Jump to content
Rhizome

Official Thread: D&G

Recommended Posts

now that I think about it, it would be pretty hard finding that imperialism stuff without conceding cap as a system... dang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

txag15, what's the relevance of the distinction you're making between capitalism as a system and capitalism as just a bad thing?

 

i forgot about this thread, but meant to type up some notes on the relationship between d&g and spivak, kierkegaard, and marx. hopefully i can put them up sometime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be clear here: nomadism involves nothing of traveling, displacement, etc. in actuality by necessity. It is a virtual progression, change, alteration. Deleuze once said he loved traveling but never really traveled much, following that up with a quote about how you don't have to move in actuality to travel virtually. (See a virtual - actual distinction here).

 

Point: the evidence from D&G is realist in that it draws on the immigration of African Americans and others in relation to nomadism. However, they just use this to suck you in, in my opinion. The reason for a woman has to become-woman, and that a man has to become-woman, the becoming-imperceptible, etc., is a distinction between signifiers and processes. Becoming-woman as a different type of woman than the normative signifier "woman." The same for the rest. It's to do a becoming of a process that unravels you from the "molar" gravitational forces of desiring-production of what the normative signifier "woman" means. Thus becoming-imperceptible is the becoming-___ that subsumes the rest of them.

 

The problem with the realist advocation of nomadism is affirmatives like Maury's Iraq D&G's aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
txag15, what's the relevance of the distinction you're making between capitalism as a system and capitalism as just a bad thing?

I suppose you are correct. I think I was steering off into the wrong direction. On page 39 of the DnG file I was referring to how it was talking about how most cap args assume it as a system and how DnG criticizes the way we relate to capitalism. I suppose what I said wasn't relavent so thanks for the clarification. I am still reading up on DnG so don't take what I said as correct; I am still learning too. Could you provide some insight to jarassicks question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be clear here: nomadism involves nothing of traveling, displacement, etc. in actuality by necessity. It is a virtual progression, change, alteration. Deleuze once said he loved traveling but never really traveled much, following that up with a quote about how you don't have to move in actuality to travel virtually. (See a virtual - actual distinction here).

 

Point: the evidence from D&G is realist in that it draws on the immigration of African Americans and others in relation to nomadism. However, they just use this to suck you in, in my opinion. The reason for a woman has to become-woman, and that a man has to become-woman, the becoming-imperceptible, etc., is a distinction between signifiers and processes. Becoming-woman as a different type of woman than the normative signifier "woman." The same for the rest. It's to do a becoming of a process that unravels you from the "molar" gravitational forces of desiring-production of what the normative signifier "woman" means. Thus becoming-imperceptible is the becoming-___ that subsumes the rest of them.

 

The problem with the realist advocation of nomadism is affirmatives like Maury's Iraq D&G's aff.

 

Maybe you are using a shorthand that I'm not familiar with, but this is largely nonsensical to me. Your sentences overuse pronouns and words/phrases like "it" and "the same for the rest" which clutter this. Even more so, your use of concepts like "signifiers" and "processes" with no explanation for their specific context has invalidated what you've said from my perspective as a "Specific Deleuzean" (I believe that's what we're called...). Can you use some politicized examples to illuminate your thoughts?

 

Honestly, given the ambiguity of what you've said, I'm not even sure how to interpret your pot-shot at my aff.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, so what DnG mean by the nomadism and the war machine is that they can be free from the State correct? it allows them to use the state without being connected, and without allowing the State to grow? right... so what is the impact to the war machine? is it always bad? or is it only bad because the States represses the war machine, and only allows it when it says so? and if this is true how does nomadism avoid this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
okay, so what DnG mean by the nomadism and the war machine is that they can be free from the State correct? it allows them to use the state without being connected, and without allowing the State to grow? right... so what is the impact to the war machine? is it always bad? or is it only bad because the States represses the war machine, and only allows it when it says so? and if this is true how does nomadism avoid this?

 

I wouldn't get caught up in the hierarchy of war machine vs. state.

