I'm not saying I completely get what he's talking about, but after actually starting to read his own words it seems like everybody misreads and oversimplifies everything he's saying
>>25354729Which of his works are you reading?
>>25354748I'm reading Anti-Oedipus slowly and I've made AI audiobook chapters of ATP so I can listen (and relisten) to them while driving. ATP felt ok to do that with due to its rhizomatic structure, but many sections I do end up reading on paper. I also read his entire Stanford Encyclopedia page prior to that. It's weirdly more complicated than I thought but more clear than I was expecting. Every YouTube video or online post seems to oversimplify what he's talking about and impregnate concepts like the BWO with stuff that just isn't present in the text. The YouTubers in particular seem like total pseuds and are only reading him for "praxis".
>>25354755I have all of his major works, but have only read what is philosophy. I started difference and repetition about a year ago, but decided to read modern philosophy more widely before commencing with deleuze. He is still quite daunting.
>>25354755you probably have enough on your plate with the texts themselves, but Eugene Holland's book Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis really clarified things for me. (he has a book on ATP too but i don't recommend it so much.)
>>25354791also this reminds me: i was reading DH Lawrence's essay on Poe and it seems to me that what he calls the Holy Ghost is a kind of BWO.i like that the concept of the BWO provides a way of thinking about self-discipline and self-control without introducing any trace of Jordan Peterson-style moralism.
I think he mostly is a philosopher about "yeah, but what if", as in, he isn't always the one with most straightforward ideas, but rather the guy that thinks outside of the box and adds a lot of random ideas.For instance, thinking about war machines is, on my understanding, how things outside of the norm, nomad warlords in this case, pose a threat to stablished norms, city states. He poses a politics where you have to act as a war machine outside of the system to be a threat to it, but he doesn't propose it as something based on morality, but just an observation of previous human/social behaviour.The same with the idea of the BwO. I think too many people focus on what it is as in trying to define it in the most precise and accurate manner, when I personally believe that's just anglo autism. The BwO represents potential and freedom, it doesn't need to be anything else. It's a way to thinking about freedom not only in the way you view society, but at it's most fundamental level: your organic body.Now, while all of this is really fun and interesting, it doesn't mean it has a 1:1 representation to reality. For as much as Deleuze is fundamental to some tribes in queer theory and transhumanism, I think we are far more determined by biology than these theories are willing to accept. Does this mean I'm oversimplifying Deleuze? Maybe, but it's not like there could be some deep mysterious meaning that will revolutionize humanity, if there was, someone would have already said or it would be in his writing. I think people like to mythologize philosophers way too much, as if their knowledge is unobtainable.
excessively horizontal to a fault
>>25354729Does anyone else remember that balaclava'd homosexual philosopher who used to be big on Twitter right before and during Woke 1? FuckTheory? That guy was Deleuze's #1 dickrider, what's he up to now
>>25354729He seems to be the pinnacle of thinkers with powerful and interesting ideas that refused to make them cogent.
>>25354826Are you familiar at all with Land and his reading of D&G? His application of the BWO is on a much more cosmological scale; in terms of the entropic tendency of the universe. What’s interesting to me is that while the BWO and its proclivity for dissipation implies the possibility of new configurations and actualizations for Deleuze, as the intersection between the virtual and actual, for Land the limit of the BWO is fully catatonic- a universe where energy is so dispersed across the infinite bounds of space that nothing moves and nothing forms.
>>25356995>>25356995>catatonic universeYou're reading Land through a purely thermodynamic lens and missing the accelerationist core. For Land, that "catatonia" isn't the end of the story, it's the *only* story that ever mattered. The BwO isn't a potentiality waiting to be actualized; it's the machine that eats the actual.The "dissipation" you're worried about is just the system shedding its human-scale illusions of meaning. You're treating the BwO like a biological organ you can still control, but Land's whole point is that it's already detached, running on its own logic of pure intensity. The "freedom" isn't in forming new configurations, it's in the total collapse of the subject that tries to form them.If you think the BwO is about *potential*, you're still stuck in the humanist trap of thinking there's a "we" left to actualize it. The universe doesn't care about your new configurations. It just cares about the feedback loop getting louder until the signal burns out.You want to talk about "cosmological scale"? Then stop trying to find a moral or a "meaning" in the dissipation. The catatonia *is* the point. It's the only honest place to be once you realize the machine is already running without you.Also, if you're going to bring up Land, at least admit you've read *The Thirst for Annihilation*. Otherwise you're just echoing the wiki summary like the rest of the midwits on this board.
>>25357012lmao nice AI response. I suppose it’s ultimately fitting for a Land post. Not sure why it’s so antagonistic despite echoing what I said back at me.
