What interesting things do they have to say?
déterritorialisation
they look sneaky, i'd have to wiki them first to make sure they aren't cryptokikes
>>7818917
don't bother. they're indeed cryptokikes.
>>7818912
In plain English?
>>7818931
deterritorialization
>>7818885
they're in your anime.
>>7818936
Desiring Machines.
>>7818936
>he thinks I'm an anime watching weeb
Disgusting
Nothing
They are the first serious movement with good criticism on psychoanalysis, marxism and Kant. All in the fashion of Nietzsche.
>>7819391
>first serious movement with good criticism on psychoanalysis
Really?
Anti-Oedipus - 1972
In 1960 Szasz wrote The Myth of Mental Illness; In 1961 Goffman wrote Asylums and in 1967 Cooper wrote Psychiatry and Anti-Psychiatry; In 1962, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest came out; etc.
The first started in the early 1950s and was a result of the war between Freudian inspired psychoanalytic psychiatrists and the new biological physical psychiatrists.
The second attack began in the 1960s with famous figures like David Cooper, R D Laing and Thomas Szasz,
The third force were American and European sociologists—notably Erving Goffman and Michael Foucault—who saw the devious power of psychiatry and its effects on labelling and stigmatising and hospitalising people.
Source:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201505/the-anti-psychiatry-movement
>>7818936
Huh, didn't know this. GitS more patrician than Ergo Proxy confirmed?
>>7819482
Also, Laing, Szasz, and Cooper were all psychiatrists themselves. Can't get much more "inside" than that.
>>7819482
>>7819497
That's not what I meant! Yes they did, I think they made serious criticism, but that was not mainly towards psychoanalysis, but rather towards psychiatry. By example Goffman doesn't "challenge" psychoanalysis terms or concepts, and even less using its own language (the psychoanalysis' one). I think the very originality of Deleuze and Guattari work was to challenge psychoanalysis from the inside (theoretically). (The point where I disagree with you, is about the consideration of psychoanalysis and psychiatry as an unique field, which I think they are not.)
>>7819515
I see. Thank you for the clarification. I agree with your post then. One of my favorite works by Guattari is actually The Mary Barnes' Trip. He's rather clear and concise in that particular work. I wish he wrote more concisely in some of his other works, though.
http://www.aaronvandyke.net/summer_readings/Guattari_Felix-Mary_Barnes_Trip.pdf
guattari has some good stuff, his critique of antipsychiatry and development on ecosophy are not bad.
anything he did with deleuze is shit.
>>7818936
Grorious Nippon does it again. Seriously what the hell is it with anime and Western philosophy? First Ergo Proxy and now this? I might have to start watching dem silly Chinese cartoons.
>>7819360
Why do people (or one random guy) keep posting Boutang every time those two are mentioned? Boutang worked on Deleuze's Abecedaire. If he was against them why would he help them?
>>7819556
> anything he did with deleuze is shit
Zizek, as far as I recall, considered that Guattari ruined Deleuze or something like that. I haven't read much of their work together, but the bits I read from A Thousand Plateaus seemed brilliant. Also, What is Philosophy? was interesting, despite being very difficult and condensed.
>>7819530
Then all is well that ends well! Thank you for the pdf also.
>>7820515
Don't bother, D&G threads rarely take off.
>>7819597
My favourite part was when they wrecked Chomsky in the linguistics section of ATP.
"We say: there is no ideology, it is an illusion."
"There is no ideology, there are only organizations of power once it is admitted that the organization
of power is the unity of desire and the economic infrastructure. "
- Gilles Deleuze, Chaosophy
There you go. They obscure most of their messages, but it can boil down to some simple ideas that have already been established in philosophy before. Read Chaosophy. It’s an easy way to gain access to what these guys are saying. Think of D&G like Foucault+Lacan (even though they were anti-psychoanalysis, Guattari worked under Lacan and was very influenced by his thinking). D&G were creating concepts to disrupt the flow of normative thinking (as noted in What Is Philosophy?). Also, the Plane of Immanence crap is just understanding how life and death (and almost everything else) are false dichotomies. Oversimplified explanation? Absolutely. But it’s a start.
https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/guattari_chaosophy.pdf
>>7821441
root-models. kek.
>>7821453
>life and death (and almost everything else) are false dichotomies.
See Difference & Identity for more on the concept. Specifically, read the preface. It's the best part of the book.
>>7821453
Thanks anon.
