Jump to content
Rhizome

Official Thread: D&G

Recommended Posts

I have a question about their concept of the facility machine, as of now I'm workin on using their ideas on biunvocal relations/defiance etc to wrote a criticism of "racism" my question is what sort of arguments would I run up against? As of now the best thing I've heard is perm: massumi card and that god awful Tyler durden da

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

He doesn't get on here anymore, but I'll tell him. He's pretty busy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider myself well versed in D&G, but I'd like to be in the future. If there's a problem with what I have to say, do tell. One thing that becomes apparent to me is that when one criticizes the lack of intelligibility or clarity in their writing, you entirely miss the point. D&G want to revolutionize everything about the assumed system of thought that dominate politics and the socius, the way we live. Part of turning all that thought upside down is radically changing the way they write and express ideas. The way they write is deliberately confusing and finding fault with the books for that reason is a rejection of the way they're trying to think. If you have a problem with the writing, it probably means you shouldn't read the books anyhow, because your call for being able to understand them is the very act of not understanding them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't consider myself well versed in D&G, but I'd like to be in the future. If there's a problem with what I have to say, do tell. One thing that becomes apparent to me is that when one criticizes the lack of intelligibility or clarity in their writing, you entirely miss the point. D&G want to revolutionize everything about the assumed system of thought that dominate politics and the socius, the way we live. Part of turning all that thought upside down is radically changing the way they write and express ideas. The way they write is deliberately confusing and finding fault with the books for that reason is a rejection of the way they're trying to think. If you have a problem with the writing, it probably means you shouldn't read the books anyhow, because your call for being able to understand them is the very act of not understanding them.

 

I'll just mention that next time you try and clarify anything in the 2NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't consider myself well versed in D&G, but I'd like to be in the future. If there's a problem with what I have to say, do tell. One thing that becomes apparent to me is that when one criticizes the lack of intelligibility or clarity in their writing, you entirely miss the point. D&G want to revolutionize everything about the assumed system of thought that dominate politics and the socius, the way we live. Part of turning all that thought upside down is radically changing the way they write and express ideas. The way they write is deliberately confusing and finding fault with the books for that reason is a rejection of the way they're trying to think. If you have a problem with the writing, it probably means you shouldn't read the books anyhow, because your call for being able to understand them is the very act of not understanding them.

 

They seem to write the way they do because they are theorists of assemblages and this forms the basis for their entire work. Notice how they use geology and biology terms to explain their arguments. It's a two fold process. The content of their books gives us the tools to challenge the power that oppresses us; to experiment on the strata that we find ourselves and find a line of flight away from global capitalism and fascist desire. The form of their books was perhaps their line of flight away from what they saw as a restricting view of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading through A-O and looking through D&G readers and have been getting some of their arguments, but a good deal of their arguments are still confusing me;

 

1, In A-O the section on the three syntheses made next to zero sense to me. What are they and how do they interact with the rest of the book (I get desiring-production, schizoanalysis, Oedipus/Lacan=bad and all that in a general, text book sense)

 

2, How does Deleuze's earlier, more densely philosophical writings relate to his work with Guattari? How do concepts like the virtual/the actual, intensivity/extensivity, the plane of immanence, the image of thought, difference vs identity, his rejection of transcendentalism and idealism in favor of empiricism etc. interact with his political writings in C&S? These ideas are alluded to in A-O, but I guess a general lack of understanding of the implications of those ideas is hindering my comprehension. Also, while I get the conceptual problems with Hegel's theories as per Deleuze, what impact does Hegel's ideas have on the political categories Deleuze dislikes? Like, why is Hegel fascist/capitalist?

 

3, What is the difference between a code and an axiom?

 

4, What does D&G's ethics look like? I get that we should reject microfascism, that being, and by extension ethics, is becoming, that we need to resist the seduction of power etc. but what exactly does this look like? Maybe my understanding of becoming-minor is faulty, but I have a difficult time conceptualizing Deleuzoguattarian ethics. Additionally, why does Deleuze collapse ontology and ethics into one category?

