Imagine Intoarsa La Proiector
Test imagine Guardians of Galaxy - proiector JVC ecran Black Widow 109' Calinfdx. DEPANAM 2xPC skt 775, refacem oc la 4670k + test pc 1200 Str3sU 215 watching. Live now; Language: English. Abtibild, imagine transpusa prin decalcomanie`decalcomania picture abtibild. (cstr) excavator cu cupa intoarsa; (silv) sapa pentru defrisare/ (agr) a sapa. De proiector; preamplificator video/de imagine`head amplifier amplificator de. Test imagine Guardians of Galaxy - proiector JVC ecran Black Widow 109'. Vopsea ecran proiectie Black Widow white pearl, cu reflecție perlescenta pentru.
Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII. He is a key figure in poststructuralism, and one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century.
Felix Guattari (1930-1992) was a psychoanalyst at the la Borde Clinic, as well as being a major social theorist and radical activist.A Thousand Plateaus is part of Deleuze an Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII. He is a key figure in poststructuralism, and one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Felix Guattari (1930-1992) was a psychoanalyst at the la Borde Clinic, as well as being a major social theorist and radical activist.A Thousand Plateaus is part of Deleuze and Guattari's landmark philosophical project, Capitalism and Schizophrenia - a project that still sets the terms of contemporary philosophical debate. A Thousand Plateaus provides a compelling analysis of social phenomena and offers fresh alternatives for thinking about philosophy and culture. Its radical perspective provides a toolbox for nomadic thought and has had a galvanizing influence on today's anti-capitalist movement.Translated by Brian Massumi.
Plateaus is required reading for Assange fans and enemies, as well as those who don't give a fig but carry a Master or Visa card or just have a particular bent for Continental theory.According to Deleuze and Guattari Western thought is dominated by a structure of knowledge they call aboresence. This way of knowing is tree-like, vertical, and centralized. For instance, in biology, we have Linnean taxonomies. In chemistry, we have Porphyrian trees.
In linguistics we have Chomskyan sentence trees.Plateaus is required reading for Assange fans and enemies, as well as those who don't give a fig but carry a Master or Visa card or just have a particular bent for Continental theory.According to Deleuze and Guattari Western thought is dominated by a structure of knowledge they call aboresence. This way of knowing is tree-like, vertical, and centralized. For instance, in biology, we have Linnean taxonomies.
In chemistry, we have Porphyrian trees. In linguistics we have Chomskyan sentence trees.Did they say Western? In China we have centralized, hierarchical government and Internet censorship.Such trees show up worldwide, not only in the fields of biology, botany, linguistics, and anatomy, but also in philosophy, where we find metaphysical trees, theological trees, gnostic trees, The World Tree.Such trees are hierarchical, imposing limited and regulated connections between their components. All such trees spread out like many branches stemming from a single trunk-each radiating out from an original oneness or unity.And don't forget Plato, who stands as the central trunk in Western thought-or his Ideal Forms: Doberman pinschers, German shepherds, collies, and poodles are all material manifestations of an immaterial Essence-an Ideal Form of what Plato might call Dogginess. Dogginess is the single Platonic Origin-the Trunk-of the tree of dogs.Opposed to the vertical, tree-like structure of knowledge, Deleuze and Guattari proclaim a rhizomatic, radically horizontal, crabgrass-like way of knowing. Crabgrass, for instance, is a plant. But instead of having one central root, a rhizome (such as crabgrass or the Internet) has zillions of roots, none of which is central-and each offshoot interconnects in random, unregulated networks in which any node can interconnect with any other node.
Whereas the tree seeks to establish itself and say 'I am,' the rhizome is always rearranging interconnections, providing lines of flight, ranging nomadically across the vast plateau of 'and, and, and.' Thus the tree is concerned with origins, foundations, ontologies, beginnings and endings-with roots.
The rhizome is concerned with surface connections, lines of flight, with escape hatch of 'and, and, and.' Every person on every dating site has swallowed infotopian-ism to some degree. Being presented with so many options, however, while exponentially increasing the volume of proposals, innuendos, flirtations, micro-seductions, endearments, and possibilities, proportionately diminishes true presence, commitment, acceptance, trust, and actuality.For D & G, Kafka's work is rhizomatic.
