Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:22 am

“Anyway, in tomorrow’s episode, I elaborate on the nature of the nihilistic perspective, explain the sociopathic and psychotic pitfalls of it in terms of the symbolic order, then position (in a way that is positive and respectful in disposition –in awe, even! (Deleuze and the schizophrenic process, decidedly, on the psychotic side of the symbolic order.”

When I use the word “nihilism”, I do not, by any means, mean the conventional and popular notion of it associated with, for instance, punk rock: that of the purely destructive. The important thing to remember here is that nothingness (therefore the nihilistic perspective (can have no fixed trajectory –much like the schizophrenic process. It is Zen-like in nature and the conclusions it CAN lead to and serves as a counter-force to the bad faith of thinking we might find some all purpose system that will make everything run like some fine-tuned machine. And the best way to illustrate it, as far as I can tell, is the way in which it undermines the political and social uses of the skeptic’s paradox.

If you approach a skeptic (what I consider to be an expression of the nihilistic perspective) and the nihilistic perspective and say:

“You cannot say there are no absolutes because to say so is to try to posit an absolute.”

As clever as this might sound, the skeptic will simply do what they normally do: scrutinize (that is until they recognize that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. Then they will go right on being skeptics.  The nihilistic perspective, on the other hand, will just glare at you, impatiently, and snarl:

“Right! Nothing is engraved in stone, not even that nothing is engraved in stone.”

For the nihilistic perspective, the very fact that it tends to nihilate itself only serves as confirmation of the nihilistic perspective.  This is why, as far as it is concerned, while there is no solid foundation for accepting any ethical position (such as that against murder or rape (there is equally no foundation for not accepting them. And the same goes for religion. This, furthermore, is why it (given the nature of absence and nothingness (can only glance the corner of the eye and eludes articulation. Once you try to talk about it or justify it, you wander completely from the point. As I like to say:

“While the nihilistic perspective is a nice place to visit, only a sociopath or psychotic would want to live there.”

And this is where we get to Deleuze’s place in this. The nihilistic perspective may shy away from words, but it is always there at the back of people’s minds (even when they deny it (if in nothing else, in the very recognition that we exist as we are (out of the thousands of other possible people we could be but are not (as compared to not being.  And given its aversion to language and, consequently, the symbolic order, there are 2 poles that individuals can gravitate towards in relation to the symbolic order.

On one hand there is the sociopathic which involves, having no solid criteria by which to judge our actions, turning to the one criteria and praxis that seems to push itself upon us: power. This falls into the circler reasoning of:

“I have power because I am right. Therefore, I am right because I have power.”

And the implications of this, for me at least, would involve going well beyond the window I have here. And I have enough faith in the intellect of others on this board to confidently assume they will arrive at many of those themselves. Suffice it to say that while the extreme of this is the sociopathic serial killer, it also finds expression in cut-throat Capitalists, Wall Street types (as the movie American Psycho demonstrates), and players as anyone who has fallen in love with one well knows.

But what is important for our purposes is the pole of the psychotic (a term interchangeable with schizophrenic and quite different than psychopathy (in which the individual, having no real criteria by which to judge their actions, turns to their own semiotic bubble with its own terminology and semiotic  rules (keep in mind here that language is an agreement (that tends to alienate it from the symbolic order. The most representative of this, of course, is the schizophrenic engaged in some weird (sometimes poetic (dialogue with themselves. But it also takes on more subtle expressions in, for instance, drug addicts (note the movie Trainspotting which I consider a nihilistic anthem (and alcoholics. But we can also see it in the desiring and social production of the avante garde. In fact, almost every artist has to gravitate towards the psychotic (abandon the symbolic order (in order to focus on their art. Take Van Gogh and Bukowski for instance.