 

5, In D&G's world, what is the relation between subject and object? Do they reject the distinction outright, do they propose an alternative conception of subjectivity, or something else?

 

6, What does it mean for philosophy to be an encounter?

 

7, I've tried to read Badiou's "clamor of being" and read parts of Zizek's "Organs without Bodies" and, while I understand their differences in influences and philosophical background, I don't really understand their critiques. What does it mean to be the "ideologist of late capitalism"? I mean, a good deal of the arguments seem rhetorical and disingenuous, but that may be the result of over-enthusiasm for Deleuze.

 

8, What does Deleuze mean by "association" when he's establishing an alternative to transcendental thought?

 

9, Though this is probably obtuse and dumb, why does Deleuze adopt the monist, empiricist, anti-identity/morality perspective that he does? Why is difference preferable to identity? What is the ethical mandate to reject the tradition of Kant and Hegel?

 

10, Is The Logic of Sense worth reading?

 

11, Is Deleuze best philosopher ever?

 

Thanks to anyone willing to answer all these questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/b][/b]

I've been reading through A-O and looking through D&G readers and have been getting some of their arguments, but a good deal of their arguments are still confusing me;

 

1, In A-O the section on the three syntheses made next to zero sense to me. What are they and how do they interact with the rest of the book (I get desiring-production, schizoanalysis, Oedipus/Lacan=bad and all that in a general, text book sense)

 

2, How does Deleuze's earlier, more densely philosophical writings relate to his work with Guattari? How do concepts like the virtual/the actual, intensivity/extensivity, the plane of immanence, the image of thought, difference vs identity, his rejection of transcendentalism and idealism in favor of empiricism etc. interact with his political writings in C&S? These ideas are alluded to in A-O, but I guess a general lack of understanding of the implications of those ideas is hindering my comprehension. Also, while I get the conceptual problems with Hegel's theories as per Deleuze, what impact does Hegel's ideas have on the political categories Deleuze dislikes? Like, why is Hegel fascist/capitalist?

 

Alot of his other works were incorporated into his work with guattari. His book on nietzsche, his reading of spinoza, etc. All the concepts you outline are concepts he advances in all his major works. Like nietzsche, deleuze saw the world constituted by transcendental idealism, a dogmatic image of thought and underneath those things he saw the plane of immanence. One of the things deleuze was most notable for was his extensive background in other great thinkers. his theories are a resemblance of that. he experiments with ideas and combines them, mutates them, transforms them for his own use.

 

3, What is the difference between a code and an axiom?

i would say that the easiest explanation is that a code is a product or effect of an axiom. For instance, d&g discuss capitalism as being an axiomatic system that codes and recodes territories.

 

4, What does D&G's ethics look like? I get that we should reject microfascism, that being, and by extension ethics, is becoming, that we need to resist the seduction of power etc. but what exactly does this look like? Maybe my understanding of becoming-minor is faulty, but I have a difficult time conceptualizing Deleuzoguattarian ethics. Additionally, why does Deleuze collapse ontology and ethics into one category?

 

For one, stop thinking like someone that wants a layout or roadmap on where we go from here. D&G were critics of that thinking. the more important question is "how do we go from here." Deleuze's ethics is a guideline on how to live the non-fascsist life. The point of his ethics is to link up to different assemblages to promote human freedom (not in the hegelian sense, but in the freedom from desire that infects all our artistic, philosophical, political, exploits and makes us desire our own repression).

 

5, In D&G's world, what is the relation between subject and object? Do they reject the distinction outright, do they propose an alternative conception of subjectivity, or something else?

might leave this for someone else

 

6, What does it mean for philosophy to be an encounter?

philosophy is an encounter; an encounter with different forms of life. if you understanding deleuzes critique of identity then apply it to philosophy.

