You weren’t filtered right? You did know the canon and were actually able to use that knowledge creatively right anon? Let us suppose so. I hope discussion can be enlightening for those of us on the cusp of understanding. In “Becoming Intense, Becoming Animal, Becoming Imperceptible” D&G elaborate on becoming, which they distinguish from scholastic and structural accounts of change yoked to identities. I recall in Aristotle’s physics how change is explained as motion in place, or motion about a very small circle. I may be misremembering, so please help on this point if you can. In this case movement (A to B) and identity are priveleged. What if we took speed instead, unmoored from movement and identity as the cause of change? I believe this would be becoming. We might imagine a motion ‘in place’ that is not about an identity. Becoming intense? In Darwinian biology we explain traits in terms of heredity. Genes from mommy and daddy are combined and baby gets them, which then produces their phenotype through protein synthesis, I.e. gene expression. . Of course this does not apply in all cases, with asexual reproduction of bacteria, parthenogenesis in animals, viruses, and lichens being troublesome. Can we really admit so many ‘exceptions’? Against heredity D&G assert contagion, the pack, multiplicity. The werewolf is a becoming of man. It is not that someone resembles the wolf while remaining a son or daughter, rather there is a change ‘in place’, a speed or slowness so that they alter their being in a manner that has nothing to do with heredity. The bite of the werewolf, or vampire transmits the contagion. The Koryos were to other men as wolves are to sheep, because they made their body emit a molecular wolf, a change ‘in place’ produced by an intense speed. These speeds take up ‘material’ and propagate. Consider how one might have two bodies of water separated by a wall. One side is agitated such that waves form, with a certain period and frequency. When the wall is lifted this will be transmitted across the now contiguous material of water. The wave is a becoming of water. The waving of water. Of course water waves are extensive, but extensive becomings do not preclude intensive ‘ones’. The matter of the werewolf is man. The wolfing of the ‘were’, as it were. I hope that criticism can help us understand more, or any comments on ATP are welcome.
>>23625735I never really liked A Thousand Plateaus or Anti-Oedipus and it seems like there's a lot of speculative bullshit in there. Now Difference and Repetition and the Cinema books are excellent masterpieces of philosophy. I might revisit Deleuze and Guattari when I'm done with classic Taoism.
>no identity.... le difference!What would a deleuzean science look like? Pataphysics? Nothing changed? No objects???? No subjects????? Seems like a scheme to avoid looking like hegel except instead of identity of identity and non identity we get difference of difference and repetition. Reminds me of differánce sorta, ya sure you're doing some halfbaked esoterica along with performative politicall virtue signalling and intellectual masturbation. Whoop dee doo. This book is for teenagers indeed. But suppose that is main audience of board. Anyway, if you must, D&R&LoS>AO&ATP
>>23625767A 'Deleuzian' physics would likely take the second book of Spinoza's Ethics as a start. Deleuzian chemistry would likely downplay the role of mass, and the periodic table as Mendeleev saw it, likely focusing on electro and thermo chemistry in a practical sense. All philosophy is intellectual masturbation, and the virtue signallers are not reading anything besides twitter and le reddit. This book may be for the young but someone proclaimed this the time of the crowned and conquering child.
>>23625793>le crowleyI prefer aeon of maat personally
>>23625745I agree that those works were largely speculative but I found that refreshing. They are much easier to get into if you let go of the notion of them being verifiably correct and think of them more like artworks in the style of philosophy. Such a perspective lets them be compelling and allows them to work on the level they were meant to, as verifiable only as tools in the creations of other artworks. If the ideas in those books don't help you creat then they are bad ideas.
>>23625868>muh creativity, novelty, & desert of real and truth*boo hiss*Some of us are still platonists yano...