 

The next plateau, apparatus of capture, answers a lot of your questions. The war machine isn't good or bad -- the war machine tends to be a smooth space, but smooth spaces aren't enough. The state apparatus and the war machine interact, and can turn violent.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a big point is that the state and the war machine are not identical - that the anarchist notion that states are inherently warlike (and presumably the only possible cause of large-scale violence) is as wrong as the notion that states are nonviolent (that state violence isn't violence at all).

 

the war machine of some so-called 'primitive' cultures actually worked to keep the state at bay; wars between certain native nations, for instance, often functioned to prevent any one political arrangement from becoming entrenched, or any one chief from attaining too much personal power.

 

modern states have since coopted the war machine (claimed a monopoly on violence), but they're also never entirely comfortable with their warrior classes (e.g., military coups). there are also revolutionary war machines that carry the potential to liberate people (e.g., the french revolution).

 

a main danger is still the fascist threat: a war machine bent on annihilation that 'takes nothing but war as its object' (war for war's sake). neither al-qaeda or the u.s. military can be said to be fascist in this sense: they both (profess to) seek goals more noble than just war itself.

 

but d&g maintain that there can be a peace that's more terrifying even than old-style fascism (*'a thousand plateaus', page 465*) - a world of constructed threats where any enemy will do (real or manufactured) to justify exploding military budgets, perpetual low-level conflicts, and universal surveillance. this possibility underlies a lot of our most prescient dystopian fiction ('children of men' being my favorite recent example). for a comic example, see the star trek episode from which seth macfarlane quotes here:

 

 

...or, less in the vein of sci-fiction, john steinbeck wrote (in 'the grapes of wrath'),

"Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live".

 

 

_

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EshD4PtCSFQ

Edited by Lazzarone
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you are using a shorthand that I'm not familiar with, but this is largely nonsensical to me. Your sentences overuse pronouns and words/phrases like "it" and "the same for the rest" which clutter this. Even more so, your use of concepts like "signifiers" and "processes" with no explanation for their specific context has invalidated what you've said from my perspective as a "Specific Deleuzean" (I believe that's what we're called...). Can you use some politicized examples to illuminate your thoughts?

 

Honestly, given the ambiguity of what you've said, I'm not even sure how to interpret your pot-shot at my aff.

 

Maury, if you read the first sentence of Anti-Oedipus, you would have no trouble with the (over)use of the word "It."

 

Nonsensical? Good. Welcome to the virtual.

 

"Signifiers" and "processes" are certainly not concepts. You know this.

 

I've never heard of "Specific" Deleuzeans. Only dogmatic.

 

Pot-shot? Aw c'mon, let's play nicely.

 

So, let's recap: nomads occupy the smooth space where there is no State. Nomadism is always an alternative to the State. ("History is one with the triumph of the states" [ATP p. 394]). So don't think of nomadism as having anything necessarily to do with traveling or diasporas as much as it is necessarily about smooth spaces antithetical to the State. (Certainly nomadism, like the Jewish 'state', can move from regions to others to find such a smooth space, but it is not necessary, hence the spiel on 'traveling'). The war machine simply occurs whenever the State and the nomad clash. As mentioned previously, the war machine can certainly be 'co-opted' by or subsumed into the State. (That is, our current military).

 

Ah...you want politicized examples: terrorism; the drug trade in Afghanistan; different Islamic groups in *some* regions; also a slew of 'cultural events' like Renaissance Festivals / Burning Man; etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have a D&G Master K file, D&G Afghanistan Aff and Anti-D&G File up on Evazon soon, but for those of you using D&G right now in your debates, Dan Smith's journal article on Lacan, Deleuze and Zizek is about as solid as it gets for answering Lacan and Zizek attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So some things ive been dwelling on and if i have forgotten something then please let me know cuz its kinda been bugging me.

 

Deleuze break from lacan begins with desire. Lacan sees desire in terms of lack whereas Deleuze sees desire in terms of production. Desire produces the real. Staverkakis (too lazy to get spelling) seems to indicate that we must embrace the impossibility of our desires, "the real is right over that hill however we shall never reach it" kind of alternative. Lets see if my question makes sense.