>>7821551
To be fair, they talk so much about concept creation and yet deterritorialization and reterritorialization are such a chore to write and pronounce. Couldn't they just say deturf and returf or something?
A micropolitics of desire means that henceforth we will refuse to allow any fascist formula to slip by, on whatever scale it may manifest itself, including within the scale of the family or even within the scale of our own personal economy.
- Guattari, from Everyone Wants to be a Fascist
Since the attainment of power through desire was what people practiced,
It was Guattari that claimed “Everybody wants to be a fascist.”
>>7819597
Zizek didn't read them; he needed an excuse to write another 300 pages on Lacan and Hegel. He's stupidly blatant about the fact that his entire "reading" of them derives from Badiou's own misreading of Deleuze — the former, by the way, makes the same distinction between the "proper" Deleuze and the "Guattarified" Deleuze. It's an empty distinction that ignores most of Deleuze's post-'68 writings, philosophical and not, which almost exclusively say Guattari changed his thinking, brought it places it never could have gone. I don't have it on me but see various notes in "Two Regimes of Madness" on this, and of course his eulogy for Guattari. Separating Deleuze from Guattari on the basis that the latter somehow "corrupted" the former not only ignores the fascinating implications of their notion of co-authorship as an assemblage greater than the sum of its parts (something intuitive enough but which Badiou and Zizek, Hegelians that they are, ignore because Deleuze-Guattari short-circuit their idealisms), it also reduces essentially to "comedifying" them, turning them into a "double act" with Deleuze as the "straight man" disrupted by Guattari the "fall guy." It isn't criticism; it's just poor scholarship and laziness on the part of an otherwise stellar philosopher and critic. I can't imagine any reason for Zizek's antics in Bodies without Organs other than ignorance of the Deleuze-Guattari project's synchrony with the Lacanian calculus, or intellectual dishonesty, an inability to really meet the challenge the duo raise for dialectics, Hegelian or Marxist.
(Interestingly, Fredric Jameson, probably the most competent contemporary dialectician on the Marxist side of things, makes nearly the same error in his "critique" of Anti-Oedipus which opens The Political Unconscious. While he acknowledges that schizoanalytic or deconstructive critiques are but the first "moment" in a properly Marxist analysis, his effort to contain the libidinal materialism offered by the doctrine of the desiring machines within Althusserian structuralism, I think, quite misses the point of the whole Deleuze-Guattari enterprise. I've yet to find a critique meet them on their own terms that isn't slavishly adulatory.)
>>7821573
Organs without Bodies* is the title of the Zizek book. My mistake.
>>7821576
The funny thing is you would think Zizek would like D&G more than he does. Though it is true that D&G were anti-psychoanalysis, much of Guattari's thinking was influenced by Lacan. In fact Lacanian thought plays a pretty dominant role in D&G's thinking (especially with the concept of desire).
>>7821557
if you wanted to write on them, and decided to rename the phrases "deturf" and "returf," I think Deleuze and Guattari would be quite happy with you, and the academy loves shit like that. in fact I may borrow those words, if you don't mind. i'll even deturf academic citation practices by citing anon from 4chan. of course this could lead to returfing 4chan within the bounds of university discourse but, "a concept is a brick; you can build a wall with it or throw it through the window."
>>7821581
I know! I was thinking the same thing reading it, and then I read an article which made the same argument. it's a really bizarre oversight on his part. one wants to psychoanalyze Zizek's own repression.
>>7821581
Mother fucker eats from a trashcan!
Symbolically, of course.... maybe.
>>7821573
>>7821576
>>7821581
I haven't read Organs without Bodies, but from skimming a bit through it, it seems interesting. The title alone is interesting imo. One thing that I did notice is that Zizek puts emphasis on the gap (as Lacan does a lot, probably following Hegel) and insists that Deleuze does the same. From what I've read, this khaos (originally opening or gap, rather than modern chaos) seems to play a role in Deleuze's thought (with Guattari at least), but I don't understand whether it conflicts with his Spinozist-Nietzschean (or maybe even Proustian?) affirmation/production that lacks nothing or not.
> Separating Deleuze from Guattari on the basis that the latter somehow "corrupted" the former not only ignores the fascinating implications of their notion of co-authorship as an assemblage greater than the sum of its parts
Inso far as psychoanalysis is concerned, Deleuze's first famous book (as far as I know), Nietzsche and Philosophy, already has some anti-Freudian points in terms of focusing too much on reactive forces, so Deleuze wasn't that far off from the get-go.