Hopefully (and most likely (I will not have to articulate too much on why I put Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri  -that is with the Anti-Oedipus Papers being about as poetic in a schizophrenic way as anything I have ever read (in the latter category. The only thing worth pointing out is that it is likely why I have gravitated to him like I have –even at the seemingly superficial level of understanding I have felt I have always had of him. If I seem to hate Capitalism at times (which I really don’t (it is only because the only thing that can justify a point A to point B is experiencing that point A to point B to the fullest. And Capitalism, as we experience it now, only seems to pose itself as a higher principle that assigns itself privilege over our point A to point B. Still, it lies at the bottom of a lot of our experiences of freedom (that is when it’s not being despotic (of de-territorializing when it’s not re-territorializing. We clearly live in complicated and complex times. And I have often said that the only way out is through. Perhaps the schizophrenic process (courting the psychotic (and that nurtured by Capitalism in its better moments (is the only way out of this mess.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:48 am

Yeah, Seedy, I find it a little short on understanding as concerns the true complexity that religion plays in our life. And I think this comes out of the simulacrum effect of media. We have to keep in mind here that it is not enough to report the news; it has to sell as well which disposes the media (more specifically: the news media) to the sensational. It’s a little like what happens with drugs. If some person goes home and sparks a marley to relax, well…. that is not news. However, if some crack addict kills someone in the process of jacking their car, then that is news. And the same goes for religion. If some individual chooses to make the leap of faith and benefits from it as a kind of anchor in their life, without the sanctimony, then that is not news –that is unless they end up in some fluff peace about some charitable act they engaged in. On the other hand, if a Christian stands in front of church that marries gay people and holds up a sign that says: remember: God still hates fags? Well: that does get noticed, much as the extremes of some of the factions of Islamic religion tend to get noticed.

Now, I would point out here that I am an agnostic to the extent that while all evidence suggests that there is no God, that evidence comes up against the same inductive limit as anything else. We know too little to be too conclusive about anything. Plus that, I’m not sure how anyone could face the beast we do in global Capitalism w/o at least pretending to pray to something.

And given that we are facing the new Roman Empire, you can’t help but set aside the perversities that organized religion has engaged in and see in Christ the ultimate deconstructive rebel in that he died because he loved everyone while not loving any group of people at the same time. He, in Deleuzian terms, railed against the pockets of fascism that could emerge anywhere: in the social and in our selves. This is why when Pontius Pilate gave the people a choice between sparing Christ or Barabbas (a man who had killed a roman soldier), they chose Barabbas. His form of rebellion was just much easier to understand than Christ’s which involved rebelling against the oppressive forces at work within ourselves.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:33 am

It is interesting to watch how 2 hard core right-wing elements work together. On one hand, you have the religious right-wing element that believe it is our God-given right to pursue Capitalism as it is and, consequently, to exploit the earth’s resources until Jesus takes them home in the Rapture . To them, Capitalism is an expression of God. If you’re rich, God (and Jesus (must love you. Right?

On the other, you have the secular right-wing that sees the invisible hand as a stand-in for god. They will have nothing to do with Christian rules (but they will immerse themselves in the light.

But as the saying goes:

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

What would the 2 of them do together without their common enemy:






the liberal?

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:53 am

.



Um, I'm not sure about that quote - “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”



If you turned it around the logic doesn't follow; “The friend of my friend is my enemy.”



Hey, can we just talk? Just you and me. Here. In this room.

There's no one else here.


Who are you?



Could you tell me about yourself?








.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:54 pm

As I told Obe on another board, it is always a pleasure hearing from you.

Yeah, sure. I'll get to you as soon as I can. We would need a time that works for us both.

But, anyway:

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:55 pm

“As [Wilhelm] Reich remarks, the astonishing thing is not that some people some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike,, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice , and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike: after centuries of exploitation, why do people still tolerate being humiliated and enslaved, to such a point, indeed, that they actually want humiliation and slavery not only for others but for themselves.” - The Anti-Oedipus, pg. 29.

So that’s where I got that. And this, in a sense, runs a little deeper than what is about to follow in that it gets at the everyday expression of how desire can turn on itself. D & G then go on:

“Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the innocent masses were not dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for.” –ibid.

And noting the subtle distinction while noting the connection, we can see why D & G encourages us to let go of the dualism between rational and irrational thought: there is simply no way of disentangling the two. They are simply both part of the universal matrix, the multiple interactions of desiring and social production –both of which are basically the same or, better said, two sides of the same coin. I watch a sci fi film with my rightwing friend and hear him grumble about political correctness of the woman being in control and her closest association being with a black man. It feels like a jab. It is a jab (he knows I am a progressive (one in which I see the roots of a fascism. Still, how irrational is it, as a white heterosexual male, to look out for his own interest –even if it is based on tunnelvision and (from my perspective: half-assed data supplied to him through the cult dynamic of Fox News? Once again: a vast interaction of desiring machines with other desiring machines –both internal and external to the emergent property of the subject machine: you, me, us, and them.