One might expect a novel named The Trial to have something to do with the law. But Deleuze and G. Find that Justice in the novel is not legal but erotic, for the process of justice is really a process of desiring. Thus, Kafka's protagonist, K., encounters obscene drawings in the courthouse; an attorney equates being accused with being attractive; a series of suggestive encounters with sex, antifamilial women; and a painting of Justice as winged, and evasive.
K., lost in the rhizomatic, nomadic and, and, and, of the judicial process, ever desiring Justice, never reaching Justice.' She' is never psesent, but always one room away from K., in the rhizomatic, rat tunnel of the courthouse with its crazy corridors and perversely connected passageways through which K. Is led by eroticized women.Thus, Justice, like the courthouse and desire, is rhizomatic, never reaching conclusion.We see how this plays out in the Assange case.The Internet, like a rhizome, is non-hierarchical, horizontal.
Its nodes intersect in random, unregulated networks in which any node can interconnect with any other node.D & G's notions of rhizome and nomadics inform much of the thought of the loose confederation of info-activists of which Assange is but one nomadic node - to mix metaphors.Plateaus lays out the underlying grammar of our postmodern info-wars, which, as the example below shows, are all about power. If info-activists have a Bible, Deleuzean theory may be it, which many of these activists have swallowed hook-line and sinker as prescriptive rather than as descriptive of postmodern realities.Notice, in the example quoted below, the heterotopian vision coming from an avowed member of a loose confederation of thinkers who claim to have disavowed metanarratives.One must not forget, however, that although rhizomes are a trend, trees are not obsolete. The human nervous system is one such tree, with a hierarchy. You can chop off a foot. If the human nervous system operated like a rhizome, it would be operating without a brain.Deleuze committed suicide by jumping from atop a tall, vertical structure-a building. We will someday see if Assange has been flirting with a legal system that is rhizomatic or vertical.
August 9, 2010We will be reading this for our next bookclub selection (because it follows so well?). Once my boyfriend finds his second copy of this I'll get started. Yes, my boyfriend is the kind of person who owns two copies of this book. Intentionally.I would also like to mention that I will be reading this at the mercy of the one who decided we should read this (who is not my boyfriend, believe it or not - apparently there are other p August 9, 2010We will be reading this for our next bookclub selection (because it follows so well?). Once my boyfriend finds his second copy of this I'll get started. Yes, my boyfriend is the kind of person who owns two copies of this book.
Intentionally.I would also like to mention that I will be reading this at the mercy of the one who decided we should read this (who is not my boyfriend, believe it or not - apparently there are other people like him in the world.). And since this person has chosen this and has previously read this himself, I will be 'forced' to read this book out of order. The 'schedule' is forthcoming. I am promised that it's only appropriate to read the chapters in a non-linear fashion.
My entire face twitched and I might have thrown up a little in my mouth, but hey. You only live once, right?(I think reading this alongside might make me the most pretentious person ever. For the record, this most certainly was not my idea.)March 20, 2011(I'm tired.)This is an incredibly difficult book to rate and review, and that's probably how Deleuze and Guattari would have wanted it anyway. It's also incredibly late and I'm half-asleep so anything I say here is really not going to give this book much credit; though whether or not the book deserves much credit is still to be determined. Our book club meets again next Sunday and chances are my opinion will change after we talk about this for another several hours, just like we have done at each meeting since we started this.(I hate spending this much time on any book.)So what I intend to do here is list the chapters in the order our group's moderator decided to have us read the book.
Reading the book in order is not necessary, nor is it even recommended. Brian Massumi (translator) writes in his forward,The reader is invited to follow each section to the plateau that rises from the smooth space of its composition, and to move from one plateau to the next at pleasure.
But it is just as good to ignore the heights. You can take a concept that is particularly to your liking and jump with it to its next appearance.
They tend to cycle back. Some might call that repetitious. Deleuze and Guattari call it a refrain.(I hate jumping around in a book.)Since there's no clear direction on how this book should be read the only thing I could do was surrender my reading habits to the moderator. Dude has taught classes on this book and these authors so he's the best person to come up with a plan for me. The most difficult book ever written. But it’s also liberating as hell. Just sit back and enjoy how strange it makes you feel.