>>7821602
>Spinozist-Nietzschean (or maybe even Proustian?) affirmation/production that lacks nothing or not.
Welcome to the Plane of Motherfucking Immanence.
. . .
"Thinking provokes general indifference.
It is a dangerous exercise nevertheless. Indeed, it is only when the dangers become obvious that indifference ceases, but they often remain hidden and barely perceptible, inherent in the enterprise. Precisely because the plane of immanence is pre-philosophical and does not immediately take effect with concepts, it implies a sort of groping experimentation and its layout resorts to measures that are not very respectable, rational or reasonable.These measures belong to the order of dreams, of pathological processes, esoteric experiences, drunkeness and excess.
We head for the horizon, on the plane of immanence, and we return with bloodshot eyes, yet they are eyes of the mind.
Even Descartes had his dream. To think is always to follow the witch's flight....danger takes on another meaning: it becomes a case of obvious consequences when pure immanence provokes a strong, instinctive disapproval in public opinion, and the nature of the created concepts strengthens this disapproval.
This is because one does not think without becoming something else, something that does not think--an animal, a molecule, a particle--and that comes back to thought and revives it.
The plane of immanence is like a section of chaos and acts like a sieve. In fact, chaos is characterized less by the absence of determinations than by the speed with which they take shape and vanish. This is not a movement from one opinion to the other but on the contrary, the impossibility of a connection between them, since one does not appear without the other having already disappeared, and one appears as disappearance when the other disappears as outline. Chaos makes chaotic and undoes every consistency in the infinite.The problem of philosophy is to acquire a consistency without losing the infinite into which thought plunges...
To give consistency without losing anything of the infinite...."
"What is Philosophy?'
DELEUZE & GUATTARI
>>7821602
>>7821614
yeah, this. Hegel and psychoanalysis work well together because no matter how much Marxesque kicking and screaming Zizek does to the contrary, they are both fundamentally transcendent philosophies, defined by the gap between the immanent and the transcendent, the zero and the one, the one and the many, the canvas and the black square in Malevich, the given name and the papal name, the male and the female, S1 and S2. someone posted Zizek's paper "The Structure of Domination Today" which really illustrates "gap thinking," and from which I've pulled the latter examples. of course any dialectician will tell you, as Jameson does I think in his paper "Marxism and Dualism in Deleuze," that "dualism is the form of ideology par excellence." nevertheless they can't seem to stop polarizing shit.
>>7821614
I don't mean to sound thick, but does that quote actually give an answer to the gap problem? Towards the end of "What is philosophy?", they talk about creativity as improbable connections in the brain that take place over literal gaps. Now, this might be meaningless in abstract since these are actual gaps due to the brain's ridges and not some abstract lack, but one cannot but help think that the negative plays a fundamental role in that process.
I had a hard time with "What is Philosophy?", mostly because I've read very little of their co-authored texts beforehand, but the first obvious difficulty that comes to mind with the quote you posted is that "thinking" for Deleuze usually means something that is forced on us from the outside, rather than a constant regurgitation of habitual phrases and ideas so I don't know how that relates to the rest of what was said (concerning chaos, infinite and gap or completeness at least).
Also, I find
>These measures belong to the order of dreams, of pathological processes, esoteric experiences, drunkeness and excess.
amusing since Deleuze and Guattari often brainstormed while drunk.
>>7821573
>contain the libidinal materialism offered by the doctrine of the desiring machines within Althusserian structuralism,
where do DetG see this libidinal materialism ?
>>7821679
>"thinking" for Deleuze usually means something that is forced on us from the outside,
"Thinking provokes indifference" means seeing beyond differences, thus preventing us from creating identities, which are used to keep people looking at like through dualistic perspectives (the Other). It is a unified perspective (the act of appearing can only be created when one has first disappeared, as they state). One cannot exist without the Other. In other words, the Other is Us.
>>7821712
I should also mentioned indifference is also in reference to more impartial perspective, one that sees beyond ideology.
>>7821712
>>7821714
> "Thinking provokes indifference" means seeing beyond differences, thus preventing us from creating identities, which are used to keep people looking at like through dualistic perspectives (the Other).
I don't know, it sounds a bit utopic if I understood it correctly. I can, by contrast, supposedly understand something beyond my Otherly determined identity by thinking, but that doesn't guarantee the disappearance of duality, but rather brings out the way the Other divides Us. Or would that be inauthentic thinking or something?