And this where I can feel the oblique influence of Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri: in my turn to the competitive/cooperative evolutionary model (based on game theory (in which the competitive model represents a relationship in which our baser impulses put our higher cognitive functions in their service (the model which, in evolutionary terms, has gotten us to this point thus far (via, at the end, Capitalism (and in which the cooperative model represents a mutual relationship between the two (that sees its best interest in acknowledging the interest of the other: the next evolutionary step if we are to avoid the global catastrophe that Capitalism, as we practice it now, via global warming and an unsustainable population, is leading us to.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:02 pm

“Second, we make no distinction between man and nature: the human essence of nature and the essence of nature and the natural essence of man become one within nature within nature in the form of production or industry, just as they do within the life of man as a species. “ –The Anti Oedipus, pg. 4.

Hence the plane of imminence in which we, as individuals, act as transitional points within the multidirectional exchanges of flows of energy that condition the nature of that energy through the vast complexes of energy exchange within us. In this sense (that of social production), we can see a connection with a model described by Layotard in The Postmodern Condition:

Imagine the earth as a ball floating through space with all these various ball bearings committed to it via gravity. Now imagine these ball bearings as various desiring machines set in motion by the movement of the ball clacking against each other in various acts of displacement: what we experience as communication.

In this sense, Layotard seems to be getting at a similar intuition as that which underlies D & G here.

At the same time, we have to ask how this plays as concerns the naturalistic fallacy: that which poses nature as the final authority on human policy. And this may be important given that one of Capitalism’s most powerful tools is its ability to mimic natural forces. This is the underlying assumption of the tyranny of the functional in which we discourse about Capitalism as if it is some unavoidable presence in our life like the weather or death and is what drives the cynicism that perpetuates the kind of when-in-Rome mentality that underlies most arguments for maintaining the status quo. As Thatcher said: there is no getting around market forces. And take, for instance, Dennis Miller’s argument (one propped up by a kind of rock-star non-chalance rather than a careful consideration of the real consequences (that we’ll turn to alternative fuel sources when we run out of gas (he says as he throws up his hands and pouts his lips.

D & G then go on to say:

“Industry is then no longer considered from the extrinsic point of view of utility, but rather from the point of view of its fundamental identity with nature as production of man and by man. Not man as the king of creation….” –ibid.

And doesn’t this go to the import of the board? The Jam? You can almost see Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri (as the ultimate philosopher of the boards.

This, as they continue on to point out, puts us in a place that puts a mandate on us to act in harmony with the system in which we participate not as mere cogs in a mechanism defined for us, but as contributors to a mass engineering project: the very construction of what our nature (and the nature of nature (will be. This, as I understand it, is what makes desiring production (and the social production that can result from it (drive revolutionary production as easily as it drives Capitalist production.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:59 pm

First of all John, Don, and Orla: thanks for giving me my around 500 words for today. My fishing expedition at the bar (what I call “the library”) in which I go back to an earlier point in the book I am reading (which is the Anti-Oedipus), read more slowly and turn to the footnotes if it feels right to do so, and take notes in preparation for what I do here every day, didn’t produce much. But watching the dialogue between you guys, it all came together and inspired me to participate in a way that works in to my present study.

That said, John, as far as reading the original text, I think Don offers some really good advice:

“ Enjoy the text. Read and reread. Avoid thinking of reading as a kind of all or nothing form of consumption. Visit and revisit complex texts. Take notes. Keep track of key concepts and of phrases that trigger an intuitive response (I do this in the top margins of notebook pages). Pull these together periodically and reflect on them both mentally and in writing. Post questions and speculations here. But remember, there is a greater reality that is only obscured by discursive intellect.”

A point cleverly punctuated by Orla:

“This reminds me of Nietzsche's advice: Read me like a cow - chew the cud.”

For myself, I tend to look at it as a daily meditation in that I just let the words flow through me until something catches and, in turn, develops my filters as I assimilate it so that more of it will catch the next time I read it. However, unlike Don, I tend to take notes during my fishing expeditions at “the library”. And Don is right in saying “Enjoy the text.” There will come times when the only thing carrying you through is the imagery that Deleuze presents (w/ and w/out Guattarri ( and the style of exposition: which is poetic at times. But I would especially note in reference to your inquiry:

“People keep telling me to start with the Rhizome or his Capitalism & Schizophrenia. Thoughts?”