And then how ecstatic, confused, angry, etc., all at once. But if you're ever climbing and all of a sudden you realize that you're getting it, like, really getting it, then hang on and stay with it because it will probably change your life when you get to the top. And that feels pretty groovy. Especially when you really have to work for the plateau. It ain’t easy b The most difficult book ever written. But it’s also liberating as hell. Just sit back and enjoy how strange it makes you feel.
And then how ecstatic, confused, angry, etc., all at once. But if you're ever climbing and all of a sudden you realize that you're getting it, like, really getting it, then hang on and stay with it because it will probably change your life when you get to the top. And that feels pretty groovy. Especially when you really have to work for the plateau. It ain’t easy becoming a body without organs.
And if you think the reading part pushes you to the limit, just wait till it’s time to sew up the ol’ asshole. The anus machine awaits the stratification of the sewing machine, the needle-and-thread aSSemblage, for the Dogon Egg awaits its de-territorialization! Whether you’re Chasing Freud’s patients alongside a pack of becoming-wolves, or watching poor Dr. Challenger evaporate, or pursuing a line of flight aboard the rhizomatic acid-cloud to Dr. Angrypants’s Masochingdom in the Metallurgy Matrix, ATP will not disappoint. Don’t be afraid. Tired of seeing everything from the point of view of the individual?
Imagine Intoarsa La Projectors
Bored of anthropomorphism? This might be the book for you.
This book changed the way I think about thinking. Swirls in your pot of boiling water will seem as complex and contingent as hurricanes.
The migration of humans will look like the crawling of ants. Most importantly, though, Deleuze and Guattari show everything as a process of strategic movement through territory, whether it be the formation of layers of sediment or noma Tired of seeing everything from the point of view of the individual?
Imagine Intoarsa La Proiector Tv
Bored of anthropomorphism? This might be the book for you. This book changed the way I think about thinking. Swirls in your pot of boiling water will seem as complex and contingent as hurricanes.
The migration of humans will look like the crawling of ants. Most importantly, though, Deleuze and Guattari show everything as a process of strategic movement through territory, whether it be the formation of layers of sediment or nomads trekking through the desert plains. Like a roving spiderweb over the Cartesian grid of your window screen and your city, their thought shows us how to capture new territory while evading capture ourselves. But be wary, because capitalism has been doing just that for longer than we've been alive, and it's much better at it than we are. You’d be forgiven for walking away from Anti-Oedipus thinking that deterritorialization is positive and liberatory force, and the circumscription of reterritorialization, reactionary and oppressive. Anti-Oedipus endorses schizophrenia, immanence and multiplicity while still using binary terms for its lavish metaphysics. This is to some degree inevitable.
A Thousand Plateaus begins the process of ungluing these manichean oppositions but doesn’t quite undo the latent hierarchies. A Thousand Platea You’d be forgiven for walking away from Anti-Oedipus thinking that deterritorialization is positive and liberatory force, and the circumscription of reterritorialization, reactionary and oppressive. Anti-Oedipus endorses schizophrenia, immanence and multiplicity while still using binary terms for its lavish metaphysics. This is to some degree inevitable. A Thousand Plateaus begins the process of ungluing these manichean oppositions but doesn’t quite undo the latent hierarchies. A Thousand Plateau’s broadest sense is one that discourages broad sense; micro-revolutions in molecular fields of difference rather than overturning molar aggregates. But even the most decentered register will come up against some hard limits; the only way to see the vampiric reflection of capital is in a black pool of oil.A Thousand Plateaus is a demimonde of ambiguity and exceptions but D&G’s allegiance to one side of their dualistic coinages is always clear-The arborescent is bad; rhizomatics are good.
Stratification is bad; destratification is good. Striated space is bad; smooth space is good. Suddenly, we have a power relationship, a normative claim about the general superiority of one function or entity, even if it’s subtle, complex and multidirectional.
