached: 1524863511252.png (750x531, 525K)

The fact he didn't openly proclaim himself a sorcerer means he's part of the problem.

>I have always absolutely detested the human cognitive effort devoted to trying to turn a final form of anything into a psychobiography. It’s not that I’m allergic to ever reading a biography, but the notion that in reading it you’re really getting to the core of something seems to me utterly ludicrous. I cannot recall any interesting figure, where I’ve thought, oh, if only I knew their biography better, I would get them. Nietzsche’s or Deleuze’s or Lovecraft’s biographies are, unless treated very carefully, sadly distracting. Refusal of the psychobiographical temptation is the one thing I do try to hold onto. But the functionality of it is in the hands of fate entirely, it exceeds human strategic competence. You’re constantly sliding down the slope.

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 12K)

YOU SIR, HAVE BEEN CANCELLED

SAID no one ever

deleuze why ;_;

...

critical-theory.com/deleuze-guattari-biography/

Deleuze was an asshole holy shit

This is a bop.

Holy mother of based Deleuze. He is the redpill himself.

lol

based

Attached: 4462369.jpg (200x166, 14K)

language is a virus

Deleuze was so madly in love with Burroughs but could never get on his level

Why? Guattari sounds far worse

...

Philosophy is a disease

big truth

>hasn't read deleuze

>Scizo-
Etymology From Ancient Greek σχίζω (skhízō, “I split”).
Prefix split, cleft

>-phrenia
Etymology From φρήν (phrḗn, “mind”) + -ia

>scientia#Latin
Etymology From sciēns, present participle of sciō (“to know, understand”) + -ia.

>scio#Latin
Etymology From Proto-Italic *skijō, from Proto-Indo-European *skey- (“to distinguish, to dissect”).

>sek-
Root *sek-[4] to cut, cut off, sever

Attached: file.png (535x944, 236K)

Guattari has an excuse he's a psychologist

lmao what a pussy

>its real
What the fuck

critical-theory.com/alain-badiou-writing-script-movie-plato-brad-pitt-sean-connery/

This site is goldmine kek

These leftist intellectuals always turn out to be complete scum but everytime Heidegger's discussed his politics is brought up like he's the devil incarnate.

Popper on Heidegger:
I appeal to the philosophers of all countries to unite and never again mention Heidegger or talk to another philosopher who defends Heidegger. This man was a devil. I mean, he behaved like a devil to his beloved teacher, and he has a devilish influence on Germany… One has to read Heidegger in the original to see what a swindler he was.

my man martin "hide egger" hid so many eggs that the nazis changed his name from hiedegger to hide egger. he would hide eggs in the nazi pariliament. many nazis would be like bro wtf where are all these eggs coming from! and there would be martin just chilling and smoking laughing at the pure win that was unfolding unbeknownst to the nazi parliament members. h e even hid an egg in hitlers bunker and hitler called him was like "bruh ur a savage i know it was you!!!!" and heidegger just chilled and lit up a cigar and said "yeah... lol". next day his office placard was changed to hide egger!!!! history of phil... just another win

he said, using language.

I don't usually get worked up about this kind of shit but this one really hurts for some reason, I guess because I thought Deleuze really was above it all.

Deleuze is an egregore at this point, no?

He was just a flimsy coward, clearly

You niggas being hella funny in this thread keep it up 4channel

>guy who specializes in studying the mentally ill hates the mentally ill
It's like communists who hate or despise the working class. Only Nick Land has truly embrace the madness and become schizo himself.

Why are all these pseudo-leftist figures from post-war France such enormous fucking hypocrites, grifters and narcissists? Holy shit is there even one among them who's either sane or can at least practice what they preach?

Attached: Catty.webm (364x362, 1.36M)

Based

Mental weaklings with an overdose of self pity BTFO

Communication is a tacit effort.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Are you all retarded or are you actual schizos who thought their mental illness might get validated because he had a book with "schizophrenia" in the title?

words are magic spells

Attached: 944.png (843x903, 56K)

Supremely based

There is an inherent geography and corporeality to language, at it's limits (this limit is paradox/Demi-god) and when these limits are stroked and fluffed into affirmed arousal they become paradoxes which in turn become vaginas which are liminal zones, thresholds and portals in the mind of the human.