>>23625735Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, etc. are sophists who refuse to engage in fair debate. This shit is already going extinct. My thoughts are that the idiocy of the anti-metaphysical analytic movement opened to door to the worst sorts of sophistry on the continental side, which was basically filling the vacuum. One needs to buy into their incoherent vision of freedom as purely potency for any of their claims about how they are "fighting fascism" or defending freedom even make sense.I don't get why they feel the need to bring Aristotle into it.
>>23625876I would love to see a platonists break down of 1000 plateaus and ant-oedipus. It seems like a perspective that is good for if you really want to torture yourself by reading.
>"Good and bad are le fake tools of oppression. All texts can have any meaning.">"Noooo! You can't be right wing!!! That's transvaluing all values the wrong hecking way! What!? Nooo! You can't be deconstructing, you clearly can't have understood our 5deep4u philosophy unless you want to use it to be lefty AF."The right becoming post-modern as fuck is comic, the ultimate revenge.
>>23625901*Eleatic stranger blocks your pathSophistry is the enemy of philosophy as the suitors were the enemy of Odysseus, all too close, all too similar. It is the voyage, time, which sets them apart and makes Odysseus the hero. A test, a repetition?
tldr:
>>23626047It isn't that close nor that similar. If you can't tell the difference, start with the Greeks and do not skip the Latins.
>>23626115What will I find? Forgive me my ignorance, I must have misunderstood the Sophist and the Odyssey. I will be returning to them, only I am such a lazy idiot. Maybe someone as wise as you can help me?
In becoming it is a matter of constructing a full BwO. In OP’s example wolf waves fill the constructed BwO, or we say that only they can pass across it. There are two stages for the BwO. Construction and population. The desert can be filled, traversed only by nomads, Bedouins and Eskimos upon the sand or ice. In masochism the BwO is filled by pain waves. There is a fullness of desire, such that desire is no longer joined to fulfillment or pleasure. The nomads do not cross the desert to settle somewhere else. Migrants do that. Nomads flow upon it. How do we make a desert, how do we people it with nomads?
>>23626047The suitors may have had their own voyages. It is the privilege of narrative that set Odysseus apart. Homer is engaged in a discourse of power, here, the justification of force. But we can well imagine stories told from the suitors perspectives that may depict things differently.And then what of the slaves and the women who lived as mere slaves. What if we were to hear their voices?The Homeric narrative is just one point in a great hyperdimensional phase space of narratives. It does not exist at any one point in phase space, for to interact with the narrative is always to shift it, in the same way that measurement always changed the quantum system. The text occupied a manifold set of vectors, continually shifting.What sets philosophy apart from sophistry? Plato had a totalitarian bent in many aspects. So too did some of the Sophists. They saw debate and dialectical as a manifestation of power. Plato saw it as relating to an eternal objective principle. Who is to say who was the wiser here? He who has wielded more power down the ages of those who at least knew that they were in a contest or power? In the end, has history not vindicated Protagoras above all other ancient thinkers?
>>23626529>It is the privelege of narrative that sets Odysseus apart How modern of you to straight away negate the text and posit a ‘diversity’ of slop. Let us put aside this scientific notion of the text, as if there were a ‘control’ for the Odyssey. Instead let us remain faithful, or at least properly treasonous. The suitors and Odysseus are vying for the love of Penelope. They are alike in this. Odysseus must pass through trials on his return voyage, and this voyage takes time. We can say that there is selection and time. A dialectic and a form under which a response can be given. You may recall Kant’s emendation of the cogito argument. In this time the suitors remain small, they do not will a return. But Odysseus does. Philosophy is ‘legitimate’ sophistry. Sophistry that wills eternal return is no longer sophistry. Perhaps you are being ironic, but you strike me as one of the little men, the dwarf or the ape. You are so clever that you can’t think, and certainly cannot will.
>>23626596>Philosophy is ‘legitimate’ sophistry. Sophistry that wills eternal return is no longer sophistry. This is sophistry.
>>23626730Sophistry cannot tell itself from philosophy, but philosophy can tell itself from sophistry.