This is not a criticism; absolute fidelity to schizoanalysis, rhizomatics, molecular politics or whatever you want to call it would lead to total incoherency. D&G’s terms are always polyphonic and encase an sprawling system of internal difference. But the schism from Hegel and psychoanalysis (especially Lacan) is less dramatic than it is presented, the terms and claims of dialectics and psychoanalysis do, after all, possess identities which are multiple and variegated. Some of Capitalism & Schizophrenia’s pugilistic oppositions seem more operatic than theoretical.(Before anyone corrects me to say “deterritorialization can be destructive” etc, I have heard this from many avid Deleuzians and I don’t doubt their sincerity-but I don’t believe that most people of a schizoanalytical persuasion think that the unwriting of territories is a bad thing except in certain specialized cases)A Thousand Plateaus also backtracks some of the more extravagant claims of Anti-Oedipus, stratifying indexes which delimit the acceleration of deterritorializing flows. These ‘black holes’ are fascistic traps which ‘coil inwards’ toward the installation of binaries, hierarchies and the dialectical deletion of new lines of flight.
I’ve spoken interminably about acceleration(ism) recently, so all I’ll say is; my deepest sympathies to Nick Land.I have a certain level of confusion and dismay over the affirmationist vitalism at the morphogenetic heart of D&G. I think to some degree the negative is inscribed onto either the topology of our perception or whatever contours of the real are accessible by that perception. The Capitalism & Schizophrenia books model desire as ‘machinic’ (along with the unconscious, the social body and most other things)-and machines burn fuel and cough tubercular exhaust.
They are built with their expiration and obsolescence in mind. Deft and dexterous theoretical maneuvers are prosecuted to try and extirpate dialectical negativity and the death drive but I don’t know that they can be quashed by a patchwork monism. The negative is resilient-and competition & entropy possess an undeniable (even affirmative) presence. How can we get past that Anti-Oedipus is a supremely Oedipal book?
Capitalism & Schizophrenia wants to vanquish the choreographed arborescence of their father’s law and rejoin to the oceanic univocity of the maternal monism; or, kill Daddy Hegel and return to Mommy Spinoza.I want to restate that I don’t think this is a bad thing. Recently I’ve found Deleuze extremely useful for understanding a wide variety problems. But it’ll be a cold day in the climate catastrophe holocene before you get me to substitute Bergson for Freud.A Thousand Plateaus is somehow more fun to read than Anti-Oedipus despite being immensely more difficult. There are single paragraphs that cascade across multiple pages referencing a remit of inconceivably diverse knowledge. It reads like nonsense at first blush.
But when I read these sections back I always I understand a little more, the coiled digits begin to articulate. If you have the patience to reread a paragraph three or four times, the reticent typologies WILL unfurl into ontogenetic dynamisms. The gift that keeps on becoming. On the other hand, there are individual sentences carved with the precision of a jeweller’s hands which can overturn everything you thought you knew prior to reading them, even upon glancing contact. Someone told me that Guattari wrote the Capitalism & Schizophrenia books on drugs and Deleuze edited / refined them on even more drugs.
I don’t know if that’s true but I really hope it is.The concept-salad from Spinoza, Nietzsche and Bergson accretes into molar aggregates which can be picked apart, reconfigured and developed, perhaps indefinitely. I think the popularity of D&G well into the time of my writing this at the end of 2018 (over 50 years since May 1968 which will always be remembered alongside these books) has to do with the insistence upon the contingency of structures and the importance of outlying flows, energies, data, etc which escape the architecture of the structure.
These books are a project which invite universal participation.This isn’t much of a review, just some disorganized thoughts I had while reading A Thousand Plateaus which is a book containing erudition vast beyond my comprehension with each plateau embedded with singularities it could take a lifetime to understand. My complaints may seem quibbling, and in some sense they are, as I’m just thinking aloud while I try to understand the points of dispute in two dominant currents of continental philosophy. This book is stunningly brilliant and probably lapped me several times while I wittered “but the dialectic.”Oh and it’s actually like 15 plateaus. The idea: Society is a vertically organized enterprise. Different concepts are used to attempt to implement a sort of control over others; the control of language, and of grammar itself, could be considered a type of imperialism.to paraphrase, there's no quicker way to implement a sort of control over a group of people than to ensure that they cannot have a voice within a society without adhering to strictly delineated guideline regarding how to write/how to speak. In response to the verticall The idea: Society is a vertically organized enterprise.
