Is this just nonsense or am I stupid? I'm having a difficult

The Body Without Organs shook me for a while and I had to look it up on Stanford but it isn't that difficult when you get used to their style.

What terms or arguments aren't you getting I could try to help you out.

>>8634791
I'm gonna be honest I haven't actually read it, i'm just going off lecture notes.. but i'm completely lost. The terms Nomad, War Machine and Multiplicity all fly right over my head.

>>8634837
You need to start with the Greeks and work your way up

surely you read Anti-Oedipus

>>8634780
Neither. It's a text you need to put a decent amount of work into. Believing it's not nonsense, but also not holy writ, is essential. Read Manuel DeLanda, and any secondary stuff you find--Anti-Oedipus is obviously helpful to read before it, and the philosophical canon and 'Greeks' less so. However, in the intro, they do recommend reading it like you would listen to a record--so do with that what you will. I personally reccomend reading the first plateau especially carefully before reading the whole thing and treating it like you would treat science fiction.

File: LY.jpg (16KB, 228x214px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 228x214px

>>8634780

Disregard all 20th century French psychoanalytic/post-modernist/post-structuralist hacks.

>>8634837
you need to understand their work in terms relating to space, and to their general project of overturning philosophical orthodoxies like the priority of being over becoming, dialectic over difference and multiplicity, etc. that's some crass simplification on my part, but I think reading about Deleuze's work on the SEP might be helpful. uh to understand multiplicity better, read the first chapter of Anti-Oedipus and pit it against a cursory understanding of desire and lack in Lacan, to understand nomadism and the war machine maybe think about historical nomads on the steppes and their relations with settled states like the Han and how that relates to the plateau on that in AMP. read as much of Intersecting Lives as you can too. D&G's main contribution is thinking in terms of territory, territorialization/deterritorialization, etc. avoid all caricatures

Intro: Rhizomes is one of the most profound pieces of text I've read. Would write more but I'm too drunk. Read it from a distance.

>>8634780

It's bottom tier dreck. Don't waste even 5 minutes of your life on this shit. Philosophy post-1900 is a circus of retards and degenerates.

>>8635199
Not only French post-modernism, all post-modernism.

>>8634780
Disregard what these three ( >>8635199 >>8635225 >>8635228 ) said, they didn't read it either

>>8634780
1 of 3
What is a rhizome? It is a node-like system—a web where all points are interconnected—internet-like in structure. The rhizome is not the tree or root-model. It is not a vertical totem or ladder that operates on a hierarchical “top-down” power basis. The rhizome is horizontal and level with any other node or point through which it passes. The BwO operates along these immanent and rhizomatic planes. Only the OwB (organs without bodies)—that which is fragmented and disjointed, acting on the basis of individual identities that are developed through the idea of difference —could operate on totem-ideology. Between nodes, we are at a point of transformation—a point of Becoming more like the Other—until we finally start to see that the Other is actually Us. This sense of lycanthropy (of man becoming Animal or Other—similar to what occurred with King Nebuchadnezzar, this is the horror element of so many movies—where man becomes beast or inhuman) is a consequence of “schizophrenic” thought, falling outside of psychoanalytic ideals, which would prevent a person from encountering this process through the act of repression. In other words, Becoming Animal or Other should not be seen as a sickness (as psychoanalysis proposes), but, rather, as a transformative act where a person begins to see things from a more immanent and holistic perspective (a BwO). We are not an individual identity, but, rather, a multitude of men. As D&G state in the opening sentence of A Thousand Plateaus: “Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd.”
We are more likely to repress Others when we repress ourselves. This is the moral high-horse that people like to ride in on, condemning those that deviate from the norms that they interpret and believe to be true—norms that arise through repression. We interpret certain ideals to be true and then force them onto Others as if we were fascists ourselves. Everyone is a fascist in this sense. And when we see others doing things that we want to do (but have ultimately repressed ourselves from doing), the condescending remarks come. Thereafter, we attempt to shape Others into an image of our own repressed selves, using our fascist power to form and mold them into something more akin to what we consider to be socially acceptable. In short, society turns men into self-inflicting masochists, who then, in turn, sadistically act out toward Others, using their fascist power to oppress.

>>8637099
2 of 3
Lacan’s Imaginary Realm is where desire is believed to reside; and though Deleuze and Guattari go against this psychoanalytic idea, they also disown the desiring-machine once it has accepted unto itself its postmodern Other, driven no longer by identifying with different, separate, symbolically-induced, dualistic identities, but, rather, understanding and heralding in the holistic aspects of hermeticism—understanding that the Other is nothing more than Us—like looking in a mirror, in Others we see ourselves, residing on a Plane of Immanence (an absolute deterritorialization), where nothing is separate or confined to a cultural, ideological, or spatial territory. The desiring-machine (though a necessary component for becoming) dissolves or destroys itself, cracking open like an egg and revealing the transformed animal inside; the desiring-machine is the discarded shell that the animal leaves behind in its wake after it emerges. The caterpillar’s cocoon (though a necessary part of the transformative process) is no longer needed once it becomes a butterfly. This is the fluidity and flow of the body-without-organs—no longer nomadic (though nomadism is necessary for one to escape the shackles of the organized state and its striated-space (which prohibits free movement), making grass-roots-type of war-machine movements (these are the small microbial bacteria that can make a human’s system sick—the virus or worm that causes a computer system to crash), which can combat the state’s industrial army and make way for smooth-spaces (which allow for free movement)), one starts to see the senselessness in trying to attain anything.

>>8637106
3 of 3
Rhizomatic systems overtake tree models. Pathways are smoothed between plateaus by the war-machines’ subterranean techno-static sounds. Top-down Foucauldian power systems are replaced by node-like webs, where we are all interconnected along an immanent plane, traversing "free space," thanks, again, to the war-machines that combat oppressive Freudian institutes. The desiring machine is the chicken that has since discarded its shell, knowing the shell is a necessary part of the process to being born. A chicken cannot be born without a shell (without first being a desiring machine); but, at the same time, after being born (or enlightened to the point of understanding), the shell (the desiring machine) becomes unnecessary. The caterpillar no longer needs its cocoon once it becomes a butterfly. Still, the cocoon is initially needed. Schizoanalysis combats psychoanalysis by not forcing people to repress their desires masochistically, thus reducing the rate that they will become fascist sadists that are bent on using their power to oppress people in the same way in which they were once initially oppressed. This ties into the absence of ideology. There are no Others since as D&G state: "each of us was several." We are everything by which we are around, thus we stand both as individuals and as a multitude of men. We are man and animal in one. We are anthropomorphic entities. We are not a 1 or a 0, but both 1&0. Via Nick Land's interpretation, we become the binary code necessary to successfully program (thus a full body without organs, capable of creating our own concepts (as is posed in What Is Philosophy?)).

How do you know someone had completely mis-interpreted D&G? I'll start:

>everything is rhizomes so that means hierarchies don't exist and we're all equal!

>>8634837
https://www.amazon.com/Deleuze-Guattaris-Thousand-Plateaus-Readers/dp/0826423027