: Don’s final point that there is a greater reality obscured by discursive intellect. Or as I like to say:

“There is something about reality that transcends the language we use to describe it.”

The thing I hope you will understand is that no matter how deep you get into Deleuze (or any other philosopher (the process is always your own. Philosophy is not about who can better interpret some great philosopher better than anyone else. And neither is it, above all, some corporate hierarchy in which we work our way up the ladder by following some fixed progression of steps. It is a personal and creative way of engaging with the world. And you will find support for my point in the A to Z interviews in which Deleuze emphasizes the import of engagements such as going to the movies or an art exhibition. And this is why you cannot base your process on your ability to exactly interpret what Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri ( says, but on your ability (as D & G implore us to do in What is Philosophy (to play with concepts: what you produce through acts of Bricollage. It is not about what Deleuze says, but what you can use and do with it, and it is why you will find yourself working in the overlaps (the various hybrids (that emerge as you study not just Deleuze, but other thinkers.

Of course, you will come across the purists (the esoteric elitists (that want philosophy to feel like some kind of bootcamp within which a clear hierarchy is established. These are the ones that insist you work purely from original text like some kind of scholar interpreting hieroglyphs. It reminds me of a piece of dialogue out of the movie Vincent and Theo in which Van Gogh is working on one his paintings while the other artist (a classicist) is working on his. The classicist notes that by the time you have developed the skills to make art, you forget why you wanted to in the first place. Van Gogh responds that he never forgot. This is because he started off making art because of his natural desire to make beautiful things: his sense of Play.

So, John, why would it matter whether you start from the original text or worked your way to it via secondary text? Why would it matter if you, via secondary text such as Claire Colebrook’s Routledge Guide to Deleuze (which I highly recommend (found a concept you could play with? Even if it is not exactly what Deleuze meant? As the intro to the Routledge guides points out:

“To use a metaphor from the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 –1951), these books are ladders, to be thrown away after you have climbed to the next level.” - (Routledge Critical Thinkers) . Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

I myself have a whole collection of graphic guides: comic books that explain complex intellectual concepts. And, of course, those same purists will scoff at this. But fuck them. This is my process, not theirs.

And you had to of taken an interest in Difference and Repetition via a secondary text. Something drew you to it. So why not use secondary text to work your way to it so that you can enjoy what you gain enough to justify reading the original text? I mean whatever misunderstandings you might develop during the process will be cleared up as you compare them to the original text anyway.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:05 pm

.


...............................Now is a great time.



.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:07 pm

“As someone devoted to the work of Deleuze myself, D Edward, I am suspicious of any supposed 'context' and have problems with seeing 'understanding' as any kind of goal, or as anything other than a distracting (but I suppose temporarily essential) refrain. Suspiciously, I see any yearning for or dependence on its use as a desire for strength created by those who want to cling to it.”

Fair enough, Don. You’re pretty much working in the post-structuralist/post-modern spirit. Still, you had to come to a realization (via Deleuze (to arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise, what would be the point? It just seems to me that while you see “understanding” as an unworthy goal, you seem to have an understanding with Deleuze. And keep in mind that I’m not trying to deride you here. I respect what you’re saying. And I suspect that you may have gotten a deeper understanding (or intuition if you will (of it than I have since I don’t really consider myself devoted to Deleuze. It’s more like an obsession to me (a goal I’ll never obtain but can never fully walk away from. To use an analogy: it is like a really hot French chick that seems to be coming on to me, almost throwing herself on me, that always steps back the minute I approach her: a little like Kafka’s women who always seem to throw themselves into the lap of K., then, in their dreamlike nature, just as easily slip away. It compels obsession and desire.

(But as drawn as I am to Deleuze, there are still a lot of other philosophers I plan to fuck around with like Rorty, Zizek, Foucault maybe (who knows which great thinker I will buggar like a common rhizome (and I get the feeling that Deleuze (being the anti-Guru (is in to such an open relationship.)

You’ve clearly dived deep into the nihilistic perspective of Deleuze: that which assumes that everything rests on assumptions that, in themselves, float on thin air. But I can’t help but wonder if that shouldn’t bring you to question your very devotion to Deleuze.

That said, I am completely with you when you say:

“ I am suspicious of any supposed 'context' and have problems with seeing 'understanding' as any kind of goal, or as anything other than a distracting (but I suppose temporarily essential) refrain.”