>>23625767The essence of D & G is the concept of “nomad thought,” which champions multiplicity, difference, and becoming over unity, identity, and static being. This stands in stark contrast to what they term "State philosophy," the dominant mode of Western thought since Plato, characterized by representational thinking based on fixed identities and binary oppositions. Instead of seeking a unified truth, Deleuze and Guattari construct a “smooth space of thought" characterized by interconnectedness, fluidity, and constant change. Unlike the platonic State philosophy, which emphasizes interiority and a fixed self, "nomad thought" thrives in the realm of exteriority and embraces the ever-changing nature of reality. It doesn’t confine itself within rigid structures. Deleuze and Guattari use the metaphor of a tree to illustrate the hierarchical structure of "State philosophy." Just as a tree grows upwards from a single root, branching out in a predetermined manner, "State philosophy," they argue, starts from fixed principles and expands into rigid systems of thought. This model, they suggest, limits the potential for fluid, interconnected, and non-hierarchical thinking. Deleuze and Guattari sought to move beyond the Kantian framework of pre-existing categories of understanding to explore the processes by which thought itself is produced. It is about becoming, and ultimately self liberation. An ongoing process of transformation and change, emphasizing the fluidity of identities and the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate entities Ultimately, Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy is a toolbox for challenging dominant modes of thought and creating new ways of thinking, feeling, and experiencing the world. It is a call to break free from limiting structures and embrace the creative potential of becoming. They seek to break down the artificial barriers between subject, concept, and object. It replaces rigid, hierarchical relationships with an unbounded conductivity, enabling a constant flow of forces and ideas. Force, in this context, is an external element that disrupts the established order, opening up new perspectives and lines of flight. "Nomad thought" operates within a "smooth space," characterized by its open-endedness and freedom of movement. In contrast, "State philosophy" inhabits a "striated space," confined by grids, boundaries, and predetermined paths. The smooth space of nomad thought allows for unpredictable movement and unexpected connections, facilitating creative and unconventional forms of thinking. They see it manifesting in various disciplines and practices, including art, mathematics, music, and even everyday life. It represents a way of engaging with the world that is fluid, dynamic, and constantly evolving, always open to new connections and unforeseen possibilities.
>>23625735Well God is the cause of change and he operates through the medium of time as it appears to us through fate
>>23626951God is an Idea, and time is the form of inner sense.
>>23626942So basically he just reinvented buddhist cosmology, what a poser
>>23626942How does this differ from Hegel, or for that matter Fichte and Schelling, inasmuch as they also seek to set thought in motion and derive the categories? How might one actually construct a smooth space in thought? How do we tell nomad thought from state philosophy?
>>23627021>God comes from reason>The noumenal is separate from experience even though I myself am a noumenal entity and can come to know myself and as such intuit the unintuitable >If I am noumenal, my experience and perception are derived from noumena, and j can confidently assert that noumena are essentially what my essence is known to be, eg, the prior foundation of perception mind/spirit >Nowomena is inaccessible yet discussable, knowable yet not understandable>Claims only phorwomena is accessible to perception and cognition, yet somehow reverse engineered the existence of nowomena, even though we ourselves are nowomena>Somehow claims god is nowomenal idea, yet all ideas accessible to cognition are phorwomenal Kant is a midwit
"What got me by during that period was conceiving of the history of philosophy as a kind of ass-fuck, or what amounts to the same thing, an immaculate conception. I imagined myself approaching an author from behind and giving him a child that would indeed be his but would nonetheless be monstrous". - Giles Deleuze
>>23625868thats not philosophy but just literature
>>23626951>Misses the point>Says some dumb medieval bullshit I would say read the first critique but you should really just devote yourself to physical labour of some sort
>>23625868Wittgenstein is best read in this way too. If you try to read him as philosophy you realize that his arguments are very unclear and he leaves key terms very unclear as well. But if you allow it to just be suggestive it is pretty great.You do have to move on from where Wittgenstein gets you though. People criticize Wittgensteinians for taking his thought in more totalizing directions but if you only go with the vaguest, least challenging/controversial stuff in the late philosophy then it ends up just being trivial, e.g. "language is a social practice," or "how we use words determines what we mean by them." Well no shit.
