?

Log in

Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Recent Entries

8/3/06 10:31 pm - uberdionysus

Hi. About 10 friends and I are planning on reading A Thousand Plateaus. I was going to create a new community for my friends and myself, but came across your community, which is perfect if its members are still active. Would anyone here be interested in re-starting an A Thousand Plateaus dialog?

We're going to start with "Introduction: Rhizome."
 

7/21/06 10:52 am - johnkochultra - Machine and Mechanism

It's been a while since I've read Anti-Oedipus, but I had a thought about the distinction made between machine and mechanism and how it relates to some of the criticism I've been reading. I've recently read Bourdieu's essays on "The Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field" and "The Family Spirit" (in Practical Reason). Bourdieu uses the term "habitus" to describe a state of the subject that, in D&G's terms, might be called "mechanized machine." He proceeds to delineate how our desires (desiring-machines) have been constructed (mechanized) in their unconscious relationship to the "field of power." This is an inadequate introduction to Bourdieu's work, but I want to get at a more general concern: why is it that a movement as liberating as desire (machinic) must be used so often to expose mechanisms? It seems like no one can make a statement anymore without first locating the socially constructed presuppositions. It may be interesting to study how desire has created mechanisms within the critique of mechanism - and this is almost returning to Bourdieu's original project. Writing this post has made me realize the necessity of ATP in the course of D&G's thought. I think it is what deconstructive reading could be if it didn't ally itself so closely with a social agenda.
 

7/11/06 02:06 pm - becoming_wolf - the egg, biophilosophy

wrote this today, thought this community might be interested

which came first, the chicken or the egg?Collapse )

crossposted to becoming_wolf
 

4/12/06 11:47 pm - keep_moving

not to be a 'thread hog' or anything, but christ, i'm trying to start a discussion or something here ...

what are all of your thoughts on affect vs. effect (not simply on the gramatical level). i feel like this is something that's often brushed over 'in the early days' of studying deleuze and guattari (and in philosophy in general). what do you all think the difference is?

*cough*

discuss.
 

4/6/06 12:14 pm - keep_moving

Has anyone on here read the new(ish) Deleuze: An Introduction by Todd May? I'm curious about how it's being received...
 

4/5/06 05:12 am - becoming_wolf

i think its kind of funny that this community is named after anti-oedipus - the frustrated body.

because honestly, what is more frustrating than a community on a topic you love, but find no member active in? an empty BwO if i've ever seen one.

blogging is so rhizomatic, its sad this community doesn't purely excite itself - frustrations, confusions. but hey, i can't place blame; only ride it out. and this community, if only for the pure consistency of the interested machines of its members, is a beautiful body to waste.
 

10/27/05 08:35 pm - destroycarthage - Origins and emergence of the Other Person.

In the 1st chapter of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s What is Philosophy? a discussion of the “other person” or autrui arises wherein it is assumed that the a priori notion of another person gives rise to:
1. The other person as Other (a subject that presents itself as an object) making the self and the Other two distinct components.
2. The other person as a special object that appears to the self.
3. The other person as another subject (self) which transforms me into a special object of the other self.

What follows is an answer to the question “What is the nature of the other person’s position that the other subject comes to ‘occupy’ only when it appears to me as a special object, and that I in turn come to occupy as special object when I appear to the other subject?” It is stated that:
1. The other person is not anyone—neither subject nor object.
2. Because there is the other person there are also several subjects.
3. The special object, the other subject, and the self are all derived components of the concept ‘other person’.

Does this mean that there are only ‘other people’ in the sense that I perceive them as special objects and in so doing am perceived by them as a special object in turn? Is the case simply an assumption we usually make about the selfhood of other people, i.e. by granting it to them because we are aware of our own selfhood? Is this what it means to treat another person as a ‘special object’, or an object that is also a subject, or an Other?

What is the case then? Is it that the concept of another person gives rise to these misconceptions about the reality they refer to? Answer no. 2 seems to suggest the multiplicity discussed earlier in the chapter. The concept of autrui is a multiplicity, the existence of several subjects, not just one subject and a corresponding Other.

Near the end of the chapter, during the segment on possible worlds, the Other Person becomes a delimiting device which prevents us from “running up against” things. The Other Person is “the condition for passing from one world to another” as each possible world expresses itself in a field of experience.

The multiplicity of the concept seems to be due to its correspondence with and presuppositions of concepts lying on other planes of immanence. The “bridges” and “zigzags” formed between concepts create possible worlds.

Is it correct to draw the inference that the Other Person is the expression of the multiplicity of concepts? If so, is it consistent to say that possible worlds express themselves due to the overlapping of planes? If we return to the prephilosophical plane (a trip that is said to be impossible in thought) do we no longer see the emergence of possible worlds, multiplicities, and the Other Person? Are we looking at the contours of the infinite, the rough folds and rifts that form in its diagrammatic movement?
 

9/16/05 05:55 pm - satanandhobbes - Nomadic Questions

What is the nomadic absolute, is it merely the local? Or does it have more to do with phenomenological concepts like movement and being? Or are these qualities inextricably linked together within it?
 

8/20/05 09:13 pm - johnkochultra - Great Website

http://freespace.virgin.net/drama.land/projects/schizoanalysis/index.html

Short definitions of key concepts excerpted from the texts.
 

8/15/05 03:35 pm - keep_moving - Deleuze on Foucault and power

This doesn't connect explicitly to Anti-Oedipus but it's certainly related.

I'm wondering if anyone on here has read Deleuze's book on Foucault. I'm reading it specifically to use his reformation of Foucault's conception of power. On pages 70-73 he separates all power relations into an active pole (the ability to incite) and a reactive pole (the ability to produce). He further separates power into two forms: the power-to-affect and the power-to-be-affected. He calls the power-to-affect the 'function' of power, and the power-to-be-affected the 'matter'. I guess I am most curious as to why he makes this analytic distinction. I read the matter issue as not simply being mute, but rather as being something with the ability to actualize in conjunction with this power-to-affect function. I'm wondering specifically if it would be correct to call this view of power an assembledge? It seems to me that, much more than Foucault, he places power in an (implicit) metaphysical system (the one outlined in AO and ATP). Power here, in order to be productive, needs to be connected. These two forms of power must work in conjunction - this is basically an assembledge as I read it. Anyway, I'm just excited by the text and wondering if anybody has any ideas or interpretations.
Powered by LiveJournal.com