what did they mean by this?

Shits don't have identities as objects in space. They have virtual ideal identities based on our network of infinite reflexive associations with all other phenomena

>>8838440
This sounds pretty cool desu. Too bad he could never explain anything in terms this simple and always had to resort to almost nonsensical sounding prose. People think Kant, Heidegger, and Derrida are difficult to read, but at least I can make sense of them. Kant actually seems pretty clear desu, and Heidegger isn't too bad either. Deleuze on the other hand is seemingly intentionally obscure. He often switches the meaning of a word or phrase half way through a sentence so as to draw some analogy, produce a play on words, or otherwise create some sort of poetic affect. He uses phrases ambiguously. He constructs seemingly endless sentences. He uses almost as many neologisms as conventional words. What a headache.

I'm not one of those people who outright rejects continental philosophy in general or even deconstruction in particular (perhaps its most obscure and controversial form), but this is precisely why I prefer analytic philosophy (also Generative Grammar and cognitive science are pretty cool desu senpai).

>>8838440
Any novells that touch this?

>>8838504
He often switches the meaning of a word or phrase half way through a sentence so as to draw some analogy, produce a play on words, or otherwise create some sort of poetic affect. He uses phrases ambiguously. He constructs seemingly endless sentences. He uses almost as many neologisms as conventional words.
You should be used to this if you actually read Heidegger

File: foucaults_hideout.png (129KB, 477x351px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 477x351px

>>8838440

that's cool Deleuze, now what you gonna do bout it faggot

Is it possible to separate Deleuze from Guattari to see what each was really contributing?

Did they always agree on everything? I know they stopped collaborating and wrote individually later on.

All garbage, earlier books are superior.

>>8838504
Depends on what you're reading. Most people I've talked to jumped into Anti-Oedipus because it's D&G's most popular work and then complained about it. Pick up Deleuze's compilations instead (Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Negotiations, Essays Critical and Clinical) as well as his courses ( they are translated for the most part in several languages on webdeleuze) and you'll be amazed at how clear he can be. D&G admitted that Anti-Oedipus was a flawed work hence why they wrote A Thousand Plateaus as a second volume.

>>8838547
Seperating Deleuze and Guattari is like seperating a man from his loyal dog

>>8838554
Go to bed, Zizek.

>>8838547
Guattari said he was interested in Deleuze due to reading about the body without organs in The Logic of Sense, but in the end Deleuze admitted that they didn't really agree about the concept of BwO. The concept is quite different between LoS, A-O and ATP probably because of this tension. The most coherent and empirical formulation is in ATP imo, but it's hard to say whether that was Guattari or Deleuze. Imo Deleuze returned to Masoch (along with Henry Miller, D.H. Lawrence and Borroughs among others) and gave the concept a more everyday understanding rather than just the schizophrenic, Artaudian sense.

As for the rest, I dunno since I haven't read Guattari.

>>8838514
the upanishads desu

>>8838504
yeah he does this, and it fits perfectly with his idea on what philosophy is and how it should be interpreted. He tries to delocalize meaning and give only a vague notion of constancy penetrated by rhizomatic ambiguities. It's a lot harder to pin down *exactly* what D&G are discussing because they are deliberately giving their material opportunity for multifarious interpretation. A bit pretentious, but their general purpose is easy enough to discern

>>8838504
>He often switches the meaning of a word or phrase half way through a sentence so as to draw some analogy, produce a play on words, or otherwise create some sort of poetic affect. He uses phrases ambiguously. He constructs seemingly endless sentences. He uses almost as many neologisms as conventional words. What a headache.
Deleuze's lines of thought are rarely conventional. His approach is something akin to a kind of topology of thought, where radically different ideas and concepts are folded into one another. It basically enables him to explore an ontology of becoming and multiplicity without sacrificing continuity. The rhizome is a topological model in the sense because it allows for multiple points of entry, exit and connection without fracturing its formal unity into discrete parts. His books on Foucalt and Baroque architecture are probably the easiest way of grasping this kind of thinking

>>8838343
look just don't waste your time on dolce & gabbana's psych bullshit. read some jung. read some freud even.

File: deleuze.jpg (19KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x386px

>>8839855
>dolce & gabbana's

kek

File: MI0001665376.jpg (18KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x247px

>>8838343
Was GG Allin the true BwO?

>>8838343
>throw word salad on paper
>some people derive meaning from it and claim it's genius
>become a famous philosopher

why hasn't anyone here tried this?

>>8839874
Nick has, with moderate success