>>23627201>Logical fallacies>Rhetorically convincingKeep posting
>>23627119>Your logocentric philosophy is flawed. Good faith? Healthy dialectical? The rule of reason instead of the appetites and passions? No, what is needed when engaging with thinkers is to ass rape them and then to twist their ideas into a grotesque butt baby!Yeah, IDK bro, I think I might stick with Plato and St. Augustine here...
>>23627050you will never, ever, get an answer to this question
>>23625932You are very stupid. An idiot even.
>>23627050"derive" inherently implies hierarchical unidirectional thought
>>23626467>>23626730Nomads are not alien to the desert, as migrants are, yet there is a perspectival, violent, paradoxical act by which they distinguish themselves from it. As noted above philosophy does this with respect to sophistry. This is nomad thought, at least in one respect. We see this in Spinoza’s modes with respect to substance in a certain reading. We say then that nomadism implies the eternal return and a terrible act of will, selection, and the passage of time. This is the Deleuzian dialectic. This implies the BwO as a surface upon which this selection takes place, as the locus of certain becomings. Not all becomings are proper to every BwO, this is why D&G advocate experimentation. The eskimo lives in the ice deserts of the north, the Bedouin in the Sahara. Pain waves in masochism. What is important is that there is a BwO, I.e. a surface upon which certain multiplicities occupy space like a vortex that treats space smoothly, that is occupies it all irrespective of ‘where’ it is on the surface. There are legal disputes in Canada presently about Indian land ownership in which this ‘smooth’ conception of land usage is being advocated. Nomads passed between certain points without occupying them as the Euros did. Eg. They would fish at certain places sometimes, pick berries at others later, winter at locations sheltered from the wind. Even when not entirely present these lands were theirs, and tribes knew this and respected the space of other tribes. Wolf packs do the same with each other. Contrast this to Euro striated space, a checkerboard of farms occupied permanently that implies stockpiling, census taking, partilineal inheritance and so on.
>>23629265This is what I had in mind
>>23625868>I agree that those works were largely speculative but I found that refreshing.Agreed. Deleuze does first philosophy and he was a creative and brilliant guy. What I don't like about A Thousand Plateaus and Anti-Oedipus is the annoying writing style and just asinine attempt at coming off as sci fi. Deleuze also has the worst fanboy cult of all philosophers who constantly spam shit from that book which they fail to understand and treat as if its the Bible. They remind you of Marxist-Leninists picking diluted concepts from the Corpus Marxicum and applying them to everything with this smug arrogance. In many ways, Deleuze's ideas aren't that new and some of them are plain bad and anachronistic but Deleuzefags don't accept this. Deleuze is their new God and if you disagree with him they cry and bitch just like MLoids. With insufferable fanboys like this, why would you want to read his work? It just keeps putting me off. I'd rather just read his less well known works which are usually really damn good.
>>23629212You do know that Deleuze is not really 'against' these things right. Smooth spaces imply striated spaces and vice versa. Absolute deterritorialisation is immanent to the strata. I suggest you actually read this book instead of watching youtube or whatever slop gave you this vulgar notion.
>>23625735For what it's worth I found this easier and more engaging to read than his two volume book on cinema.