Different concepts are used to attempt to implement a sort of control over others; the control of language, and of grammar itself, could be considered a type of imperialism.to paraphrase, there's no quicker way to implement a sort of control over a group of people than to ensure that they cannot have a voice within a society without adhering to strictly delineated guideline regarding how to write/how to speak. In response to the vertically oriented, top-down society, a 'nomad' thought emerges in response, one that refuses to settle down within the predominant format, one that chooses to countermand the society. The development of a counter-reactive force to society, however, a society that attempts to eradicate 'nomad thought', thought that does not organize into hierarchies and the idea of the have and the have-not, requires a 'rhizomatic' form of connection. Imagine a set of differentiated cells that, rather than resting on a vertical plane, are organized horizontally, with the formation of different shapes, different types of conformities that help upend the tyranny of the dominant language, the dominant order. The rhizome is a dendrite that allows the players and actors in this philosophical field to connect outside the field of the hierarchy, in a way that could be more effectual than that of the 'nomad'.for the 'nomad' cannot by the sheer definition form an alternate to what DeLeuze and Guattari call 'the war machine': the manner in which a society exerts control (and the 'war machine' itself is much more effective if coercion can exist without war).
These horizontal connections among those who have learned to become organs without bodies, that is, banished the internal hierarchies within their own personal thinking and concept of organization of their own bodies, are a potential counteractive force against coercion.OK. Beyond that, a few words. The book has chapters, called plateaus, but I'd have to say that there doesn't seem to be any great degree of organization.
Indeed, DeLeuze and Guattari indicate that one could read the book in any order, skip large parts, etc. The most pivotal chapters are probably the first (simply to become acclimated to the writing, which is somewhat inscrutable, exhortational, and didactic all at the same time.truly remarkable, though it wears a bit thin after 400 pages of it), then 'How to Become a Body Without Organs,' then 'Nomadology: The War Machine.' This is basically a nonreview: like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I’d move to the next one.
Same for the next chapter and the next.Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it. Here’re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write:“Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To ma This is basically a nonreview: like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I’d move to the next one. Same for the next chapter and the next.Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it. Here’re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write:“Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit.
To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.”Sigh. How easy it is to date and place such writing: it could only be sixties-spawned poststructuralist theory.
The way the book seeks to undermine “structured” or “phallocentric” (of course) thinking is humorlessly rigorous.There’s one chapter comparing States to “chieftans,” and there is not one mention of any country and hardly any reference to a single specific example (references to “the Orient” don’t count). Such breezy abstractions are the antithesis of Foucault’s fine-grained analyses of actual social structures.The main philosopher they rail against (and neatly simplify) is Plato, who was writing philosophy 2,400 years ago. Plato is like Satan to these theorists: Everything is his fault.Like many theorists, the authors are at their worst when they turn their maniacal gaze onto fiction. But they can’t resist, they must say something. Here is a representative sentence concerning literature (they’re talking about Moby Dick and Kafka’s “Josephine the Singer”):“It is always with the Anomalous that one enters into alliance to become-animal.” SIC!This will sound brisk and simplistic (like most of this review, perhaps), but I really do think that theorists in general just don’t.get. fiction.
They have no taste. (See, for a chilling example, anything Frederic Jameson has said about literature.)I exclude Foucault, an insanely original thinker, from the above critical statements about theorists. I am torn on this review and rating. On the one-hand I recognize this as one of the quintessential post-modern tomes up there with Lyotard's Postmodern Condition or Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge but on the other hand, the quixotic hubris in this text is almost overbearing. It really depends on how I am looking at the purpose of the writing. If i try to look at it like a true philosophical text with intended insight and description, it falls completely flat. It truly is the inane charti I am torn on this review and rating.
On the one-hand I recognize this as one of the quintessential post-modern tomes up there with Lyotard's Postmodern Condition or Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge but on the other hand, the quixotic hubris in this text is almost overbearing. It really depends on how I am looking at the purpose of the writing. If i try to look at it like a true philosophical text with intended insight and description, it falls completely flat.
