#guttari

[nicholasandriani]

How to Tell a Story: It’s time to forget Aristotle

Let me guess, regardless of your background whether you’re a poet or playwright, an avid reader or brutal critic, you first began this writerly life indoctrinated into the lens of Aristotle’s Poetics. I say indoctrinated because we’re steeped in the stuff, here on the west. We’re marinated from birth in this worldview that stresses a triumvirate cycle, from our various religions in the Abrahamic…

View On WordPress

[confrontthefamiliar]

“One does not desire revolution, desire is revolutionary.”

G. Deleuze and F. Guttari

[3440163]

Concept: Entanglement

Tim Ingold has described entanglement as “a meshwork of interwoven lines of growth and movement (Ingold, 3).” Particularly important to Ingold’s conception of entanglement is the way in which it acts as an alternative to the idea of networks of connections, favouring instead “[t]he entwining of…ever-extending trajectories…” (Ingold, 11). Entanglement relies heavily on notions of flow and flux in order to resist conclusive directionality or reduction to an individual point of origin. Rather, entanglement is concerned with processes or lines of becoming and conditions of possibility. A recent collection of essays on the archaeology of entanglement identifies trajectories “in which there are multiplying and continuously transforming entrapments emerging from interactions between humans and nonhumans” as a key tenet of entanglement (Der and Fernandini, 15). Theorists have offered several constructs for visualizing the nature of entanglement including Alan Rayner’s fungal mycelium, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s rhizome, or Ingold’s spider web.

[olliepalmer]

Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles.

Guttari, F., and G. Deleuze. A Thousand Plateaus. The Athlone Press, 1988. p. 389

[triggaahappy]

Such a set of beliefs, Deleuze and Guattari demonstrate, such a herd instinct, is based on the desire to be led, the desire to have someone else legislate life. The very desire that was brought so glaringly into focus in Europe with Hitler, Mussolini, and fascism; the desire that is still at work, making us all sick, today. Anti-Oedipus starts by reviving Reich's completely serious question with respect to the rise of fascism: 'How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?' This is a question which the English and Americans are reluctant to deal with directly, tending too often to respond: "Fascism is a phenomenon that took place elsewhere, something that could only happen to others, but not to us; it's their problem." Is it though? Is fascism really a problem for others to deal with? Even revolutionary groups deal gingerly with the fascisizing elements we all carry deep within us, and yet they often possess a rarely analyzed but overriding group 'superego' that leads them to state, much like Nietzsche's man of ressentiment, that the other is evil (the Fascist! the Capitalist! the Communist!), and hence that they themselves are good. This conclusion is reached as an afterthought and a justification, a supremely se//-righteous rationalization for a politics that can only "squint" at life, through the thick clouds of foul-smelling air that permeates secret meeting places and "security" councils. The man of ressentiment, as Nietzsche explains, "loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors, everything covert entices him as his world, his security, his refreshment; he understands how to keep silent, how not to forget, how to wait, how to be provisionally self-deprecating and humble." Such a man, Nietzsche concludes, needs very much to believe in some neutral, independent "subject"—the ego—for he is prompted by an instinct of self-affirmation and Jeff-preservation that cares little about preserving or affirming life, an instinct "in which every lie is sancti- fied." This is the realm of the silent majority. And it is into these back rooms, behind the closed doors of the analyst's office, in the wings of the Oedipal theater, that Deleuze and Guattari weave their way, exclaiming as does Nietzsche that it smells bad there, and that what is needed is "a breath of fresh air, a relationship with the outside world.

Anti-Oedipus

INTRODUCTION

by Mark Seem

[bakaity-poetry]

Unlike Nietzsche's antinihilist, however, Deleuze and Guattari's anti-Oedipus is not alone. Anti-Oedipus is not the superman, It is not transcendent. Where Nietzsche grew progressively more isolated to the point of madness, Deleuze and Guattari call for actions and passions of a collective nature, here and now. Madness is a radical break from power in the form of a disconnection. Militancy, in Deleuze and Guattari's framework, would learn from madness but then move beyond it, beyond disconnections and deterritorializations, to ever new connections. A politics of desire would see loneliness and depression as the first things to go. Such is the anti-oedipal strategy: if man is connected to the machines of the universe, if he is in tune with his desires, if he is "anchored," "he ceases to worry about the fitness of things, about the behavior of his fellow-men, about right or wrong and justice and injustice. If his roots are in the current of life he will float on the surface like a lotus and he will blossom and give forth fruit. . . . The life that's in him will manifest itself in growth, and growth is an endless, eternal process. The process is everything." It is this process—of desiring-production—that Anti-Oedipus sets out to analyze.

Anti-Oedipus 

[chaosbureau]

History was once the best weapon against Chaos. But it has already reached a point where its arrival in the evolutionary scene has become irreversible. The anthropocene motions a new cycle of entropic wars, food and energy wars, biopolitical wars issuing from health, security issues, etc, which can rekindle the dreams of strong AI. The question now is are we ready to become fuller machines in order to surpass the challenge of entropy on organic life? Incidentally philosophy is now making a turn to objectality, machinicity, etc. But Deleuze has already oriented us towards embracing the steely necessity of becoming-other.

The Hermetic Deleuze: Anesthetizing Chaos « Kafka's Ruminations

[lasmaracuyas]

"we make no distinction between man and nature: the human essence of nature and the natural essence of man become one within nature in the form of production or industry"