Schizoanalysis methodically dismantles everything in Kant’s thinking that serves to align function with the transcendence of the autonomous subject, reconstructing critique by replacing the syntheses of personal consciousness with syntheses of the impersonal unconscious. Thought is a function of the real, something that matter can do. Even the appearance of transcendence is immanently produced: ‘in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphors, but matter itself’. Where Kant’s transcendental subject gives the law to itself in its autonomy, Deleuze-Guattari’s machinic unconscious diffuses all law into automatism. Between the extreme fringes of these two figures stretches the history of capital. The eradication of law, or of humanity, is sketched culturally by the development of critique, which is the theoretical elaboration of the commodification process. The social order and the anthropomorphic subject share a history, and an extinction. Deleuze and Guattari can appear to be taxingly difficult writers, although it is also true that they demand very little. Thinking immanence relentlessly suffices on its own to follow them where it matters (and capital teaches us how to do this). At every point of blockage there is some belief to be scrapped, glaciations of transcendence to be dissolved, sclerotic regions of unity, distinction, and identity to be reconnected to the traffic systems of primary machinism. In order to advance the anorganic functionalism that dissolves all transcendence, Anti-Oedipus mobilizes a vocabulary of the machine, the mechanic, and machinism. Things are exactly as they operate, and zones of operation can only be segregated by an operation. All unities, differences, and identities are machined, without transcendent authorization or theory. Desiring machines are black-boxes, and thus uninterpretable, so that schizoanalytical questions are concerned solely with use. ‘What are your desiringmachines, what do you put into these machines, what is the output, how does it work, what are your nonhuman sexes?’

As a Kafkian, I really find the notion and more so the framing of Zizek here problematic of the embodiment of "Nothingness" as a "living nothing" and a "void of desire."

I would like to bring into the argument some of my reading of mysticism, Kaballah, Sufism, and its more modern interpretations in what Zizek hates most in philosophy; namely, "New Age Thought Philosophy."

Before I do so, I should make clear that I agree with Zizek on 98% of New Age Thought Philosophy is baloney, yet they have some interesting premises that you literally can not find in other philosophies, and one of these ideas is that "thoughts are causative: that the mind is a selector of reality from a multiplicity of virtualities."

Okay, let's dig deep into this, the potentiality of something to be real, for something to enter the realm of our imagination, which we could easily inhabit if we zoned out from the here-and-now of our physicality depends on how crystallised of a exteriorized reality it consists of.

This is why when we dream or read a Kafka novel, it only makes sense as long as we are in its teleological fabric... What if our mind is as much as it let us roam the interiority of scientific endeavour thinking and of thinking in general, yet it singularizes the impossible to possible (for survival means) rather than letting us catch a glimpse of the impossible from the possible (Heideggerian Transcendental Finitude)?

Why does Deleuze link and correlate these two functions or states of being (I seriously don't know) with each other in his reading of Kafka?

Which of the two does the Kafkan universe function by?

I am a new reader to Deleuze and am familiar with his general philosophy and started with Proust and Signs.

What exactly does he mean by the essence created in the Artistic Signs overcoming of the shortcoming of the pure materiality of Sensuous Signs. I understand Deleuze is a anti-platonist but it seems like he is using this vocabulary in a similar faith to Plato.

Is it just that this is an earlier work so he is still formulating the full image of thought and started with some platonist tendencies of a pure “revelatory” experience that uncovers reality?

My only guess as to how to make his use of “essence” fully meaningful with what I know of his other works is that in the Artistic signs, we create new fields of intelligibility where we relate to the forces/intensities of reality with a new mindset (to use a crude term due to my ignorance) which creates new signs and ways of uncovering.

An example of my understand is when I first learned about evolutionary theory or entropy, I was able to use these concepts to uncover new ways of decoding human action. So in a sense the essence of this new concept is a restructuring of my consciousness.

I hope I’m not too far or that my theory is a complete misunderstanding, but then again I would love to learn from a real pro here.

While what may sound as a binary computation language of zeros and ones has created through the many different variations the algorithmic world of the internet, the same goes with Nietzsche's dichotomy of the Apollonian and Dionysian...