What is the difference in believing the real exists but not achievable and believing that the real is production itself (deleuze)?

 

Does this lead to political paralysis?

 

Robinson i believe wrote an article discussing how this embracement of the impossible is a form of slave morality but it seems like he lacked a detailed explanation on how this is so even though i understand it has to do with the ability to have an affirmative existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So some things ive been dwelling on and if i have forgotten something then please let me know cuz its kinda been bugging me.

 

Deleuze break from lacan begins with desire. Lacan sees desire in terms of lack whereas Deleuze sees desire in terms of production. Desire produces the real. Staverkakis (too lazy to get spelling) seems to indicate that we must embrace the impossibility of our desires, "the real is right over that hill however we shall never reach it" kind of alternative. Lets see if my question makes sense.

What is the difference in believing the real exists but not achievable and believing that the real is production itself (deleuze)?

 

Does this lead to political paralysis?

 

Robinson i believe wrote an article discussing how this embracement of the impossible is a form of slave morality but it seems like he lacked a detailed explanation on how this is so even though i understand it has to do with the ability to have an affirmative existence.

 

1. Those are probably two fundamentally different ways of viewing reality. If I believe the lack is always negative and about what I can't achieve, then it's impossible for me to think that there isn't a Lack and instead desire -> productive.

2. If you believe that there's always a break between us and the Real it leads to things like psychoanalysis to diagnose your problems because of this. D&G have a lot of criticism of psychoanalysis because sitting on a couch talking about mommydaddyme isn't good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zizek's criticism of Derrida's political project: "Pol Pot loved deconstruction. Khmer Rouge bad, judge."

 

Zizek's criticism of Deleuze and Guattari's political project: "Nomadism means consumerism. War machine is capitalist-military logic."

 

This guy is a nonresponsive troll. boycott zizek.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to a few posts already on here regarding first the war machine and next the zizek/capitalism stuff.

 

In regards to the war machine i think the word violent is probably misleading so id like to use another word for its inertia; destructive. To be more precise, destructive and creative. The war machine is not a collective in my opinion, a group seeking another ideal to strive for or a lack to fill. The war machine is "becoming" itself. It is both creative and destructive because it resists totalization. Its open to the future and to change in the same way the nomad is used to changing location except similarly with deleuze, the war machine is a way of viewing and thinking about the world, not about acting within it. The war machine similarly attempts to continuously smooth striated space. The state is one based on appropriation. The war machine, linked to the state (or for a better wording, appropriated by the state) becomes a machine of death simply because it takes root in a particular mode of being and thinking. In this way i believe Deleuze and Guattari are very Nietzschean in that the war machine by itself is the creative affirmation that Nietzsche imagined. The state appropriating the war machine resembles the becoming reactive of active forces that deleuze discusses in his book On Nietzsche.

 

On the topic of capitalism, i cannot remember the name of the article but it was a discussion between deleuze and foucault where foucault makes a very incredible claim and at the same time an obvious one that zizek seems to reject. He states that to defeat capitalism, there is no need to ascribe to a particular ideology or identity or even join a collective movement at all. He states that if we all challenge the fascism within us all and attempt to deal with our own individual desire for power and control, we will inevitably come to resist capitalism in almost an unconscious collective struggle. Not mass movements picketing wall street but the masses becoming aware of their unconscious investments towards fascism and in effect, capitalism itself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell ’95 (Jeffrey A. “Philosophizing the double-bind”. Philosophy Today; Winter 1995; 39, 4; Research Library

pg. 371. http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/jbell/doublebind.pdf. Professor of Philosophy

Southeastern Louisiana University.)