Deleuze asks us to connect and forget. In other words, we’re asked to engage in a constant process of de- and re-territorialization. Our moments of understanding (that which we repeat through refrains (become what Robert Frost called (in reference to poetry: momentary stays against confusion. And as distracting as those refrains might seem, I would tend to show a little more respect for the role they play as an expression of repetition: that which acts as a point of capture and keeps the force of difference from ripping everything apart (all connections (into complete chaos. I mean what would these boards be without those refrains (those repetitions (but you and me just picking random words out of our brains and talking past each other? We just as well be 2 nutjobs in a psych ward mutually engaging in our own personal monologues.

I would respectfully suggest that we make a distinction between understanding and knowing (or what is commonly spoken of as The Truth. Understanding, to me, is always a contingent and unstable engagement with the world of objects (including those within us such as thoughts (while knowledge is a supposedly stable form of overcoding that, being overcoding (a human construct, exposes it as being less stable than it thinks it is.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:15 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.


...............................Now is a great time.



.
Christ! I thought you were British: that mug in hand and all. What are you doing posting at 7:00 in the morning?

I'm sorry Bill. I will try to get to this as soon as possible. You're like 1 hour ahead of me (I live in the Midwest. I Generally get online around 2:30 in the afternoon to about 4:30. On Mondays, that being my weekend, I get on about 10:00 at night. But you will have to let me know ahead of time; otherwise I won't even know you are on here. But I look forward to chatting with you. You were the one that inspired one of my longer and more finished pieces on the Academy: a progressive's Thoughts on Conservatism.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:10 pm

“The law sucks pretty hard just now, as I study full time for the bar exam. It's all the memorization and sheer volume, and none of the interesting theory and policy considerations.”

All of the tests I had to pass for certification (3rd grade engineers, Comp Tia A+, and the 3 Microsoft office certifications) took me about 9 months each to study for, which makes them seem minor compared to what you’re about to accomplish. But they were enough (both individually and collectively (to give me a good sense of what you must be going through right now: you don’t want to go on (can barely muster the energy and enthusiasm to do so (but you’ve come too far to turn back now. My guess is the only thing keeping you going is the thought of how disgusted you would be with yourself if you did quit. So I don’t think I need to tell you that, at this point, the only way out is through.

(I would also point out that the various laws and decisions you are memorizing (a situation where more is always better, but never enough since you can never be sure which particular points they will quiz you on (are about getting (via the particular points (a general sense of the layout of the land. That way, when something novel comes up, you will have better sense of where to start searching. And if I understand the law right, what you’re doing now (that is if you want to be good at it (won’t stop after you DO pass the bar.)

Unfortunately (for you, that is), you’ve given me a segway into my present study of D & G’s Anti-Oedipus and the three syntheses involved (connective, disjunctive, and conjunctive) that have contributed to the general synthesis that has built up to your general layout of the land of law: the various units of understanding that will constitute your being a lawyer. In other words, I’m going to use your experience to make a philosophical point and kill several birds with one stone by spreading it across the boards I tend to haunt.

My guess is you started with the connective synthesis. As D & G describe it in The Anti-Oedipus:

“The first mode has to do with the connective synthesis, and mobilizes libido as withdrawal energy….”

When you first started out on this path, it was a matter of “withdrawing” energy from the various teachers you were dealing with at the time and general sense (the interesting theory and policy considerations that drew you in in the first place (of what you were doing that you began to connect together (in ways that compliment complexity and chaos theory (until these various intellectual constellations began to emerge. And this synthesis continues into the process you are dealing with now. The only difference is that you’re not having quite as much fun.

And don’t let the classicists fool you: no one does anything for free. No one just grinds along at something for long periods of time without some feedback along the way:

“The second has to do with the disjunctive synthesis, and mobilizes the Numen [the magical qualities attached to objects such as the various units of knowledge you have obtained along the way and the way they can attach themselves to other units of knowledge] as detachment energy [couldn’t tell you what that means].”

Individual intellectual or creative units (both being the same (tend to attract and repulse and create bigger units that can attribute their complexity to the various interactions of attraction and repulsion at work in the various sub-systems involved. Hence: the magical qualities of the objects that occupy our space –even if you have lost your sensitivity to the Jouissance involved in the reality you face.