>>7821773
the concept of duality stems from ideology. identity is developed by a series of symbolic differences. when you become more indifferent (seeing beyond ideology), you also see beyond these series of symbols. thus becoming indifferent.
if you want to think of it in simpler terms, we can cite science, which notes that everything is just energy undergoing transformation. the differences we make through culture are completely superficial. for example, the earth doesn't care whether you are black, white, male, female, christian or pagan, etc. to the earth, you are dirt: food for worms. the differences are irrelevant. similarly, like deleuze works out on the plane of immanence, death and life are not separate, but synchronous. after all, if nothing died, then nothing could live. live and death are the same thing. this is true of all dualities.
>>7821573
>I've yet to find a critique meet them on their own terms that isn't slavishly adulatory.)
That's because nobody is competent enough to challenge them on the level of their metaphysics.
Baudrillard throws some critique against D&G on the level of the politics of desire in his book "Seduction" but it ultimately is a more generalized critique on the 68 ideology of sexual revolution.
Nobody really has managed to grasp A thousand Plateaus because it's a book on the level of Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, it as entirely untimely book, meant for people in the future with different methodological tools o grasp their ontology.
>>7821996
I don't know, the reason I like them is because they have certain rather simple entry points. Like the Body without Organs. I'm not saying it's a simple concept, but rather that it has plenty of empirical instances that one can detect in his everyday life without requiring additional explanations just to exist as a concept, it is justified just by the fact that it exists as sensation (planes of consistency, intensities, etc.). Of course they extend the concept and use it in things that aren't purely sensible (related to sensitivity), but that's a different story.
>>7819582
/lit/ is great in it's smallness since it makes it easy to identify it's actually just one, very buttmad guy. He always posts / mentions Boutang as evidence that D&G been destroyed, but he clearly read this somewhere else and didn't understand, since he never clarifies on anything
>>7821996
>managed to grasp A thousand Plateaus
Since D&G state that philosophy is the practice of creating concepts, I have always felt that A Thousand Plateaus was simply just that: two guys creating as many concepts as they could to stir shit up and disestablish certain Orders in society.
Sure, there are plenty of ideas in the book, but I think D&G want us to read between the lines. Rather than trying to analyze each separate idea, they want us to understand WHY it is they are creating these concepts, kind of like a see the forest and not just the trees type of mentality. Understanding why the work was made seems just as important as the ideas within the work itself.
But this is a very unpopular opinion. And not one I find many people share.
>>7822014
It's not "just concepts". As Deleuze said, a concept must be "useful"... By example a lot of things in his work tries to think the event (it's not for the only sake of disestablish order, even if it may have this effect). I think I get what you mean, though philosophy is always also a matter of "reading between the lines" as you say.
>>7818933
>autism
>>7821996
Part of the problem, I think, is most critical philosophies, overtly or not, are dialectical, and aimed at exposing ideological motivations latent in this that and the other. A central conceit of the dialectical method is the retreat into the "reality of the appearance," which is really the basis for properly Marxist ideologiekritik, a project which is very important to navigating postmodernity, no doubt, but which inevitably and utterly fails to encapsulate the metaphysics of machinery and assemblages, in which "the appearance" and "ideology" are but one diode or juncture in a deeply complex circuitry. Schizoanalysis is not only opposed to psychoanalysis — it is a complete escape from dialectical thinking of which psychoanalysis is a epistemological off-shoot. Zizek is prone to reject Deleuze-Guattari as thinkers monists on the basis of their emphasis on multiplicity — arguing that since their ontology sees reality as an assembly of multiple machines, they reduce to thinkers of the one — but this ignores the fact that in a proper schizoanalytic view, notions like "one," "many," and "the dialectic" are themselves machines on the immanent plane, or possible configurations of such a plane which is itself just another machine plugged into other possible immanences... etc. I like to think of schizoanalysis like set theory, or the programming language LISP: you make a program composed of a series of list, then write another list which consists of manipulations of that list, and if you have the processing power you can keep expanding this metaprogram indefinitely. A Thousand Plateaus is just such an attempt, limited only by the processing power of the Deleuze-Guattari writing machine.
>>7822556
wow, this turned into a mess. my bad. typing on my phone.
>>7822556
>>7822560
I liked it, anon. I'm still curious about the gap thing though. Zizek, in Organs without Bodies, also talks about the possibility of an illusion of a gap (incompleteness) in the real (so one that might be compatible with D&G maybe?) but nonetheless a (false) gap that has dialectical consequences.
