[D-G] Life altering
sylvia_jenepi at brokenvessels.xyz
Tue Jun 26 17:01:15 PDT 2018
On 26.06.2018 02:56, Drake Gossi wrote:
> So, Daniel, I struggle with Deleuze, and right now I'm struggling with
> thoughts on subjectivity, so I'm thinking of the three syntheses--I
> believe--in *Difference and Repetition*. To me, the subject for Deleuze
> a kind of after-feeling or feeling of having been affected and
> simultaneously affecting others.///***///
These affects sediment into something
> that's not asocial or private--certainly not--but an idiosyncratic and
> networked form of subjectivity, one made of solely of all of my past
> repurposings of the world.
my course of thoughts brought by random across your words,
make me wonder (please don't see this as admonishing from me, it's just
out of misunderstanding the logic:
i think the words 'indiosynchrasic' coming alongside those of
'networked' is ok in this context of online conversation.
-yet, a subjectivity that would be
made solely of 'all my past repurposing of the world' seems illogical
how can the 'world' endow you with such a gratification:
otherwise because the world is just some external layers, but
not encompassing all the polyverse multiplicity of the World?
is this not Nietzsche becoming a mantra or some magical thinking
i like the idea of repurposing the networked indiosynchrasies you find
around you , perhaps like this scenopoetic bird in what is philosophy?
of the forest.
but yet the way to do better than the scenopoetic bird,
is breaking the rules, disrupt the normativity of the Scenopoetic Bird,
by a Self-Analysis: the bird engages into decomplexify his brain,
and change the way he behaves. that's why Kant is interested by the
what would be so great would be Deleuze
or Kant would have activated so many new Ideas in a Man
(singular) that she would change the patterns of the
Scenopetic Bird, and help a new Pattern , so that
the leaves and the concepts loose any sense of categoric distinction.
And I take this to mean what you were saying
> earlier, that is, when you said that there's this complexity that
> from rules and games but that isn't available in or doesn't get
> back into those rules and games. The subject accumulates, but is not
> appropriated and is not in fact appropriable (is useless or
> I'm sure Zizek and Badiou argue differently). I've heard this called a
> membrane elsewhere, the subject as a membrane--or a kind of liminal
> Any thoughts on this? Do you know how this relates to the three
> I remember this link from Shaviro <http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=648>
> being helpful... This is another one by Levi Bryant
> might be helpful too; it's on individuation. Or, perhaps easier
> Do you know how these ideas you're discussing relate back to a specific
> D &
> G text?
> Here's another topic for discussion, one that bugs me frequently: how
> Deleuze's version of difference different than Lyotard's?
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Fineman <dand at oxy.edu> wrote:
>> For me, D&G have been the most consequential philosophers of all.
>> While the
>> ramifications of there thought seem nearly infinite and so impossible
>> enumerate, the general consequences for me seem somewhat captured in
>> attitudes. First, I understand all the normal - extensive -
>> which constitute the social frame as games with rules and elements
>> institutionalized to form structures of regular intelligibility.
>> Second, I
>> find I attend to my own becoming as an ongoing and so dynamic
>> of unanticipateable complexity that is, thereby, unavailable to those
>> normative structures.
>> List addre
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari