How do I become a Body without organs?
>tfw you're just her buddy without orgones
It is not the slumber of reason which engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality
>>7785151
Get an autopsy, stupid.
>>7785216
Don't.
>>7785151
Just become disorganised
>>7785151
Stop reading Mr Sniffle McFidget.
By not being a desiring machine. Not operating on the basis of desire means you are free from ideology, sort of like a nihilist. This is the empty body without organs (as discussed in Anti-Oedipus)
The full body without organs is more in-tune with a Dadaist: a nihilistic person who creates a series of nonsensical ideas and works so as to disrupt the prevailing ideologies of their current society. This was noted in A Thousand Plateaus.
The reason D&G like the full body better is because it is more active in disrupting ideologies than the empty body, who, while free from ideology, cannot communicate with the masses in the same way in which the full body might.
>>7785433
but this is all wrong. the first 3 sentences are a complete misreading of Deleuze and his project.
time for you to stop bringing your eastern shit and forcing it into the texts.
>>7785678
My statements are oversimplified, yes. But how are they wrong?
To become without organs, one must be disORGANized (thus making it immobile or catatonic like how a nihilist would be: desire-less and unmotivated) . This is why D&G believes drug addicts and schizophrenics may be more likely to attain the state of possessing a full body (not an empty body) without organs, because (like Dadaists) will associate with signs and symbols to the point of chaos, disturbing order and ORGANization (root-based models, which are discriminatory due to hierarchy), becoming more rhizomatic.
>>7785235
Holy crap, I didn't even see this post. Well said.
>>7785767
Why do you assume all nihilists are desireless and unmotivated?
What you're describing is Buddhism.
>He still doesn't know Deleuze is wrong
>>7785777
Nihilists are desire-less because they lack ideology.
Actions stem from motivations. Motivations stem from desires. And desires stem from our ideals. If a person lacks ideology, then what reason do they have to do the things they do? Only in being possessed by some ideal (by interpreting some cultural sign or symbol to be true) does one generate a desire.
been away for a while. who is this cringy new namefuck CJC? read more you pedantic loser.
>>7785837
>If a person lacks ideology, then what reason do they have to do the things they do?
endorphins, you dumbass
>>7785908
You're talking about instinctual actions that can be traced by the biological sciences. I have no problems with these underpinnings; for, they can be traced and observed by the physical sciences with evidence.
However, nobody acts instinctually all the time. Men are different from animals in that they have a sense of consciousness (which most believe stems from humans acquiring a complicated language).
I'm not talking about simple fight or flight instincts, or hormonal attractions.
I'm talking about how people act in certain ways in cultural systems because they are being manipulated by ideology. We create ideals in our heads (which we interpret to be true). These ideals then motivate us to do things because we find meaning in them.
Ideology makes us act based on things we find meaningful (even though meaning is simply a social construction brought about by ideology).
Ideology is like the strings on a puppet. The puppet thinks he is moving of his own accord, when, in fact, he is being manipulated by ideology.
As Zizek states (and I am paraphrasing): Ideology is the shit we flush down the toilet. We all have different kinds of shits (different relative things we interpret to be true), but all of them are still just shit; and they should be flushed down the sewers just the same. This is what he also means when he talks about the trashcan of ideology.
>>7785837
>Only in being possessed by some ideal does one generate a desire
>>7785962
>The puppet thinks he is moving of his own accord, when, in fact, he is being manipulated by ideology
That's a rather bold proposal. I'd rather think it's the exact opposite regarding the first post, and for the second, ideology as a symptom or a way for the drives.
>>7786612
>I'd rather think it's the exact opposite regarding the first post
I suppose it could be the opposite as you state. After all, if one has a desire, they could then use that desire to create a set of new ideologies for themselves.
Desires and ideology play off each other. This is why Lacan and Zizek in particular talk about desire with relation to ideology.
For example, Zizek talks about why diet soda sells so well due to the fact that their is less guilt generally associated with consuming it (since there are no calories).
We can play off people's ideologies in order to generate a consumer society. In fact, many of our values and beliefs come from our economic systems. As the old saying goes: If you can control how people think, you can covertly control how they act.
>>7786642
Look man, you don't know Deleuze for shit. You're sitting there probably thinking that the rest of us our wrong, and that you're right. But that's not the case. Your reading is skewed and you're bringing too much into this without reading alongside the text and with the thinker. Your summaries are infantile at best. You sound like an undergrad philosophy student or even worse an MFA student that doesn't know shit about philosophy but was introduced to the rhizome for some exposure to post-modernism.
Just stop.
>>7786661
are* wrong. fuck I'm tired.
same goes for any other typos.
>>7786661
Please explain it to me then. I am more than willing to listen.
>>7786669
To begin with, your apparent understanding of what desire is, is entirely non-Deleuzian. Desire does not stem from ideals. Consider the first sentences to Anti-Oedipus. Perhaps consider reading some secondary literature on Deleuze if you're really interested. Lecercle for instance, offers a pretty decent reading of these problems, as understood through Logic of Sense. That work is more explicitly focused on language/semiology, but arguably the entirety of the Deleuzian canon can be expressed in any one of the works.
If you're familiar with Foucault, read the Foucault work to understand how he reads the "non-place." Again, this is all the same kind of question.
And also, how you keep discussing nihilism is clearly problematic. Considering the debt that Deleuze owes to Nietzsche, there's just absolutely no way in hell you'll ever convince a Deleuzian that nihilsm is in any shape or form part of the solution, let alone what he means by BwO. If you want an introductory comment as to what Deleuze means by body without organs, read the appendix of Dialogues II with Parnet.
If you haven't noticed already, I'm not going to sit here and tell you where exactly you're wrong and how you ought to be reading him. That's probably what got you into this mess in the first place. You need to spend more time reading through his works (the smaller individually focused works as well as D&R and LoS), and think along with him. Get the readers by May or Colebrook after you've read more of him. That way you can weigh your own reading against professional scholars, instead of misreading him and coming on 4chan and giving readings and advice.
>>7786726
>Read Foucault
I’ve read Foucault's intro to Anti-Oedipus (as well as several of his other works). He talks about the mental fascist in all our minds (how people like to crown themselves king or queen in their own little fascist lands of illusion based on Power ideology). This is a dangerous form of power, where people see themselves as being above others (a hierarchical system of Order: a root system that is non-node-like or rhizomatic).
>I'm not going to sit here and tell you where exactly you're wrong and how you ought to be reading him
So, you can’t explain it then? I am well aware of why Anti-Oedipus was created. To show the absurdity of psychoanalytic theories. Hence the creation is schizoanalysis (if that is what you are referencing). I didn’t talk about this since that wasn’t OP’s question.
>Desire is not linked to ideology
Then why do Deleuze & Guattari say desire is a productive force? Also, why do D&G say (in What Is Philosophy?) Philosophy is the discipline involved with creating concepts. Pretty sure, when you create a concept that concept is an ideology of some kind. Like I said, philosophers create concepts (like the full body does). It’s a productive force linked to ideology.
>Considering the debt that Deleuze owes to Nietzsche
Even though Nietzsche was one of the most famous existential philosophers, making the statement that “there are no truths, only interpretations”? Or are you referencing his Will to Power? Because, yes, this would have a huge influence on what I already mentioned about Foucault.
I’m interested in having a discussion. Pretty sure that’s what this place is for.
>>7786726
>(the smaller individually focused works as well as D&R
I have also read Difference & Repetition. I understand how the sense of difference relates to the concept of identity. Deleuze rejects dualism and focuses on unities.
Identity is an illusion driven by associating with petty symbolic differences that we see in people. It is purely symbolic and based in semantics. When we see beyond this sense of difference, we fundamentally remove any person identity (or sense of self), thus de-centering the subject.
This is why I relate Deleuze's ideas so much to nihilism. He is showing us how these ideas (like identity) are socially constructed by language, and are, at great lengths, illusory.
Lacan talked about this in a similar light with his psychoanalytic triptych: The Real; Symbolic; and Imaginary Realm.
The Symbolic is the subconscious association of symbols. The Imaginary is the cultural realm that we create for ourselves when we interpret certain symbols and signs as forms of truth (this is ideology). And the Real is that which cannot be attained since we do not have the language to convey it. This could be seen in line with Korzybski's quotes: "The map is not the territory." We can talk about the territory, but we can't access it with words.
>>7786785
I'm not into writing/debating philosophy online, sorry.
But again, your understanding of ideology and what "concepts" even are isn't right. These are metaphysical concerns. Productivity stems far beyond what is meant via some telos by which we aim or orient ourselves towards. Which is why the schizophrenic is so fundamental to their thinking, in that we have a concrete example in which an "individual" exists that is not motivated through ideology, nor through some ego driven subjectivity. Part of their project is to call into question the different ways that thinking constructs or limits our ability to understand, but there is a lot more here than a purely ideological concern.
The debt to perspectivism is obvious (read the Proust book). And if you've read the Nietzsche book you'd know about Deleuze's account of Will as reactive and creative (this leads to his understanding of Spinoza as well).
And reading the "intro" by Foucault (which is what, a page long?) doesn't really amount to anything. If you can't tell, I'm familiar with Deleuze. Because I'm encouraging you to go back to the texts and read them slowly and carefully (while also considering secondary sources as well) does not mean that I can't explain the errors. I just don't think it helps much when the real art and task of philosophy is learning how to read well. Which you seem to require further practice in. Consider Levinas (and even Heidegger) with what he understands philosophy to be: critique.
And besides, I've already been too much of a dick to have much of a meaningful conversation anyways. You're probably ready to double-down on your readings, and I don't feel like explaining Deleuze to you beyond directing you where to look to correct these errors.
>>7786726
>understand how he reads the "non-place."
Heterotopia? That relates with the idea of the Other and the idea of difference and identity. But, as I said, these are all illusions driven by language. It's purely symbolic. Therefore, it's fundamentally nonsensical. Thus my advocacy of the nihilist in such systems. If it's all socially constructed BS, then why believe in it? One who frees himself from ideological dispositions: that's what a nihilist is.
>>7786785
I'm not the last person who replied to you (I'm from the post # >>7786612 )
I find the >>7786726 person to be quite harsh with you, though also, in some way, honest and friendly. I don't think this person told you "he won't sit here and tell you" to win a debate or despise you on a argument of authority, it was rather a way to invite you to a deeper reading of Deleuze.
By example, when inviting you to "read with the thinker". It's obviously not forbidden to have a creative reading of one's work, though the way you think of ideology doesn't match with what may be found in Deleuze, like if you were in a urge to link your different readings! He's simply not speaking of the same thing as you do, when you're thinking about that word.
>>7786837
>I'm not going to explain anything to you, but I know what I'm talking about
What bullshit. You haven't explained yourself one bit. Your entire response can be summed up as follows: "I am not going to explain anything. Read it yourself."
That's a BS cop-out. If you are going to say I am wrong, you need to tell me why. Saying my understanding of ideology is ultimately wrong without even offering the slightest explanation as to why is intellectually lazy.
> If you can't tell, I'm familiar with Deleuze.
No, I can't tell because you refuse to explain anything. All you are doing is citing works. You aren't explaining anything.
>>7786863
I agree that we are probably using the term ideology in different ways.
> I don't think this person told you "he won't sit here and tell you" to win a debate or despise you on a argument of authority
I'm not looking to have a debate, but a discussion. Debates usually have winners and losers (things that I consider to be false dichotomies). Winning and losing purely egocentric and based on Power.
> "read with the thinker"
Yes. There is the Death of the Author aspect to any work. But the poster (1) said everything I said was incorrect and (2) outwardly refused to explain why. That's just nonsense.
>>7786883
did I hurt your...
ego?
>>7786896
I don't have an ego. As I said, I don't believe in interpreting things to be true. And I don't believe in petty power struggles between people.
I'm not mad. In fact, this thread has given me some nice chuckles. I'm not saying I'm surprised by any of it either. I just find it slightly disheartening that no one wants to talk about anything.