Western civilization has lost its roots in true magical training but Platonic philosophy is derived from this original mystical magical training. So Plato used the Archytas version of Pythagorean philosophy and so the "harmonic mean" did not exist in traditional or "orthodox" Pythagorean philosophy. English is a desparate language.

Should posting a diagram be added to that diagram?

Attached: 1522152929937.jpg (1024x1024, 260K)

yes

.

I called him a pussy for being afraid of confused people

Every person I knew who was into Deleuze set a new bar for what it means to be a shitty person

Based NIMBY gilles

More like "stop making sense, use wordsalad and mutant phonemes, reject the fascism of grammar"

Did Deleuze have to love schizophrenia to reference it? Did he ever say that society’s splintered and nuts and (Tony the Tiger finger up) that’s grrrrrreat? I don’t understand why everyone’s feathers are ruffled by this.

>responding to satire articles

seriously Im starting think its just one guy pretending he didn't know bumping the thread for discussion. In AO They make it incredibly explicit they are not talking about clinically schizophrenic individuals but the false consciousness of commodity fetishism.

Clinical schizophrenics are prisoners from the future.

It's extremely likely that Deleuze is a fraud, but that biography looks like a riot.

>they make it incredibly explicit
Bad reading of Deleuze

>deleuze didn't know how to use a typewriter

no

Crazy guy. I read somewhere that he started to think time was going backwards after he learned about the universe's laws. That was the year he met the "Eternal", another sentient being, who gave him a glimpse of the future. I don't mean to be judgmental with him. He was a beautiful person. But he got in trouble one day because he didn't know how to tell others, as I understand it.

Guattari was the actual revolutionary of the pair

underrated

Zizek says Guattari corrupted Deleuze with ideology

Symbols are bad too

Why?

Zizek is a bit of a shit about this. As far as I can tell he agrees with Deleuzes critique of Lacan but reflexively defends Lacan anyway and then says "Ahhh, yesh, Deleuze is correct in his analeeesus but what if in fact it is precisely the opposite?"

Attached: file.png (773x464, 88K)

jstor.org/stable/23127249?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This paper actually hits both topics.

you can get it on sci hub but the shit filter thinks the link is spam

>This is a revealing anecdote, for at least two reasons. First, one might say that the disciple Lacan wound up "getting" was not Gilles Deleuze but Slavoj Zizek (among others), which puts Zizek's encounter with Deleuze in Organs without Bodies (hereafter, OB) in an interesting retrospective light. Second, and more importantly, Deleuze's personal encounter with Lacan took place after the publi cation of Anti-Oedipus (hereafter, AO) in 1972. Anti-Oedipus presents, among other things, a famous critique (though not rejection) of psychoanalysis, which Deleuze and Guattari pursued, in part, by means of an engagement with Lacan's work. In this sense one could say that Deleuze was indeed a Lacanian, but in the exact same manner that he was a Spinozist or a Leibnizian: he was neither a slav ish follower nor a dogmatic reader of Lacan, but followed the internal trajectory of Lacan's thought to the point where he would push it to its "differential" limit (Deleuze's all-too-well-known image of philosophical "buggery," which makes thinkers produce their own "monstrous" children). Despite Deleuze's initial wor ries about Lacan's reaction to Anti-Oedipus, Lacan obviously did not dismiss the book. On the contrary, not only was his reading of the book the apparent basis of his "summons" to Deleuze, but he even seems to have been influenced by Anti Oedipus in his own thinking. Zizek himself suggests that Lacan's later work (after Seminar XI in 1964) is marked by an increased interest in the theory of the drives and anti-Oedipal themes (OB 102, 176). Given the complex status of the drives that one finds elaborated in Anti-Oedipus (for instance, the thesis that the "drives are part of the infrastructure itself," AO 63), one can assume that Lacan saw Deleuze neither as an antagonistic critic, nor even a potential bearer of ortho doxy (a la Miller), but rather a highly original fellow traveler. [636]