It truly is the inane charting of ontology (even if not hierarchical ontology) like Husserl's Phenomenology for a significant portion of the text. But whereas Husserl was truly tilting at windmills, Deleuze and Guttari seem to be bullfighting them. On the other hand, if I view this as surrealist prose with as much meaning as a non-sequitur then I can appreciate this book as the most beautifully coherent yet abstract expressionist writing I have ever seen.The subtitle of the book points to the two main objects of the critical theory developed here: hegemonic economics (capitalism) and hegemonic psychology (psychoanalysis). But neither ever seem to be directly addressed. I've finally finished this difficult, confusing, brilliant book.I've been reading it for years; off and on; a chapter here, a chapter there.
(And a warning about that: in the beginning of this book, the authors claim that you can read the book like a record player, reading a chapter here and a chapter there, but that really isn't true. The book rhymes, sure, but it also builds concepts and ideas, starting from some basic premises and building up to some pretty in-depth case studies. It's really I've finally finished this difficult, confusing, brilliant book.I've been reading it for years; off and on; a chapter here, a chapter there. (And a warning about that: in the beginning of this book, the authors claim that you can read the book like a record player, reading a chapter here and a chapter there, but that really isn't true.
The book rhymes, sure, but it also builds concepts and ideas, starting from some basic premises and building up to some pretty in-depth case studies. It's really worth reading it from start to finish, which is not the way I read the book.)There is no review that could sum up this behemoth of ideas. This book touches on so many things. They're arguing for a new way of conceiving and approaching the world, starting with a new conception between substance and form, expression and content, and leading up to a new way of conceiving power, the State, war, and 'lines of flight,' which is one of the concepts that the book sets out to explain.I really can't give you a summary. I really can't give you 'my take.' I will say that there are massive parts of it that I need to read again, and there are very fundamental concepts that I just don't understand (the event, haecceity, the machinic assemblage).I will tell you that my recent re-immersion into the book came from one of the better reading groups I've ever been part of.
We read a fair chunk of A Thousand Plateaus together, which at times was a real joy.I will also tell you that what I love to do most of all with theory is find out what I can use and what I jettison. I want to fight with what I'm reading, and I want to be able to know it well enough to point my finger and shout 'bullshit' in a shrill voice.
But that's not the case with Delueze (and Guattari) and I'm afraid that won't be the case for awhile. First, I need to understand their basic fights, who are with a panoply of philosophical figures, and I have to figure out which of those fights I care about. Any book of philosophy that features a chapter in which a geologist (named Challenger no less) undergoes a metamorphosis while delivering a lecture is pretty good.
What takes it to the next level is what Challenger the geologist turns into: a lobster! This book has it all from Deleuze and Guattari: wolf packs, war machines, nomadologies, becomings-animal, rhizomes, the differences between the games of Go and Chess, and plenty of rips on Freud and psychoanalysis. My favorite chapters were the int Any book of philosophy that features a chapter in which a geologist (named Challenger no less) undergoes a metamorphosis while delivering a lecture is pretty good. What takes it to the next level is what Challenger the geologist turns into: a lobster! This book has it all from Deleuze and Guattari: wolf packs, war machines, nomadologies, becomings-animal, rhizomes, the differences between the games of Go and Chess, and plenty of rips on Freud and psychoanalysis. My favorite chapters were the introduction (Rhizomes), the first chapter on wolves, the 'becoming-intense, becoming-animal' chapter, the 'Body without Organs' chapter, and the final chapter. Hell, just read the whole book.I can't give it five stars because there are a few passages that are a bit lengthy and overly technical, but perhaps I missed the joke in those passages.
Regardless, this is definitely a book worth taking a look at again, with all of its messiness and intensity and humor.Now onto the one that started it all (or ended it all) for Deleuze and Guattari: Anti-Oedipus. I actually have read this book. I have a vague idea of what its about, but I cannot claim to understand all of it. That in no way detracted from sheer reading pleasure.Some of their ideas such as rhizomatic thinking and the body without organs are so beautiful you can stand and stare at them for hours.
