วีดีโอ

Thank you so much for this video

these really are wonderful, so much better expressed than any other guide could.

I just don't get on what basis Deleuze posits these stages of dynamic genesis? Take BWO it's clearly not based on a report by an infant, who cannot speak so is there some logical or Causal necessity for the organizing processes in infant development to be imagined that way, no neuroscientist that I know is in need of such an absurdity, or good object of the heights? not to say anything about the phallus?

Your videos are helping me a lot! Deleuze is very hard and you're manking this softer

Ra-Hoor-Khuit is also a god of War.

Your French probably would not have been up to the task. | dəlœz / fontəne: | 𝕹𝖎𝖊𝖙𝖟𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊, ə not i || You Americans can't bother to do the extra quarter hour of research to get the names right. 😅

I thought he was refering to Gombrowicz's novel Cosmos, because earlier he said about its plot(hanging of sprrow with its esoteric meaning)

I really don’t understand why “being an entity means it’s alive.” There’s nothing in the text, at least thus far, that indicates this. Also, Deleuze isn’t just talking about creative thought. I don’t know where you’re drawing that from either. Deleuze talks about thought in general. Thought, in general, is forced upon the thinker; even habitual and repetitive thought. That quote literally just says that we stop to think when there are contrary things in our view, not just paradoxes, although paradoxes can be things that seem contrary to themselves. Also, what? Deleuze doesn’t want to give rid of transcendental ideas. In D&R he goes into the whole notion of Ideas and how they’re actualized as transcendental conditions. It’s just not the same model as Plato where it’s not a different realm but an imminent becoming. It’s the back and forth between the virtual and the actual through the intensive. But the catalyst is very much these transcendental Ideas that are actualized. Hence his association with the term “transcendental materialist.” He does what Marx does to Hegel to Kant and Plato I don’t understand your reading of Deleuze at all. It seems so far off.

Non existent entity is right out of the stoics. Incorporeal realities. For the stoics everything is real but does not necessarily exist. Being an entity doesn’t imply life. Not sure where you pulled that from. Pretty crazy presupposition though.

Promo sm

Thank you Oz, it was very wonderful to be on this journey with you!

That quote at the ending refers back to Fitzgerald's »The crack-up«.

Thank you very very much sir

Wow, this series is just what I have been looking for! I have spent the whole summer reading The Logic of Sense without following any proper guide or class. I have a foundational knowledge of continental philosophy, but I must admit that Logic of Sense was a hard nut to crack. However I feel like I did understand some of the liguistic, ontological and psychoanalytical elements of the series, but when Deleuze compares his thougt to other philosophers, I really get lost - probably because of my still limited knowledge of philosophy. Finding this series really motivates me to continue my studies, and get back to reading more. I will start from the beginning and follow your videos, and see what happens. Thank you so much!

If you haven’t read Twain’s Diary of Adam and Eve you most definitely should, I trust you’ll draw the connections

In Logic of sense Deleuze is not explaining how things come to existence but how sense is generated (sense genesis). Sense is not a thing, it is incorporeal, and since language is insuficient, he explores the methapysical and psycoanalitical genesis and structure of sense. In Diference and Repetition it might be acceptable the argument that he is trying to explain how things come to existence. More, the book is not divided in paradoxes but SERIES! and that is different, why? series operate in structure where 2 or more series are interrelated and in interrelation and in some cases there is a paradoxe. Anyway congratulations, u are already a legend bcs this mf is hard to understand and this type of content is good content and rare.

You wouldn't happen to be related to John Malkovich are you? Love the video!

Thank you. These videos are so helpful!

It's pronounced "dahlet" 😊

I looked at your blog but still can't figure out how S and C add up to 68 by gematria. They certainly don't by using the Hebrew letter equivalent, unless you make C correspond to ח, cheyt, which would be kind of bizarre.

Following. Thank you for this! (Would be a good idea to create a playlist for this series)

Great series. Thanks for making these

I actually enjoyed this chapter

These are so helpful. Please keep making them

Very helpful

This book is insanely tough…even by studying and understanding what he’s saying I still don’t really have a deep grasp of wtf is going on and why it even exists in the first place. The deeper meaning is lost on me. I wish he would “ground” the end of each series with a broader implication because it feels insanely myopic. I’m absolutely floored and intrigued by the depth of each sentence but I keep having fleeting thoughts of this entire effort being pointless categorization and over complicating simple concepts. I thought I was really intelligent before handling this book. Maybe it wasn’t the wisest choice as my intro to Deleuze.

Man this book is tough. I’m understanding each chapter upon re-reads but failing to understand what the broader implication or meaning is. I know what he’s saying but not what he’s SAYING. Hopefully things iron out as I progress.

Just found your channel! Love your comprehensive analysis and review of Delueze's work! More impressive still is that though your channel doesn't have much of an audience to appreciate these videos, it's only that much more impressive that you continue to make the effort of putting out new videos. I have a limited data plan on my phone, so I'm definitely going to be downloading these videos to watch offline. I suppose there must be some channels in French that cover the same material, but alas... I don't speak French. So, thank you for your contribution, and keep up the good work!

Based on your videos, I have just ordered the book, and will look forward to watching your series in conjunction with my reading. Many thanks.

Playback at x1.5.

Thank you !