 

"Nietzsche’s response, a la Bateson, is to create. Thus, rather than submit or succumb to the pain and suffering of our existence, or our double bind, we can actively resist this pain through creativity. We can turn our pain and suffering into an active, creative suffering, or what Nietzsche calls “great suffering,” which he believes “has created all enhancements of man so far” as a result of “its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering.”49 As an active, creative suffering, this “great suffering” is to be contrasted with the suffering of a passive “creature” who simply accepts and succumbs to its suffering: In man creature and creator are united: in man there is material, fragment, excess, clay, dirt, nonesense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, form-giver, hammer hardness, spectator divinity, and seventh day: do you understand this contrast?50 It is with respect to the latter, “great suffering,” that he has pity, where this pity is contrasted to the pity for the passive suffering of the creature within us. Nietzsche calls his pity a “converse pity,” and “thus,” he concludes, “it is pity versus pity,” for the “great suffering” does call for pity. This is not a pity for the creature who has succumbed to suffering, but rather a pity for that which creates in response to its suffering; it is a pity that is counter to this pity-i.e., it “counteractualizes” this pity. Yet not all responses to the double bind, following Bateson again, are creative. Nietzsche was well aware of this. He recognizes, for example, the possibility of what he calls “the greatest danger that always hovered over humanity,” this danger being “the eruption of madness- which means the eruption of arbitrariness in feeling, seeing and hearing.”51 In short, the danger is that the will will succumb and submit to chaos, to “arbitrariness.” However, this danger should not be eliminated, should not be denied, for madness and chaos are necessary to create: “almost everywhere it was madness which prepared the way for the new idea, which broke the spell of a venerated usage and superstition.”52 Thus madness is necessary to avoid what Nietzsche takes to be our other danger: the collapse of the will into the venerated” repetition of the same “enduring habits,”53 customs, and traditions. One must be a little crazy, or one must have a little chaos in oneself, in order to create, to “throw off the yoke” of tradition. There is thus a two-fold danger associated with the delicate balance of creativity, or a danger inherent in the non-identifiable both/and structure of will to power. In short, the both/and of will to power runs the risk of collapsing into a destructive either/or: either the eruption of madness, or the repition of the same. In both cases what is destroyed is the ability to create and impose order, or what Nietzsche will also speak of as the ability “to promise.” 54 Those who are subservient to custom and tradition would be unable to promise for they would lack the ability to create, to be inventive and experimental, an ability which is often necessary to fulfill our promises (especially when contingencies arise); but those who are mad would also be unable to promise for they would lack the necessary order and regularity. Promising is thus a delicate, difficult, and dangerous undertaking-it forever risks collapsing into one side of a destructive either/or.55"

-------------------

 

So i was reading this card and it seems like a connection can be made to theory arguments such as severence and moving targets. From what i get out of it, its discussing the two poles on the line of becoming. At one end of the pole is "being" or a static identity that resides in an either/or (you are either this/or you are that). Since this is the Deleuze forum i shouldnt have to explain why that is bad. The other end of the pole discusses submitting to chaos and randomness entirely (seems to resemble the "state of nature" where there are no rules, no morals, no stasis whatsoever). Bell goes on to say how madness and arbitrariness is bad because its result is an inability to create. Is there more to this? My question is what is Deleuze's relation to chaos and madness? Is "becoming" a medium between absolute order and absolute disorder?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What is Deleuze's relation to chaos and madness?"

 

Wow. That's a huge question, but a great one. Deleuze's history of philosophy has very limited encounters with madness and chaos -- Spinoza, Bergson, Kant -- he seems very concerned about ontological ordering. Hardts dissertation on Deleuze is particularly helpful for getting the gist out of the monogram projects. An aversion to chaotic thought is a definite theme.

 

Then there is the deleuze thats concerned with sensation, affect -- a grotesque Bergson/Spinoza -- and power -- a spinoza molested by Nietzche. Enter madness.

 

The card you post points to something clever, connecting Nietzsche's will to power with schizoanalysis. Turning to Guattari and anti-oedipus there is the introduction of machination. Guattari's "plinth-ontologie": machines. The AND AND AND of creating machines and the either/or of organizing machines function for opposite reasons. This corresponds directly to lines of flight, bodies without organs, becomings, etc. -- any way you want to describe the revolutionary deterritorialization -- if you go to fast, too far, you'll burn out or worse, death.