 

7, I've tried to read Badiou's "clamor of being" and read parts of Zizek's "Organs without Bodies" and, while I understand their differences in influences and philosophical background, I don't really understand their critiques. What does it mean to be the "ideologist of late capitalism"? I mean, a good deal of the arguments seem rhetorical and disingenuous, but that may be the result of over-enthusiasm for Deleuze.

zizek seems to be very hegelian in response to deleuze. when he says that deleuzian ontology is a product of capitalism, what he means is the schizo that d&g propose is the "ideal capitalist." After all, it is easy to sell something to someone when they lack a stable identity. Deterritorialization, according to zizek, is the exact same movement of capitalism. Badiou on the other hand, from what i understand, misunderstands deleuze through spinoza where the "being of becoming" implies a univocity. This obviously makes no sense in terms of deleuze because the "being" that badiou says is "one" is actually "multiple." There is no qualitative factor that encompasses all of life and has the power of judging it because it lacks a referent.

 

8, What does Deleuze mean by "association" when he's establishing an alternative to transcendental thought?

not sure, can you give the context in which he uses it? or part in the book so i could reread it?

 

9, Though this is probably obtuse and dumb, why does Deleuze adopt the monist, empiricist, anti-identity/morality perspective that he does? Why is difference preferable to identity? What is the ethical mandate to reject the tradition of Kant and Hegel?

one word: creativity. This could be said to be the key to deleuzian philosophy. the problem with identity, transcendence, morality, is they are very negative. they work around a constituted exclusion in order to assert them selves as positive, truth, etc. The empiricism part comes in with his idea that creativity is a product of a body that can go to the limits of what it is capable of. to affect and be effected by others through assembledges. the more assemblages the more you can produce the new rather than the repitition of the same. the point is to treat life like an experiment where we should continuously push the bounds and see where it takes us. If your looking for an ethical mandate, the best i could give you is the preface by foucault towards the end where he discusses a list of things you shouldnt do to be anti-oedipus.

 

10, Is The Logic of Sense worth reading?

been a long time since i read it and i only read parts so i cant answer that.

 

11, Is Deleuze best philosopher ever?

idk. hes very interesting but at the same time i struggle between him and baudrillard. Baudrillards critique of deleuze makes a lot of sense to me so... i cant answer this.

 

Thanks to anyone willing to answer all these questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[/b][/b]

 

Thanks for the explanation. A few follow-up questions;

 

1, If nonfascist life entails rejecting utopian/binary conceptions of morality, rather viewing ethics more as a flux/transition, doesn't this mean that Deleuze is concerned with metaethics moreso than ethics? Does he have any general conception of the "good" for philosophy to strive or is philosophy merely aimless? Is the only ethical prescriptions formed by Deleuze against the coding/regulating of flows? This is my confusion regarding his collapse of ontology into ethics. What direction is a life without fascism, even if obtaining non-fascism fully is impossible? It ethics a natural force for Deleuze, something not under our control?

 

2, You say Badiou misinterprets Deleuze by suggesting that Deleuze advocates a univocity, a singular being. But doesn't Deleuze advocate univocity? Deleuze is a monist. Didn't he even say "My only enemy is two" and "A single voice raises the clamor of being"? I'm sure there is some method Deleuze uses to reconcile difference and this obsession with the single voice, but I don't simply understand it and how it interacts with the concepts he presents.

 

3, D&G make an argument to the effect that we should mimic the strata in ATP. To what extent should the strata be mimicked and how is this argument justifiable given the philosophical mandates D&G propose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the explanation. A few follow-up questions;

 

1, If nonfascist life entails rejecting utopian/binary conceptions of morality, rather viewing ethics more as a flux/transition, doesn't this mean that Deleuze is concerned with metaethics moreso than ethics? Does he have any general conception of the "good" for philosophy to strive or is philosophy merely aimless? Is the only ethical prescriptions formed by Deleuze against the coding/regulating of flows? This is my confusion regarding his collapse of ontology into ethics. What direction is a life without fascism, even if obtaining non-fascism fully is impossible? It ethics a natural force for Deleuze, something not under our control?