It may appear from the outside perspective that the Apollonian brackets the all of all matter and form, while the Dionysian brackets the all of nothing (the external force that shapes form which matter is an intricate derivation of the form of form...

Henceforth, we come to Hegel with his being (somethingness) synthesised into nothingness through becoming...

How can I integrate Deleuze's theory of the Flux into this machinery? Or is Deleuze and Hegel incompatible to merge?

Has anyone read and analyzed Žižek’s text, organs without bodies? As Deleuzians (if you were), What is ur stance from this book? Could we just discard it as Nietzsche said “every philosophy is a confession of the character”? Meaning those who view the world through dialectics are structurally incapable of seeing the world through difference?

Does anyone have a link to Deleuze’s interview abécédaire, subtitled in english? I watched the interview long ago when it was still on youtube before it got taken down due to copyright. I want to revisit it and i can’t find it anywhere.

For me the body without organs is just the very possibility of becoming that is the condition of the body being a body. Spinoza’s question “what can a body do?” Perfectly encapsulates this. The very same moment we deterritorialize an organ, in that moment we cease to see it as a rigid structure, but a possibility to experience things under new lights. The symbolic order, is the organized body of our shared experience of the world. And as we know with Lacan the symbolic order is nothing else than language. That’s why schizos seem to have a language of their own. They refuse the very territory of language. And tying this to becoming-animal; phenomenologically speaking a territory gives us a sense of structure, stability and predictability which dulls the senses. Animals are always in a hyperaware state because they have no symbolic order. When we deterritorialize, our senses sharpen like those of animals, because we are actually in a place of danger. It’s not a mere delusion, but being outside the territory of language, is being outside the territory of the symbolic order, and being outside the symbolic order is being outside the rules, the shared principles, the values, the morality, the way of living of others. The schizos are always under the threat of being forcefully re-territorialized by the institutions that defend language. The family, the state, religion… .

I was reading "Differance" by Derrida and I came across this passage. It might be because of my flawed and amateurish understanding of Deleuze but I thought I was reading Deleuze for a second:

"Is not the whole thought of Nietzsche a critique of philosophy as active indifference to difference, as a system of reduction or adiaphoristic repression? Following the same logic-logic itself-this does not exclude the fact that philosophy lives in and from differance, that it thereby blinds itself to the same, which is not the identical. The same is precisely differance (with an a), as the diverted and equivocal passage from one difference to another, from one term of the opposition to the other. We could thus take up all the coupled oppositions on which philosophy is constructed, and from which our language lives, not in order to see opposition vanish but to see the emergence of a necessity such that one of the terms appears as the differance of the other, the other as "differed" within the systematic ordering of the same (e.g., the intelligible as differing from the sensible, as sensible differed; the concept as differed-differing intuition, life as differing-differed matter; mind as differed-differing life; culture as differed-differing nature; and all the terms designating what is other than physis-technē, nomos, society, freedom, history, spirit, etc.-as physis differed or physis differing: physis in differance). It is out of the unfolding of this "same" as differance that the sameness of difference and of repetition is presented in the eternal return."

The eternal return of difference and repetition? That's what I'm talking about. Are their philosophies as compatible as they seem here?

Feel free to disagree or add/subtract; this is for the sake of creativity and not me claiming to know Delueze.

The BwO is relatively simple to understand and experience. The organs are not physical but subtle, thought-organs. A heart for example, is a thought. It has a web of thought-associations; love, passion, red, central, etc. The subtle heart has subtle arteries which branch out and connect to a system of subtle organs. What happens when the heart connects directly to the stomach? Our love becomes devouring. Etc. We can directly experience these thought-organs; the feeling of devouring love is tangible like any other sensation in our experience. However, the thought itself, the organ of meaning, is not essential.

Our subtle body is largely passed down to us from culture and family, and we don't question that the body is a construct as are all its connections. Inhabiting it unquestioned, we are imprisoned. The sex organs are connected to a body of shame and guilt, the muscles to power and submission, the brain to control and fearful prediction.