Nice, thanks. I agree, a video like this was needed, I hope you'll follow up

Hello! I've been working on a Blur documentary / retrospective project along with a friend, and we're currently looking over a section on a 2000 studio session with your longtime friend, Bill Laswell. One of the cover arts for a Blur CD ("Rarities Four") displays your name, credited as an engineer for both tracks "1", and "3". Do you have any recollections of the studio sessions, or general impressions of the band? If so, how did the band reach out to you and Laswell? What was the process like? On a side note, these videos have helped me get an introduction into Deleuze's work while in my downtime. Thank you very much!

Really enjoyed, and found this very helpful for, my research- Thank you

Thanks for making this series. Very helpful.

Deep and scholarly !!

Please Oz, keep up these magnificent lectures on Deleuze!! Also, wish you a happy new year❤️

Thank you so much for this elucidating introduction to the enigmatic text!

It's at least somewhat remarkable that there are 34 series in Logique du Sens and 34 rows in the tables in 777

(TH-cam deleted my first version of this.) Finally made it back, Oz. This is pretty heady stuff for three pages of writing. I jotted down a question about how Deleuze views Platonism and you cleared up my questions at the end of the video. I've always been curious about the hostility I sense from some thinkers towards Plato, perhaps I am too distant from the realms where Plato is king to understand. To me, when occult historians highlight neo-Platonism as a clear example of ancient magical philosophy, I wonder why they don't just include Platonism as well. I've also thought that philosophies which are predicated on the idea that language is part of the fundament of reality have more in common with Platonic idealism as well, but perhaps that simply the non-materialist angle of both ideas. I appreciate the metaphor of the looking glass at the end which helped me understand that Deleuze isn't throwing away any bathwater, but simply trying to drink it. Or something like that. As for the paradoxes discussed by Deleuze and yourself: I've always found the White Queen's cry of pain disconcerting. I guess I eventually interpreted it as a commentary on Newton's Third Law, contrarywise. As for "the stability of the universe is change," I've always felt like this is a commentary on human perspective versus the macrocosmic workings of the universe. "The Ten Secret Joys of the Master," from Khaled Khan's The Heart of the Master is one of the most profound statements on magical philosophy I have been exposed to over the years. Will Parfitt, the psychosynthesist, has an excellent meditation based around it in his The Living Qabalah. While discussing "becoming female" in your video, it reminded me of Wilson's assertion that Joyce arrived at his "agnostic enlightenment" by pondering deeply what it would be like to be a woman in Masks of the Illuminati. I don't remember reading that in Ellman, who I should reread, but I always thought it must have some weight, considering the Penelopiad. Last week I was thinking about Godel, Escher, Bach and looked up Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles," and its all still Greek to me. I was never very apt at comprehending/grokking Xeno's paradoxes to begin with.

『p』『r』『o』『m』『o』『s』『m』 🏃

Thank you so much for still doing this!

Helped a lot, thanks.

Thank you very much for this elucidating lecture on Deleuzian singularities.

Hey Oz! This is great, you have a great demeanor and pacing. I'm still waiting on my copy of Logic of Sense to come in, probably will be here next week. In the meantime: Have you read Deleuze's book on Bergson? I didn't know it was what led to his late-century reevaluation (not that it seems to have lasted). I really enjoyed "Creative Evolution" and find Bergson to be one of the more uplifting philosophers. Also, I'm sure you know this, but his sister was "Moina" Mathers nee Mina Bergson, the shadow director of the Golden Dawn. Re: Carroll I went through my phase with Rev. Dodgson when I was twenty, a little older than the recommended age for his books, because of John Crowley's "Little, Big." I had reread "Alice" and "Looking Glass" a few years earlier on Crowley's recommendation, I'll revisit that in a second, but it wasn't until then that I read his complete works. "Sylvie and Bruno" is wildly underrated and as funny (and occasionally as weird) as his earlier works and poetry. I haven't read any biographies of Carroll but I've read a lot about him (although, I still can't say for sure), but I'm pretty sure he wasn't directly inspired by Qabalah. I think that was more Crowley's projection onto his works...not that that means anything. [Much as Samuel and Moina Mathers *made* the tarot deck magical by aligning it so perfectly with the Qabalah, Crowley or his children can make Carroll Qabalistic using the same methodology.] Carroll was writing about non-Euclidean mathematics which seems close enough to Qabalah in spirit, especially for someone as adept in gematria as yourself. I believe both Wilson and Regardie reiterated that Carroll's famous works were great Qabalah texts, but I don't believe that was the author's intent. However, I will always maintain that the Humpty Dumpty chapter in "Through the Looking Glass" is one of the best treatises on linguistics and specifically the apprehension of language ever penned. I look forward to learning more! Kallisti!

Thank you so much for taking the time of making all these videos on such great book (And the resources). That last reference to Pynchon just makes one's day!

I would really love to see the rest of the episodes as there is so little videos of this book.

Helpful examples at the end. Thank you. I'm appreciating this whole set of videos.

Lovely to see a bit of your book collection in the background. Also this picture of the Day of the Dead, is the one used as a front cover of my Penguin edition of Under The Volcano. I remember reading your piece on this book and the pandemic. -Spookah

Thanks for the series Oz! Would be cool if that was Kerouac's Vanity of Duluoz behind you😃😃😃