But believe me: that Jouissance is there. Much as I experienced with my certifications, you will experience the mental and emotional orgasm of having passed the test:

“The third has to do with the conjunctive synthesis, and mobilizes Voluptas [having to do with sensual pleasure or Jouissance –although I would go with Lacan and argue that Jouissance is a factor in all three syntheses] as residual energy.”

This one is associated with consumption and consummation. But for you, it will be the experience of profound relief of having worked your way beyond the threshold you have been working towards all this time. At the same time, it won’t be a final solution or order in the Hegelian sense. It will, rather, be a new situation that is already in the process of (you being a desiring machine constituted by various sub-systems of desiring machines (except, this time with a law degree (creating new things to desire….

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:18 am

.



...I, I think you are talking to me? I want to think you are speaking to me.



It's like I'm reading a horoscope that as I read I say, Yeah...yeah that's me! That's dead nuts ME!



But, but I don't know...I'm thinkin you have me mixed-up with someone else...but, that's Okay.



Good luck to you and right on!





.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:23 am

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



...I, I think you are talking to me? I want to think you are speaking to me.



It's like I'm reading a horoscope that as I read I say, Yeah...yeah that's me! That's dead nuts ME!



But, but I don't know...I'm thinkin you have me mixed-up with someone else...but, that's Okay.



Good luck to you and right on!





.
I swear, Bill, I am trying to get back to you. As I remember, our history consists of me writing one of my finished pieces, A Progressive's Thoughts on Conservatism, inspired by you. Just give me time, brother.

d63
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Deleuze and Guatarri Study: the Anti-Oedipus:

Post by d63 » Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:23 am

Now the reason I can apply the 3 syntheses to my friend’s obtaining his law degree as well as the creative act is, first, because the law is an art as well as a body of knowledge and, consequently, a creative act –desiring production gone social production. And I am confident enough in the intellect and knowledge of most of the people on these boards to feel I shouldn’t have to elaborate on that too much.

But more important, for Deleuzian (w/ and w/out Guattarri (purposes: the reason there is such a common ground between becoming a lawyer and creating a piece of art is because the 3 syntheses (if I understand them right (lie at the very core of how we experience reality. Consequently, this means that me having gotten a 3rd grade engineer’s license and being a maintenance man (superstar-maintenance-stud as I like to joke (is also a creative act –as well as anything else we could choose to do with our lives: whatever we choose to become. Our point A to point B is a creative act and there is simply no way around that.

(As one interpreter and translator of Deleuze pointed out: one of the things that tends to get lost in translation is that the French word for experience is the same as experimentation: the cornerstone of bricolage and creativity.)

So it should seem no wonder that the creative act was never that far from Deleuze’s mind. Anyway:

You are experiencing this post for the first time. It is an object (like any other object (in your space. You see several paragraphs at the same time that you, due to previous experience, must necessarily connect together. You did that long before you got to the point of this sentence. As you read to this point, this particular object began to change because you have, thus far, connected one sentence to the other that, in turn, was a matter of connecting one word and punctuation mark to each other. This was the connective synthesis that occurred as you came to know this particular object: this post.

But you could not have extracted any meaning from it if all its various components (its qualities (were not different than all the other components (or qualities (the words, the punctuations, and sentences: in other words, you extract meaning from it, whether you realize it or not, through the differences at play. Meaning is not extracted through similarity or repetition alone. How could it be through a reality that is basically undifferentiated? Hence the disjunctive syntheses that enfolds and is enfolded in connective syntheses.

But eventually, you would have to come to an understanding: the consumption and consummation of getting through a threshold that allows you to distinguish YOU (your self (you as subject (from the object of this post before you now –that is even though throughout this you and this post have, in a sense, been interdependent: this post only exists because you are reading it and you can only experience consciousness because you are conscious of it: 2 machines sharing flows of energy.

However, what distinguishes this conjunctive synthesis from the Hegelian one is that it can always only be an engagement with a partial object: the finite as compared to the infinite. You can always only get a momentary stay against confusion with it: an orgasm that only lead to a need for other orgasms.

And you would go through the same experience with any object before you: a rock for instance: you connect its various qualities while the difference between those qualities (the disjunctive (is what defines it as a rock: the conjunctive: that which defines you as a subject observing the rock. And that which drives you to connect it (the finite (with other objects in order to deal with the environment you are in: the will to power that draws you to the infinite.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests