Can someone sum up briefly his thought into different points please?

>Oedipus didn't "exist" until Freud used the myth to
oh nononon they say they opposite
>Yet every psychoanalyst should know that, underneath Oedipus, through Oedipus, behind Oedipus, his business is with desiring-machines. At the beginning, psychoanalysts could not be unaware of the forcing employed to introduce Oedipus, to inject it into the unconscious. Then Oedipus fell back on and appropriated desiring-production as if all the productive forces emanated from Oedipus itself. The psychoanalyst became the carrier of Oedipus, the great agent of antiproduction in desire. The same history as that of Capital, with its enchanted, "miraculated" world.

That hat is cringey as fuck.

>everyone are mentally ill, except for me Deleuze. You are stupid Guattari, stop talking to the mentally ill. The shop, is an anus. And the child with the toy, is a giant.

(((psychoanalysis)))
kek

Attached: hand_pepe.png (492x497, 80K)

>At the beginning, psychoanalysts could not be unaware of the forcing employed to introduce Oedipus, to inject it into the unconscious. Then Oedipus fell back on and appropriated desiring-production as if all the productive forces emanated from Oedipus itself.
How is this not what I just said? Psychoanalysts are the ones that import or "inject" it into the unconscious. The fact that oedipus took on a life of its own in capital doesn't discredit the idea that oedipus didn't exist until psychoanalysis used it as a model of normative structuration, if anything it explains it– why else do you think Freud's ideas were leapt upon by the culture/advertising industry?

Do you think that my post is somehow endorsing psychoanalysis?

Read his book on Kafka and minor literature and also read his essay on exhaustion

I don't know. I'm assuming he's talking about the fact that communication through language, specifically words, may be detrimental and misleading. We should consider language not only the spoken one, but like Wittgenstein says, all form of expression which man has, art, mathematic, music etc.

>why else do you think Freud's ideas were leapt upon by the culture/advertising industry?
because Oedipus' business is desiring machines. psychoanalysis only rediscovers Oedipus and inject it into the modern unconscious; it is representative of an ancient tendency which has been at work much longer than psychoanalysis

I can't argue with that, though I do think it is important to note that its only because of psychoanalysis that we understand this "ancient tendency" in oedipal terms. Naming the beast complicates things significantly

>thought into different points
i see your crime, op

Be a body without organs user.
Be a rhizome.

This, but unironically.

Read pic related

Attached: F781873A-F1F7-44BA-B598-DEEA0A1A8C2A.jpg (333x499, 29K)

Still no one has given a satisfying answer on what this guy has fucking said.

Because no one has actually ever understood what Deleuze said, in general.

So give one yourself. Or, read more so you can understand what has been said and join in the discussion. Deleuze said a lot of things. Why do you want a reductive three-part summary of an author who defies logical categorisation?

Their book Dialogue is the best introduction to Deleuze probably.

Also you just know.

Attached: 1364122047_deleuze-parnet1.jpg (767x679, 87K)

everything this guy has written is shit except the societies of control stuff and that was just expanding on foucault

what a hack

Isn't his point that we are already bodies without organs?

Deleuze:
>reality as metaphysical wankery

Artaud:
>solves reality as productive process

Attached: Antonin_Artaud_1926.jpg (400x509, 58K)

Vitalism
Anti-realism
Sense>reference
Transcendental empiricism
Difference>repetition
Non-root/tree ontology
Anti-fascism
Diagnosed pomo capital as schizo

Artaud: wanking about theater of cruelty
Deleuze: making theater of cruelty philosophically palatable

Read Manuel De Landa's books about him

Fine. Here's a summary.

> Philosophy has a problem: we have too many presumptions about how shit works.
> We fucked things up by compounding presumptions on top of presumptions that are now really hard to examine on their own.
> This also feeds into how we want things and how we've been taught to see the world (by our parents, friends, society, economy, history, psychology, and so on).
> So, to cut through the bullshit, I retooled some of Spinoza's work and said, "Okay, let's believe that 'ideas' exist on a plane of existence where we don't think of these 'ideas' as transcendent or divine, but they ACTUALLY EXIST in the world."
> How would we out find how these 'ideas' exist?
> Well, it's fucking hard.
> I started by looking at what it means for things to differ and why we see so many repeats of the same shit and how this conflicts with the idea of how "pure" things can be.
> I found that shit is always *becoming* something because we put our own baggage into the history and meaning of things, and maybe we should try our best not to make the idea of things an 'is' or to seek 'transcendence' all the time, but instead try to synthesize meanings in the real world that are useful in a context.
> So yeah, suck it, Kant (j/k I love you babe except no but maybe I dunno it's weird between us).
> I also tried to imagine all concepts as connected to all other concepts in units called "rhizomes." Less like a hierarchy, more like a map that you can always make more connections to, or a plant that splays everywhere but with purpose.
> Finally, I wanted to apply these concepts to man in modernity, and one thought I got was that man is kind of like a schizophrenic: we constantly want shit and can't satisfy the want but don't know why thanks to the baggage. This leads to cognitive dissonance and fucked up desires, compounded by the modern state.
> Also I fell out a window.
> OR DID I?

tl;dr:
> Philosophy, and how we use it, isn't about stating what things are (because what something "is" gets redefined a lot). Instead, it's about how we find the connections between these things and engineer them to be closer to what we hope is clearer and more useful.

Attached: ishitrhizomesushitschizos.jpg (500x334, 39K)

Side comment: his obscurantist style (which is only really bad in Anti-Oedipus and maybe C&S) is supposed to show you how complex this shit gets and how connections must interweave if the philosophy is taken seriously. Clarity is not just speech but how definition does - or doesn't - work when talking about interconnected thoughts in the modern world.

Attached: snlol.jpg (1000x1442, 576K)

I would have fucked her with no remorse.

>How is this not what I just said?
Wait are you saying that the hereditary and already present do not exist?

>(((psychoanalysis)))
>kek
>Do you think that my post is somehow endorsing psychoanalysis?
Yes Jung the pro-Aryan, pro-Hitler, anti-Semite is soo Jewish.

>I can't argue with that,
Then what was the problem? And you want to fuck your mum you degenerate?

Ah yes Guattari, I know what to do
Let us take Foucault's ideas and pretend they are yours, blatantly plagiarize Raymond Roussel's descriptions of machines and uhhhh some of Burroughs' gross-out humor
Maybe we should also pretend to like the mentally ill, so we can at least have a loyal audience?

She is so fucking cute and intelligent.