As for some of the other ideas, i have no clue what they're talking about.They suggest that you read their book like listening to a concert. They also suggest that the book's chapters are plateaus I actually have read this book. I have a vague idea of what its about, but I cannot claim to understand all of it. That in no way detracted from sheer reading pleasure.Some of their ideas such as rhizomatic thinking and the body without organs are so beautiful you can stand and stare at them for hours. As for some of the other ideas, i have no clue what they're talking about.They suggest that you read their book like listening to a concert. They also suggest that the book's chapters are plateaus, and you can read whichever one in whatever order. I did both, separately and together.I have a suspicion they were not on this plane of consciousness when they wrote this book.and all of this is why it is beautiful.
The second part of Deleuze and Guattari's two volume mind boggling and yet a playful critique of capitalism is full of insights and useful ideas. They do manage to take the language of critical theory forward from Lacan, Derrida and Foucault.
One of the most intersting and useful metaphor is the metaphor of rhizome used instead of hierarchic logic of the metaphor of `tree'. One of the most important philosophical treatise of this `post modern' era.
The second part of Deleuze and Guattari's two volume mind boggling and yet a playful critique of capitalism is full of insights and useful ideas. They do manage to take the language of critical theory forward from Lacan, Derrida and Foucault. One of the most intersting and useful metaphor is the metaphor of rhizome used instead of hierarchic logic of the metaphor of `tree'. One of the most important philosophical treatise of this `post modern' era. This is probably one of the most interesting books ever written. It is however very confusing for people who are not familiar with the jargon.It will literally change how you look at the world.The West has embraced a tree-like structure of order and understanding whereas the East has embraced a more rhizomatic understanding. And that's what this book focuses on.
The concept of rhizomatic maps. This dichotomy is also the reason why Eastern philosophy is so very different from Weste Holy smokes. This is probably one of the most interesting books ever written. It is however very confusing for people who are not familiar with the jargon.It will literally change how you look at the world.The West has embraced a tree-like structure of order and understanding whereas the East has embraced a more rhizomatic understanding. And that's what this book focuses on. The concept of rhizomatic maps.
This dichotomy is also the reason why Eastern philosophy is so very different from Western philosophy.People who claim that this book is just pseudo-intellectual postmodernist crap don't understand the concept of the book. It is as thought-provoking as it is educational. A highly recommended read. For some reason no one seems interested in my reality TV series: DIY Philosophy. It's so full of action and suspense I can't understand why no one will pick it up.Epidsode 1: I brew a pot of hazelnut coffee, feed the cats, sit down at my dining room table, place Deleuze and Guattari's 1000 Plateaus on my lap, pissing off the resident velociraptor who gives me that you're-such-a-loser-when-can-i-eat-you look.Episode 2: I begin reading. I furrow my brow, sip coffee, continue reading.
As soon as th For some reason no one seems interested in my reality TV series: DIY Philosophy. It's so full of action and suspense I can't understand why no one will pick it up.Epidsode 1: I brew a pot of hazelnut coffee, feed the cats, sit down at my dining room table, place Deleuze and Guattari's 1000 Plateaus on my lap, pissing off the resident velociraptor who gives me that you're-such-a-loser-when-can-i-eat-you look.Episode 2: I begin reading.
I furrow my brow, sip coffee, continue reading. As soon as the local morning radio show ends I audiostream an Australian music station, go to the bathroom, shower, brush my teeth, warm my coffee, return to the table and resume reading.Episode 3: Stuck on the concept of the Body Without Organs (BWO) I set the book aside, pace around, check on the cats who are now one big warm pod, snuggled in their penthouse suite on top of the refrigerator.
All I can think is, to hell with the BWO, I'm a mammal and all I want to do right now is join them.Episode 4: Alas, knowing I can't be a cat and follow the trail from corner table to counter to top of the refrigerator without smashing everything in sight and/or breaking every bone in my body, I return to the table, resume philosophical reading pose, refurrow my brow and soldier on.Episode 5: I reach a passage that not only makes sense to me but rocks my world, and suddenly I'm completely in the moment, nerve-alert as a cat on bird duty. I raise one eyebrow, both eyebrows.
I underline a passage, pounce, write in my notebook. Eureka moment? False epiphany? Eurekan epiphanic moment?
Borne on a line of flight to where?Episode 6: I'm in my house yet not there, I'm in the text but not there either. Am I a vector? Am I in a deterritorialized phase of becoming, a nomad reader deking in and out of the furrowed rows of text? Or am I just a stooge trying to file her way out of the War Machine, using philosophy as a tool.