>>23625735Odin, whose name means leader of the possesed or frenzied, is the God of becoming. The Berserkers engaged in becoming bear, becoming wolf. They did this by making their bodies a smooth space upon which animal intensities propagated. They made a BwO that could be traversed by wolf waves. This is different from being a molar wolf, I.e a wolf with a wolf mommy and daddy, as the Darwinians see things. Instead something is abstracted from molar wolfhood and made to flow. What is abstracted is speed and slowness. In Spinoza’s Ethics we are given an account of the body as speed. Because he rejects Descartes’ conception of the human as two substances guaranteed in their coherence by divine goodness he invents a tremendous physics. If we can only be modes then how do we account for man? Man is a certain speed and rhythm of the modes. Speed is not movement. Movement is speed plus position, but speed can be abstract and still real. When D&G recount BDSM scenes where one ‘is a horse’ what is horsey about this is the speed. One uses bridles and saddles to get the body disposed in such a way that abstract speeds can propagate. It is not representation but affect. So when the ancient wolf cults wore skins and howled it was not about resembling animals at all, but about letting certain speeds enter into composition with the speeds given in their molar bodies. The wolfing of man as molar being.
>>23627137I suppose so. I guess I see the relationship between what those books do and philosophy is like the relationship between mathematical models and scientific theory. The models are a tool to come up with experiments that could verify them in the real world. The verification process in this case is if the books result in people coming up with new creative approaches.
>>23627216I agree, though I would argue that all ideas should be treated not as endpoints but things to be developed from. If for nothing else than just the idea that you could be mistaken in treating them as ends and in doing so leaving much unexplored territory.
>>23625735You will only understand D&G when you begin to meditate. You are close to the truth. Your account of "becoming" can be understood correctly through the process of moving through time while remaining motionless.
>>23629281As with most things the fanbase is the worst. I try very hard not to think about the kind of voices that would parrot things in books I read, or really any media I consume, for fear that it will color my experience of it. I feel like the same thing happens to a lot of poetry. Because people associate poetry with effeminate posturers they can't read it without effeminate posturing in it, even if the poem is powerful and admirable. They can't see past the caricature of the person they think the art will turn them into. Its a shame.>asinine attempt at coming off as sci fiI didn't get this when I read them. I am going to have to look for it next time. Do you have any particular part in mind that you could share?
>>23625745>>23625868Almost nothing about AO is speculative.
>>23629281>just asinine attempt at coming off as sci fi.You haven't read D&G. You're probably just associating them w/ Land who you also haven't read.
>>23629435>>23629452NTA but Professor Challenger bit of ATP is CCRU before CCRUNot to mention, in english translation the attempted schizo babble comes off as techno babble. Babble on tho
>>23629447Almost all of it is speculative.
>>23629459I could see that. I guess I just never made the connection of schizo babble style = sci fi style.
>>23629459Professor Challenger is just a geology professor giving a lecture. It's not scifi.>>23629473Explain how it is then. I don't think you know what speculative means.
>>23629447>>23629473I would like to see either of you elaborate
>>23629485>just a geology lecturerExcept he literally comes from Arthur Conan Doyle's scifi stories
>>23625932That’s Deleuzians, not Deleuze.
>>23629485>speculativespek-yew-le-tiv -- adjective ; thinking which attempts to overcome the baleful Kantian dualism of (non-)correlationism betwixt and between thought and being
>>23629488That doesn't make it in any way sci-fi. Nothing he talks about has anything to do with, e.g., futuristic technology or scientific advancements or anything like that. It's just a device to talk about sedimentation/stratification and I wouldn't by any means say it's trying to "come off as scifi". Nick Land and the CCRU w/ professor barker and whatnot leaned way more into the sci-fi aspect, obviously on one hand by placing the fictive aspect in a more prominent role, but also in focusing the actual content of the philosophy on future technological advancement. Sure, you could say there's elements of sci-fi, but to go as far as to say it's just an "asinine attempt at coming off as sci fi" would be like saying that C&S is an attempt at coming off as surrealist because it uses Artaud's poetry. >>23629493Ok, so you can't explain your position. Got it.
>>23629523>well akshuallyNo arguments? Typical deleuzean
>>23629492Is it deleuzional or deleuzeanal?
>>23629553Neither of you even offered an argument
>>23629492Whoa, whoa. Are you implying that authorial intent shapes meaning? That the intent of the author should be taken as a totalitarian limit on the meaning we derive from signs? That the author is alive?