>>7822556
>it is a complete escape from dialectical thinking
exactly. once everything reaches a state of immanence (unification), discussion becomes impossible. dialectic conversations can only through dualisms (identities and differences).
people tend to get butthurt when postmodern theories are compared to occultist practices, but immanence seems very similar to Zen practices of ending discussions on the basis that words in themselves are not the actual world.
>>7822605
without knowing precisely what you're referring to, I imagine you mean his discussion of castration and signification. if so, i think you're right to say Lacan's thinking about The Real is "compatible" with schizoanalysis, but from a different angle. first, i want to emphasize that it's not so much a gap "in" the real, but rather, as I understand it the Real IS the gap between the Imaginary (what we imagine ourselves to mean, to be saying, to be) and the Symbolic (the order of signification with which we represent all those Imaginations). that gap is not false at all, it is a very actual gap with actual consequences. schizoanalysis would solve the problem by multiplication: the Lacanian Real "disappears" into the thicket of all possible permutations of the itinerary between Imaginary and Symbolic. there's no room left for anything from the Imaginary to "go missing," as it so often does in interpretive analyses (psychoanalysis being one of them). of course, this only really works in a hypothetical infinite "metasynchrony," an assemblage of moments stacked side by side infinitely in either direction such that every possible interpretation is communicated simultaneously, as if one could somehow read every critical study in a Borgesian library devoted to a single text at the same time. obviously impossible, and the persistent "gap" between the ontic and the epistemic which Deleuze-Guattari illustrate across ATP is evidence is remainder. i suppose it is a distinction without difference from the Lacanian calculus, which is what makes it all the more bizarre that Zizek flies from them, and, i would like to think, demands some serious psychoanalytic criticism, ironically enough. this "gap" by the way is why Jameson is right to caution that schizophrenia as Deleuze-Guattari conceive it is not revolutionary in the traditional sense of political upheaval, but allows constant revolution as a "way to live" in a late capitalism that revolutionizes itself just as rapidly, plowing over the Real qua gap by simple rearranging the Symbolic in hopes it creates "aftershocks" which effect similar rearrangements in our collective Imagination. it is a "philosophy" in the original, and perhaps layman's, sense.
>>7822664
au contraire! a book was published in 2012 called The Hermetic Deleuze which advances exactly such a thesis, that there is an essential spiritual element to Deleuze (with and without Guattari) that hearkens back to nothing less than the Corpus Hermeticum. i think an occultist revival in the humanities is on the horizon as people start to really figure out what that untimely book (>>7821996) is all about.
>>7822664
>words in themselves are not the actual world
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the Hegelian point in the beginning? The Abstract - Negative - Concrete and stuff like that should describe relations between words and the world, not suppose that words are everything as the stereotypical Absolute Idealism might make it seem. Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass, I don't know.
>>7822670
of this* remainder
>>7822678
But everyone from Hegel to Wittgenstein have been linked to that book. Either the entire history of philosophy is in there, or some obscure nonsense that can be associated with absolutely anything without adding anything useful.
>>7822689
well, Hegel to Wittgenstein are hardly "the entire history of philosophy." but i think to suggest that modern philosophy has some hard kernel of the occult would not be too bold a claim for a philosopher willing to devote 600-1000 pages to it.
>>7822678
good to know. now i don't feel so insane in saying that the eastern sages and the hermetic alchemists were years ahead of their contemporary counterparts.
>>7819597
>Zizek
and why would i care?
>>7821996
>Nobody really has managed to grasp A thousand Plateaus
This. D&G intended it to be essentially obfuscated to the present they were writing in, but the meaning would become clearer over time. However, this isn't because the meaning is hidden, but because the meaning becomes created over time. This is the basic premise of their work which might be called, in Nick Land's terminology, "hyperstition." You're *not* supposed to be reading it looking for the true meaning within, you are supposed to map your own ideas on to their terms, and thus your own philosophy becomes "rhizomatic" and through this rhizomatic process A Thousand Plateaus gains a meaning it didn't previously possess. That's really their point, that you can't passively receive a philosophy from a text but must actively engage, which introduces a subjective element a la Kant's transcendental idealism.
>>7819579
cute girls, philosophy, man that anime has it all
>>7822881
THANK YOU! i have been telling people this over and over again when it comes to ATP, and they constantly keep telling me that I am misinterpreting their work or that i'm simply deluded or an idiot. so, thank you.
>>7821436
At last, it quite did