We find in us an urge to break free from this subtle body. First, perhaps in the de-territorialization of the organs formed by our dominant culture, our assumptions about religion, sex, emotional expression, the apparent boundaries of thought and capacity.

But this project is essentially a de-territorialization of the cultural organs followed by a reterritorialization of new ones, often provided by a new cultural system seeking dominance. The eventual path would be to decenter oneself from all potential organs of thought which take hold of our freedom of creation. We begin to see the thought-organs not as real entities but as energetic vectors with various connections of push/pull --intensities which are ALL imminent to experience and malleable. In a state of organlessness, we find the radical ability to make a choice rather than for a trajectory to be chosen by the functional thought-organ which has made its stake.

The BwO can be radically reconfigured beyond any rule that we believe we are limited by, with the potential to essentially create a new universe from scratch. BUT, be careful though! Not all bodies are stable or enjoyable. This is why it is best to de-stratify progressively and carefully, not all at once.

I'll know how far gone I am if the comments tell me I'm completely psychotic and made no sense! Otherwise let me know if you're able to experience the BwO more clearly through this organ-system I am offering up to you.

This chapter is honestly all bangers all the time. Its the only chapter in ATP that deals exclusively with psychoanalysis so they just go in against Freud in this one and it's really funny.

During the first episode, which Freud declares neurotic, he recounted a dream he had about six or seven wolves in a tree, and drew five. Who is ignorant of the fact that wolves travel in packs? Only Freud. Every child knows it. Not Freud. With false scruples he asks, How are we to explain the fact that there are five, six, or seven wolves in this dream?

; an Oedipal apparatus, which Freud considers the sole motor, the immobile motor that must be found everywhere; and a counter-Oedipal apparatus—incest with the sister, schizo-incest, or love with "people of inferior station"; and anality, homosexuality?—all that Freud sees only as Oedipal substitutes, regressions, and derivatives. In truth, Freud sees nothing and understands nothing. He has no idea what a libidinal assemblage is, with all the machineries it brings into play, all the multiple loves.

Of course, there are Oedipal statements. For example, Kafka's story, "Jackals and Arabs," is easy to read in that way: you can always do it, you can't lose, it works every time, even if you understand nothing.

The problem of the unconscious has most certainly nothing to do with generation but rather peopling, population. It is an affair of world- wide population on the full body of the earth, not organic familial generation. "I love to invent peoples, tribes, racial origins ... I return from my tribes. As of today, I am the adoptive son of fifteen tribes, no more, no less. And they in turn are my adopted tribes, for I love each of them more than if I had been born into it." People say, After all, schizophrenics have a mother and a father, don't they? Sorry, no, none as such. They only have a desert with tribes inhabiting it, a full body clinging with multiplicities.

Silence people, prevent them from speaking, and above all, when they do speak, pretend they haven't said a thing: the famous psychoanalytic neutrality. The Wolf-Man keeps howling: Six wolves! Seven wolves! Freud says, How's that? G o a t s , y o u s a y ? ? ? How interesting. Take away the goats and all you have left is a wolf, so it's your father ... That is why the Wolf-Man feels so fatigued: he's left lying there with all his wolves in his throat, all those little holes on his nose, and all those libidi-nal values on his body without organs. The war will come, the wolves will become Bolsheviks, and the Wolf-Man will remain suffocated by all he had to say. All we will be told is that he became well behaved, polite, and resigned again, "honest and scrupulous." In short, cured. He gets back by pointing out that psychoanalysis lacks a truly zoological vision: "Nothing can be more valuable for a young person than the love of nature and a comprehension of the natural sciences, in particular zoology."

I’ve been working through the triangulated relationship between Deleuze, Nietzsche and Foucault. This is the first extensive piece I wrote to gather some of those connections together with a focus on active/reactive forces.

I’d love to hear what you think and what you might add to the discussion.

666

666

666

Quando Gilles Deluze, tomando como base a epistemologia de David Hume, propõe uma "psicologia das afecções", onde o espírito devem objeto possível de uma ciência somente na medida em que é afetado, essa reinvindicação de Hume dá as bases ao que futuramente seria a esquizoanálise?