 

Destratifying to the "state of nature" is not enough. There's biostratification and geostratification all over your body. Your fingernails are calcium and your hair dead protein. There's 10,000 years of nonlinear history in your tonsils. Something to think about.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What is Deleuze's relation to chaos and madness?"

 

Wow. That's a huge question, but a great one. Deleuze's history of philosophy has very limited encounters with madness and chaos -- Spinoza, Bergson, Kant -- he seems very concerned about ontological ordering. Hardts dissertation on Deleuze is particularly helpful for getting the gist out of the monogram projects. An aversion to chaotic thought is a definite theme.

 

Then there is the deleuze thats concerned with sensation, affect -- a grotesque Bergson/Spinoza -- and power -- a spinoza molested by Nietzche. Enter madness.

 

The card you post points to something clever, connecting Nietzsche's will to power with schizoanalysis. Turning to Guattari and anti-oedipus there is the introduction of machination. Guattari's "plinth-ontologie": machines. The AND AND AND of creating machines and the either/or of organizing machines function for opposite reasons. This corresponds directly to lines of flight, bodies without organs, becomings, etc. -- any way you want to describe the revolutionary deterritorialization -- if you go to fast, too far, you'll burn out or worse, death.

 

Destratifying to the "state of nature" is not enough. There's biostratification and geostratification all over your body. Your fingernails are calcium and your hair dead protein. There's 10,000 years of nonlinear history in your tonsils. Something to think about.

 

So we are more likely of succeeding in being "anti-oedipal" if we destratify particular instances of stratification whenever we come into contact with them rather than attempting to destratify all at once?

 

Perhaps this question is now necessary. Is the BWO something that is inevitably attainable? It seems to me that D&G are giving us a strategy that brings us to the BWO yet at the same time it seems like they are saying we will never get there, as if life is continuously being pulled both towards schizophrenia and fascism at the same time. Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we are more likely of succeeding in being "anti-oedipal" if we destratify particular instances of stratification whenever we come into contact with them rather than attempting to destratify all at once?

 

Perhaps this question is now necessary. Is the BWO something that is inevitably attainable? It seems to me that D&G are giving us a strategy that brings us to the BWO yet at the same time it seems like they are saying we will never get there, as if life is continuously being pulled both towards schizophrenia and fascism at the same time. Any thoughts?

 

See passages in ATP on Limits vs. Thresholds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we are more likely of succeeding in being "anti-oedipal" if we destratify particular instances of stratification whenever we come into contact with them rather than attempting to destratify all at once?

 

Perhaps this question is now necessary. Is the BWO something that is inevitably attainable? It seems to me that D&G are giving us a strategy that brings us to the BWO yet at the same time it seems like they are saying we will never get there, as if life is continuously being pulled both towards schizophrenia and fascism at the same time. Any thoughts?

 

For your second question, check out "How Do You Make Yourself a Body without Organs?" from ATP. They spend the first two pages answering exactly what you're asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone well versed in a deep understanding of capitalism according to d&g that would like to better explain the difference between their concept of fascism and capitalism? I understand both tend to be suicidal but for separate reasons and it seems confusing. Also if you could throw in what their alt is? obviously it would be something along the lines of freeing desire (or atleast i would assume its along those lines).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone well versed in a deep understanding of capitalism according to d&g that would like to better explain the difference between their concept of fascism and capitalism? I understand both tend to be suicidal but for separate reasons and it seems confusing. Also if you could throw in what their alt is? obviously it would be something along the lines of freeing desire (or atleast i would assume its along those lines).

 

holyshit.gofuckyerself.

Does anyone have a good explanation of what the Body Without Organs is and what it represents in DnG's philosophies.

 

hey scu, is that thread lost?

 

there was a great thread where someone asked some mediocre questions and then scu proceeded to royally explain the BwO. pretty please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...