>The Real and Schizophrenia Deleuze's term for the Real is "schizophrenia as a pure process" (which must be distinguished from the schizophrenic as a clinical entity), and it is with this con cept that Deleuze takes Lacan's thought to its limit and conclusion. "It is this entire reverse side of the [symbolic] structure that Lacan discovers ... schizophrenizing the analytic field, instead of oedipalizing the psychotic field" (AO 309). Following directions indicated by Lacan himself, Anti-Oedipus attempts to describe the Real in all its positivity: differential partial objects or intensities that enter into indirect syntheses; pure positive multiplicities where everything is possible (transverse connections, polyvocal conjunctions, included disjunctions); signs of desire that compose a signifying chain, but which are themselves non-signifying, and so on (309). The domain of the Real is a "sub-representative field" (300), but Deleuze does not hesitate to claim that "we have the means to penetrate the sub representational" (italics added).18 Conversely, if the Real is the sub-representative, then "illusion" (if one wants to retain this word) only appears afterward, in the actual: it is only within the symbolic (representation) that desire appears nega tively as lack, as castration. It is for this reason that Deleuze suggests that schizo phrenia provides a better clue to the nature of the unconscious and the Real than neurosis: psychotics resist therapeutization because they have a libido that is too liquid or viscous, they resist entry into the symbolic (foreclosure), mistaking words for things. But "rather than being a resistance of the ego, this is the intense outcry of all of desiring-production" (67). Some of Deleuze's most profound texts (such as "Louis Wolfson; or, The Procedure") are those that analyze the specifically schizophrenic uses of language, which push language to its limit and lay waste its significations, designations, and translations.19 Deleuze suggests that the usual negative diagnostic criteria that have been proposed for schizophrenia—dissoci ation, detachment from reality, autism—are, above all, useful terms for not listen ing to schizophrenics. But in the end, this problem is not specific to schizophrenics: "we are all libidos that are too viscous and too fluid . . . [which] bears witness to the non-oedipal quality of the flows of desire" (67; cf. 312).

plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/#AntOed
>It’s important at the start to realize that Deleuze and Guattari do not advocate schizophrenia as a “lifestyle” or as the model for a political program. The schizophrenic, as a clinical entity, is the result of the interruption or the blocking of the process of desiring-production, its having been taken out of nature and society and restricted to the body of an individual where it spins in the void rather than make the connections that constitute reality.

>Desiring-production does not connect “with” reality, as in escaping a subjective prison to touch the objective, but it makes reality, it is the Real, in a twisting of the Lacanian sense of the term. In Lacan, the real is produced as an illusory and retrojected remainder to a signifying system; for Deleuze and Guattari, the Real is reality itself in its process of self-making. The schizophrenic is a sick person in need of help, but schizophrenia is an avenue into the unconscious, the unconscious not of an individual, but the “transcendental unconscious,” an unconscious that is social, historical, and natural all at once.

Baudrillard was the only good one.

Attached: 1564129397631.gif (290x188, 3.18M)

Reminds me of those Wittgenstein anectodes

Attached: oe8b4nakx78y.jpg (905x717, 155K)

Deleuze is based

deleuzional

Admittedly I kek’d

Are filenames a language?

even he was also a hypocrite

>Now the banal reality has become aestheticized, all reality is trans-aestheticized, and that is the very problem. Art was a form, and then it became more and more no more a form but a value, an aesthetic value, and so we come from art to aesthetics… And as art becomes aesthetics it joins with reality, it joins with the banality of reality. Because all reality becomes aesthetical, too, then it’s a total confusion between art and reality, and the result of this confusion is hyperreality. But, in this sense, there is no more radical difference between art and realism. And this is the very end of art. As form.
>–Jean Baudrillard, 2005
and he did excatly this type of "aesthetic banality" photography not for any meaning but for aesthetic value.

chateaushatto.com/exhibition/ultimate-paradox-the-photography-of-jean-baudrillard/

Attached: Jean-Baudrillard-Toronto-1994-1024x696.jpg (1024x696, 129K)

yes

He was evil and relished in the incandescence of it.