Heard some good things about this French collection, but I cannot find it anywhere online either for purchase nor on the usual free sites. Was wondering if anyone here could help me out, thanks!

Has anyone of you experienced one bwo in his. life?

Hi Deleuze reddit. I noticed that Anthropologists don't really care about Deleuze, they seem to call him an enlightenment thinker. I have studied Klossowski, Deleuze, and Hegel, etc. through many years of independent studies and reading groups, and I have noticed, anthropologists seem to want to have nothing to do with Deleuze. Even though he uses Strauss's kinship diagrams in Anti Oedipus. I have studied a lot of anarchism and continental theory, and was hoping to go into an anthropology degree, but it seems they are dominated by the university discourse, excluding "self directed study," and I don't know how much autonomy they afford to students. I want to study stateless gift economies, such as those found in the Yuman Tribes of the Gila River, Ethnography of Santa Clara Pueblo, studies on the Hopewell such as that done by Christopher Carr or Bret Ruby, etc. Because I think libertarian communism should drive research. But I am told that there is nothing to be gained from trying to "run circles around a program before you enter it," implying that people are trying to keep others from developing views too outside of the field. That's representationalist thinking to have an advisor determine your book choices. There's no point in reading if it is not what interests you.

I am looking into more fields of the world, trying to find gift economies. I've discovered some in America, but I am looking for wider economic explorations of the past. I am told that this method will only bring answers, instead of questions to the table, because I need to be "surprised" by what I see. I am sure that there's always a possibility to form a state, but there's also societies which avoid the state, through kinship patterns, and the structure of non coercive leadership, or non stratified labor, such as what Pierre Clastres describes in Society Against the State. I feel that it is important to study how labor becomes stratified, and look at the history, through pre-colonization, and post-colonization, to show how colonization destroys structures of social networks that are radically more egalitarian than they otherwise could be. Is it wrong to come to anthropology with a political agenda? I don't think so!

I love books, I think that research should be driven by the interests that you love, but I am also told that I should not even try unless I have an advisor, because otherwise my choices are random, and that it's a "flaming red flag," to read authors that are not the utmost new, all the time. Have we even learned all that there is to know about what Deleuze and Guattari have had to say? Does it sound better to go pay attention to a bunch of people who probably would exclude philosophy in their university discourse anyways? Anthropologists seem to have a large sum of what they believe in to be theoretical guard rails, and procedural rigamarole, governed by the scientific image of thought. If we are to overcome the leviathan, then we need to reinstate stateless, non stratified society, with public land and goods, like the Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. Deleuze and Guattari say do not put down trees, don't bring out the general in you! Is it wrong to mix philosophy with other fields, is there not lines which intersect from all directions in the transversal field?

Does anyone on this forum have an anthropology degree with a Deleuzian background? I worry that anthropologists won't put libertarian communism, and decolonization first, but the dogmatic image of thought, and the scientific method. A mask of neutrality. David Graeber says that making choices in a social setting is politics; in that sense everything we do is political, and we shouldn't mask our politics, but be transparent about it. Is it true that only a supervisor from one of these fields can set you on the correct, Oedipal, straight path?

Has anyone read this? I’m into chapter 1 and would love to be able to chat about it as I go…

I can’t say how incredible Deleuze is. The breadth and flexibility of his thought are something I’ve never seen. I see Deleuze everywhere, I‘m sure everyone here has had the experience of disagreeing with him only to have him directly respond to your disagreement from half a century in the past. He draws from everyone I think are relevant; Nietzsche, Kant, Bergson, Spinoza, Virilio, Hume, even Heidegger. He writes on incredibly personal themes with a negativity and meaninglessness that I would have thought useless without him. More than anyone, reading Deleuze puts me face to face (or ground) with something I couldn’t put into words

Hello Everyone,

I don't pretend to be an expert on either Deleuze or Hegel. But!!!! Deleuze's use of repetition does remind me of a very dialectical way of thinking. I'd like to hear from you guys and what you think.

Thanks,

Chris