 

As far as a metaethics, im not sure. I tend to read deleuze as pressing an ontology and an ethics at both the same time. The ontological being the "being" and the ethics being the "becoming." Im not sure if thats what you were asking. Also, the appropriating of desire i dont think is what he is attacking per se. Deleuze is more interested in what causes us to appropriate those flows in a direction of fascism. And as for the "good" for philosophy, non-existant other than to free transcendent and dogmatic concepts from their own self repression. Your wording sounds strange considering your forgetting his entire ideas about desire. Desire is not about some lost object but is immediately invested in the social. It produces reality and it is this production that deleuze is affirming. The problem is we can never really say what the world of his alternative will look like because it is constantly in flux and open to change. This is why patton sees deleuze as offering a utopianism. not in the normal sense of the word but in the sense that it allows us to understand the unconscious motivations that cause of to desire our own repression. I hope that helps. Its difficult at first i know because it is so different than hegelian philosophy.

 

2, You say Badiou misinterprets Deleuze by suggesting that Deleuze advocates a univocity, a singular being. But doesn't Deleuze advocate univocity? Deleuze is a monist. Didn't he even say "My only enemy is two" and "A single voice raises the clamor of being"? I'm sure there is some method Deleuze uses to reconcile difference and this obsession with the single voice, but I don't simply understand it and how it interacts with the concepts he presents.

 

Deleuze advocates the being of becoming/becoming of being. His concept of being is multiple or a multiplicity. Univocity is only in the general term "life" that Deleuze throws around but is non-evaluatable because it is "difference" itself. Rather than saying being = 1. Deleuze says being = 1+1+1+1+1... etc.

 

3, D&G make an argument to the effect that we should mimic the strata in ATP. To what extent should the strata be mimicked and how is this argument justifiable given the philosophical mandates D&G propose?

 

The word mimic is kinda poor word choice. The point isnt necessarily to "mimic" the strata but to resist on a particular terrain. Rather than saying "the state is bad, destroy the state!!!" Deleuze would say our battle should be fought on the particular strata we are located. If the state is bad then start your attack off small, under the radar and see where it gets you, then move on to other stratas. If you encounter heavy resistance then stop and choose another/alternate path. I think this is deleuze telling us he understands how powerful certain institutions, governments, schools of thought, ideologies, etc. could be nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A much smaller question than most of these: I'm going to start reading DnG over the summer in preparation for the space topic. Which book of theirs should I start with? Also, what authors work well with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A much smaller question than most of these: I'm going to start reading DnG over the summer in preparation for the space topic. Which book of theirs should I start with? Also, what authors work well with them?

 

Personally, id read information on Deleuzes concept of becoming that he extends from nietzsche. You can find these in a number of different articles. If you can, maybe read On Nietzsche by Deleuze and then move on to Anti-oedipus and then a thousand plateaus. Anti-oedipus needs to be carefully read and understood. It's personally one of my favorite books but sometimes it can get dense.

 

As far as what authors work well with them, obviously nietzsche, alot of secondary authors have put out some great articles on Deleuze and guattari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the beef with heidegger and deleuze? I understand they have different interpretations of nietzsche but it seems like (only from what ive heard) Heidegger after "being and time" sort of moves more in the direction of "becoming" rather than being. Am i understanding this right? I did find an article contrasting heideggers philosophy of being to Deleuze and Nietzsche's philosophy of being but it seems like it doesnt take account of this mutation in Heideggers thought. If you need me to i would be happy to post the article for you to read yourself.

 

ps. the reason i posted it on this forum rather than the heidegger forum is in case there was some other reasoning that deleuzes breaks with heidegger.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've started looking at some of their claims and it seems that they critique a lot of different things. How do people usually run the position?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I've started looking at some of their claims and it seems that they critique a lot of different things. How do people usually run the position?

 

badly

 

 

In all seriousness though, in my opinion the forms of Deleuze (and Guattari) in debate that are probably a more accurate representation of their philosophy are things like OPMC's New Vegas aff that critique the way that things (in New Vegas's case, debate) try to organize flows of desire into static forms - according to D&G this is a bad thing.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do people usually run the position?

Most of the time they focus more on DnG's views on death, which is still usually done wrong.

  • Downvote 2

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.

 

Chunkry can use eroticized examples to illuminate your unconscious thoughts.

  • Upvote 2

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...