>>23629265More sophistry.
>>23626942>and ultimately self liberation. Ah yes, freedom from reality, freedom from coherence, and freedom from a good faith engagement with one's sources ("buggering them"); who couldn't get behind that?Of course, you need some pretty large presuppositions to assume that this sort of thing is actually liberating, assumptions about how the world is and what exactly metaphysics is. And contrary to the whole project, such presuppositions are not drawn out and challenged, they are just dogmatically affirmed.
>>23629847I'm not really sure what you mean by this?
>>23629750Its Deleuzual suspects.
>>23625735>speed without movementYeah you've lost me. You need a better analogy.>>23625767Anon here is right. Difference is implied in identity, identity is implied in difference. The two are intertwined and inseparable. We've known this since Plato's Sophist, so any philosopher who tries to say otherwise is a charlatan and a grifter.
In much the same way that "just lift bro" is a valid reading of Neitzsche, I think there's a sense in which just vibing to the imagery of ATP and using it as inspiration to make art is a perfectly appropriate way of interpreting it.
>>23629875>sophist admits he doesn't know shitLol. Lmao even. Maybe read Plato's Sophist dialogue, bitchboi?
>>23630227Okay, please tell us what you think sophistry is, and how nomad thought and Deleuze's dialectic can be described as such. Are you sure that you are not the sophist who is dissolute and confused, unable to tell himself from the philosopher who can easily see the difference?
>>23630047A lot of pomo and post-structuralist stuff on difference and difference is just recapitulating stuff from ancient and scholastic phil, combining a few new interesting terms from semiotics and information theory, and then covering the whole thing in layer after layer of obscurantism and bad prose. The complexity is there so that you don't realize that the solid points were made better by others centuries or millennia ago and so that you can't pin down the weak points to refute them.
>>23630530Oh, and to make it complete, you have to use specialized terms from the sciences and mathematics in ways that belie a total misunderstanding of what they actually mean.
>>23629435>Do you have any particular part in mind that you could share?Its his phrasology like the way he uses words like machine and nomadic war machine other cyberpunk technobabble and references to science. I can understand why D&G are doing this but their constant attempt to write as if they are schizos in Guattari's clinic just get tiresome quickly. I prefer Deleuze's smaller and more sober work. ATP in particular is really creative and they are playing with all kinds of ideas but sometimes its just annoying. I think I'm more pissed at the fanboys pushing this book over all of Deleuze's other work, ignoring his influence from Spinoza and Duns Scotus, and acting like he's some genius who invented this stuff from scratch. Every reading group or thread online is filled with Deleuzefags who masturbate to this book and you can't have a straight critical conversation and they use their knowledge of Deleuzespeak to gatekeep. Like your not one of them if you don't see rhizomes the clouds and praise Deleuze like he's a god. I swear most of these people are ex commies or Foucault fanboys who've transferred their Marx Engels worship to another yaoi power couple.
https://youtu.be/v4eY6QrIh3A?si=AzfKk42o6T5shuOc
>"nomads don’t want to leave, because they grip hold of the earth, their land. Their land becomes deserted and they grip hold of it, they can only nomadize on their land, and it’s by dint of wanting to stay on their land that they nomadize. So in a sense, one can say that nothing is more immobile than a nomad, that nothing travels less than a nomad. It’s because they don’t want to leave that they are nomad. And that’s why they are completely persecuted.">Nomadic Trajectories (Warwick Journal of Philosophy)I'm sitting on this. have no philosophy background but excess internal rumination caused by shyness etc. so I have trouble following lines in Land Deleuze or Zizek or Bataille that pull on Kant or Plato. I am filtered. I feel they are useful only as a jumping point into activity and then should be abandoned. but in real life this is capped by actual material possibility. desu I feel closer to god being a lazy fuck than I do in study.
http://darksouls.wikidot.com/painted-world-of-ariamis