>>7786907
You're wanting to not only talk about one of the most notoriously difficult thinkers in the history of philosophy, but also defend a reading that is very much so your own. You think I'm being a pussy in not telling you how and why you're wrong, but that's not my job. I'm trying to help you in directing you where to go, for you to reconsider the texts themselves.
I've been fairly aggressive throughout this whole thing, probably because (1) I'm from an older generation of the internet and (2) I teach philosophy at a university and can't get away with calling shit out as it is in person. And as that other poster pointed out, I'm not trying to give you an argument from authority purely, but I am trying to point out that your reading is by no means an accurate one.
>>7786923
> I am trying to point out that your reading is by no means an accurate one.
And I am simply asking for you to explain why. Working at a university, you should be more than capable of doing that. Especially when the work in question is in your main field of expertise.
>I'm aggressive because I'm from an older gen.
That's an accuse your making for yourself. if you want to be aggressive and confrontational it's because you choose to be.
> You think I'm being a pussy
I never said that. I just think it's hypocritical to say someone is completely wrong about something and then outright refuse to explain why.
>>7786883
Yeah, that's what I was meaning : this person wasn't in the perspective of a debate, but rather honestly talking to you.
As for the "read with the thinker" part, that's not what I mean. Death of the author is about how the author isn't a "warranty" to the text sense. Here, we are mostly talking about how to comprehend a text/work's internal coherence, whoever the author may be. We are not trying to explain Deleuze's work by Deleuze's life!
All in all, >>7786837 was just inviting you to trust him on this one and give re-read a try. This would be difficult to explain to you how this poster disagree with what you're saying, because as the very core I think it would be a massive disagreement about root definitions of used words.
Anyway, I truly think the "advise" about reading given in >>7786837 was sincere and relevant.
So it's not about not wanting to discuss with you, simply that it goes "flat" at the end of the day. It's not that we disagree about a thing, it's rather that we really aren't speaking about the same thing. So it's kind of hard to really discuss on this basis!
>>7785151
drink 3 bottles of robitussin
>>7785837
>desires stem from our ideals
backwards
>>7786958
good.
>>7786945
>talking about how to comprehend a text/work's internal coherence
Ah, I see. I'm sorry. I misinterpreted what you said. And, yes. It is difficult to understand Deleuze. I think (like Derrida ) the style is a great part of the message itself (like McLuhan stated, "the medium is the message"). Hoe you convey something is just as important as what is being conveyed. Deleuze & Guattari write like schizophrenics in the book, and it is clearly intentional.
>because as the very core I think it would be a massive disagreement about root definitions of used words.
You think it's just semantics, then? I admit that communication is difficult with words since we can defer different meanings between them, making communication an act that always results in some level of misinterpretation. But I don't think that's enough reason to stop speaking and/or communicating all together. Shouldn't we still work with the tools we have even though they are flawed?
Also, thank you for actually responding and discussing these things with me. It's nice to have a friendly chat.
>>7786966
This is so affected and attempting to be "academic."
I don't think s/he was saying anything at all about semantics and the inherent inability to communicate "sense" perfectly. S/He was saying that the way you are understanding the words is different from how the rest of us are understanding them.
This thread has spaghetti all over it.
>>7786974
>I don't think s/he was saying anything at all about semantics
>S/He was saying that the way you are understanding the words is different from how the rest of us are understanding them.
Yeah. That would be semantics. The MEANING of the word itself. Our meanings clearly differ, thus it is a semantics issue. I don't deny this, though, as I stated in my previous post.
>>7786974
>This thread has spaghetti all over it.
Faux Pas
>>7786982
-_-
I know what semantics is. Your earlier post sounded like you were saying that the issue is of a semantic issue that is philosophic (and hence why you start going off about why we should still be trying to communicate, etc.), and not just that you're using the words incorrectly. Which is actually what this is all about.
>>7786837
>Which is why the schizophrenic is so fundamental to their thinking, in that we have a concrete example in which an "individual" exists that is not motivated through ideology, nor through some ego driven subjectivity
can you talk about these schizophrenics ? how do they act according to Deleuze ?
>>7786991
Yes, yes, I understand. We are using technical terminologies here. And those terms have specific definitions that must first be defined before we can use them in discussion. I get it. I apologize for the confusion. I've been typing too much and my eyes are going.
>>7786993
He's not going to explain anything even though he is a professor in the field (allegedly). I already asked multiple times.
>>7786993
They don't give "case studies" of schizophrenics per se. They do look at the writings of Artaud and his Theater of Cruelty, to illustrate certain points of how they understand the "schizophrenic" relationship to exist in via the actors and the audience.
Guattari was a psychiatrist in addition to being a writer. If you want to read about specific examples of schizos and his interactions with some of them, there's a biography on Deleuze and Guattari "intersecting lives."
Why is Deleuze so popular among women and children? Is it because he has an active imagination?
>>7787013
>Artaud
Yes. The whole Body Without Organs comes from Artaud to begin with.
>working with schizophrenics
Also, I would recommend "The Mary Barnes' Trip" by Guattari. I think it's found in his book Chaosophy. You can read it here: http://www.aaronvandyke.net/summer_readings/Guattari_Felix-Mary_Barnes_Trip.pdf
>>7786966
Once again, that's not exactly what I mean in internal coherence! Of course style is important, but I was speaking of a way of... I don't know, giving credit to the author? I don't know how to say it better than "trying to read well". That's what the other person was trying to tell you. It's the hard thing. In my own case, I don't read well, and I'd read even worse if I didn't have good philosophy teachers (to be more precise : that would be for me the equivalent of not-reading at all). A shallow approach of it would be to really try to understand what is said (or may be said, or can't be said) in a text : how is it build, how is it brought, what is the history of such or such term, both inside and outside the author's work, etc.
For the other part of your reply, of course we can speak. Though, with such different words definitions it will often falls flat... Anyway, I feel the philo teacher was in some way also quite friendly to you, even if it was in a "rude" way.
>>7787061
>try to understand what is said (or may be said, or can't be said) in a text
Yes. Words are reflective of culture. As Barthes said: "To rob a man of his language is the first step in all legal murders." Language is very much alive in the cultural sense, and we need to understand that culture in order to understand how the words are being used. Is this what you mean?
>>7787089
More ad hominem attacks from people who are unwilling to explain themselves? Way to contribute to the discussion.
I've been posting here for three days, and each time I ask a person to explain themselves, they scurry off and run away from the debate, or simply issue out more ad hominem statements. I thought /lit/ would be slightly better than some other forum sites, but it’s not. Honestly, I sort of expected this and am not really surprised by any of it.
I conclude that there are no serious discussions to be had here. This is simply a shit-posting site where people come to derail threads for the lulz. I thought that maybe a few people would be interested in having discussions, but no... this is clearly not the case.
Farewell /lit/. I barely knew thee.
>>7787116
try /his/, no joke
the western philosophers are getting closer and closer to zen buddhism with each decade
>>7787158
0/10
Try harder.
>>7787079
Of course what you said is important, but this isn't what I was meaning. It's more a way of trying to follow the text. Sadly, I don't think I can really say much more than I did without any example (by example, analysis of such or such practical text) and this is almost impossible on such a medium, where expression are limited both in time and length.
rebump amongst shit threads
>>7785181
critically underrated post
wat
>>7786907
>I don't have an ego.
>namefaggot
sure, lol
>>7787116
1. drop the name
2. that's not an ad hom attack dumbass
The Body Without Organs is the Body of Desire is the Astral Body. Post-modern philosophy is essentially obscured occultism.
>>7790842
he can try dropping the name but anyone who's had the misfortune of reading this poser's shitstains can recognize his bullshit from a mile away
Who said 'Foucault'?
>>7786785
>This is a dangerous form of power, where people see themselves as being above others
Some people are fundamentally above others.
Hierarchies are a good thing.
Foucault sounds like a faggot. Good thing he was, and died of AIDs.
>>7790880
>i've never read Deleuze
>better reply to this post about Deleuze!
>>7785181
ha nice
>>7785784
What does Boutang have to do with it? He produced the Abecedaire, didn't he?
>>7793167
forget everything
