Deleuze Thread

Op is a brainlet

I DO THIS EVERY TIME BUT NEVER GET ANY THANKS FUCK OFF AND READ THE ARCHIVE YOU DICK

just be weird like your post

>>9921168
Start with the glossary. [spoiler/]

Capitalism is a cybernetic process that feeds off the unconscious desires of humans and leaves some with the side effect of schizophrenia. Is that somewhat right?

>>9921305
>schizophrenia
deleuze doesn't know what this is

he just appropriated it because it was a cool buzzword of his time and turned it completely into something else

>>9921168
join dialecticzposting on facebook dot com

>>9921481
No thanks, Beter

https://youtu.be/GS35vUMhww4

>>9921305
I would say schizophrenia is not a side effect, but nearly the only way to subvert capitalism's influence on an individual, so its an adaptation.

>>9921265
Good post anon.

>>9921523
This is close but needs refinement.

Being a yuppie artist, free spirit, weirdo snowflake, is the only way to subvert capitalism's influence on an individual.

>>9921168

Okay so a body is made up of organs. But if you removed one organ it would still be a body, right? Like if I remove one of your kidneys, you would still call the remaining thing a body.

So for Deleuze an organ is a part of a whole with a specific function, but a body is the whole that is more than the sum of it's parts because it's full potential to become more.

The science focused view reduces a person to a bunch of functions of organs, your eye takes in some light photons, your nerves carry a message by electricity, your brain makes some decision via chemical processes.

Deleuze rejects the concept of the human as a bunch of mechanical reactions of organs as it implies there is only one response possible and ignores the bodes endless potential to become. He wants to focus on the many potentials of the body to become more in the future of the constant state of becoming the body is in.

So Deleuze takes this metaphor to the next step and shows how this same process works in a social system. The normalising and controlling processes of society/government/capitalism works as unwanted organs within our social body, psychologically making automatic reactions for us.

For Deleuze this is bad because it limits our potential. We should have the potential to act freely without societally imposed reactions making decisions for us which limit our potential. If we reject societies "organs" and become the virtual BwO we can act as we please and have more potential to become.

>>9921305
I haven't read Deleuze but I've read Nick Land's essays on cybernetics in FN and the references to D&G seem really forced.
Maybe their language is obscure but I can't see how he's reading anything about cybernetics in his quotations of them. I get that Land is attempting a departure from Wiener by emphasizing positive over negative feedback, but he still talks in those Wienerian terms to start with before taking the leap to the deleuzoguattarian sphere via a path I can't see.

>>9922154
>believing Land can form coherent thought after all the amphetamines he did, without sleep, writing that piece of smut

>>9922154
Land is full of forced references to "important" thinkers.

He has some good texts but sometimes I wish he'd go full sci-fi story with some of them and not feel the need to force in footnotes and references to dead french thinkers to remind you he's still a "real philosopher"

>>9922154

Land just plays it safe by hanging onto some conties but most of his stuff is just his (i.e amphetamine driven chaos). As much as he clings on to Deleuze, Bataille and much of the Hegelian-Marxist school, his stuff is much more "beyond" than that. He would do well to establish his own canon if he wants to do philosophy so badly, but then again I think it makes sense within his thought that it never becomes intentionally organized and pre-conceived.