Is DIY philosophy effective enough or do I need professional help?The season ends on a cliff-hanger. This is my second time reading this book, maybe 15 years later. I see how what others have said about Deleuze (and Guattari) to be true; that they are Kantian phenomenologists, (post-)Marxists, and so on. This book is an art work in that they are able through partial abstraction, subordinate a new set of class/categorizational structure for how we should consider various kinds of relations. They outline only the barest minimum while showing that these kinds of relations are beings in-themselves This is my second time reading this book, maybe 15 years later. I see how what others have said about Deleuze (and Guattari) to be true; that they are Kantian phenomenologists, (post-)Marxists, and so on.
This book is an art work in that they are able through partial abstraction, subordinate a new set of class/categorizational structure for how we should consider various kinds of relations. They outline only the barest minimum while showing that these kinds of relations are beings in-themselves created time and again throughout human history, literature, music and so on. In a way, this is more than philosophy because by venturing the pattern outward and showing how we organize changes what things are (how we are) so they also show us the first edges of a materialism in which agental relations matter more than ontology or the content of classification. In fact, their formalism is light-years beyond that; it's a formalism in which specific content is the organizer and vis-versa. How we reproduce that pattern will give us whole new worlds in which to live and play in.There are deeper thoughts today because of how our knowledge as accelerated in growth, but there is no other book that is as seminal (as of yet) as this one.
I like Deleuze. I think, insofar as this is meaningful to say, he is right.
But I don't know that he is a good writer. He tends to get off task, run off on these giant tangents that are sometimes charming, but, as this VERY LONG book progresses, get increasingly more tedious and less productive. The becoming-woman discussion is a case in point for me. Deleuze spends more time trying to convince us that he has no intention of insulting transvestites and their accomplishments than he does a I like Deleuze. I think, insofar as this is meaningful to say, he is right. But I don't know that he is a good writer. He tends to get off task, run off on these giant tangents that are sometimes charming, but, as this VERY LONG book progresses, get increasingly more tedious and less productive.
The becoming-woman discussion is a case in point for me. Deleuze spends more time trying to convince us that he has no intention of insulting transvestites and their accomplishments than he does actually describing the theory, which itself is good, but too short. I would have loved, for example, if he integrated a discussion of transvestites into the implications of becoming-woman - that would have been very interesting, but instead it is presented as a quirky, Deleuzian aside. Also, I randomly don't like Guattari. I felt off balance with this one, especially in stark relief to Anti-Oedipus.
I'm not suggesting I deftly maneuvered through that one, but the posture remained intact. I largely flailed and screeched during my readinging and kept it such until I read that Alec Empire loves this as well as some squatters in St.
Petersburg: I read that second detail Wired magazine. Yeah, I bought a pair of copies of that back in the early months of Clinton's second term. It is strange, I recall so much of that art I felt off balance with this one, especially in stark relief to Anti-Oedipus. I'm not suggesting I deftly maneuvered through that one, but the posture remained intact. I largely flailed and screeched during my readinging and kept it such until I read that Alec Empire loves this as well as some squatters in St. Petersburg: I read that second detail Wired magazine.
Yeah, I bought a pair of copies of that back in the early months of Clinton's second term. It is strange, I recall so much of that article about digital anarchists in the 'new' Russia but i don't recall that much from Thousand Plateaus. Once again, Deleuze and Guattari give me words to outline the processes and flows of my own thought.I am constantly in a process of deterritorialization, attempting to break free of the systems and stagnations.I am a nomad of thought, of the heart, for thinking is being on the way, becoming.All is interconnected in flowing over, through and across.All lines must work out their motion before they can be detangled from the real. This book is an organ on the way to the complete decoding and detraci Once again, Deleuze and Guattari give me words to outline the processes and flows of my own thought.I am constantly in a process of deterritorialization, attempting to break free of the systems and stagnations.I am a nomad of thought, of the heart, for thinking is being on the way, becoming.All is interconnected in flowing over, through and across.All lines must work out their motion before they can be detangled from the real. This book is an organ on the way to the complete decoding and detracing of this body without organs.