I would like to see you do a video where you talk about your reading, research and study habits-your approach to taking on these texts, comparing them etc. That would give everyone a sense of the amount of reading that goes into doing stuff like this. As my old prof used to say, you cannot eat like a bird and expect to 💩 like an 🐘. I’d also like to hear you speak on what making these clips do for you, why you make them, and whether or not doing these videos help you master the material itself.
I'm so organicism pilled from federici and carolyn merchant that ive always been a little weirded out by d&g referring to these desiring parts as "machines" although I do understand the urge to compare the workings of reality to a mechanism, with how smoothly nature seems to propagate itself. I dont know if youve read bruno latour but he uses the term 'actants' to refer to the desiring, alive nature of matter in the universe, basically what I think d&g were getting at. also so true about the rhizomatic being understood by indigenous and non western societies before d&g, actually when i first came across the conceot of the rhizome i was shocked by its similarity to the teachings of the tao te ching.
It’s insane how you managed to upload this right as I was writing a paper that deals with ligmatic desire- one of the sources I’m working with cites Delouse at great length. Great video. Cheers
It’s insane how you managed to upload this right as I was writing a paper that deals with object oriented schizo-hegelianism- one of the sources I’m working with cites guitar-E at great length. Great video. Cheers
It’s insane how you managed to upload this right as I was writing a paper that deals with fucking around from a queer monadological perspective- one of the sources I’m working with cites Deleuze at great length. Great video. Cheers
Tuck's paper seemed only tangentially related to Deleuze. It had a lot of autobiographical narration, some of it rather rambling imo, and Deleuzian desire was treated in terms of some traits extracted from the Guattari collaborations, interviews etc., treated in isolation rather than in their systematic interlinkages with Deleuze's thought as a whole. Of course, one could always argue that commenting on extracted snippets in isolation stays true to the emphasis on iterative "recontextualisation," deterritorialization etc. in "poststructuralism," but this would be a rather sophistic point and far from a sufficient justification for this kind of commentary.
Very good points in your account of Eve's critique. My takeaway is that Deleuze and Guattari, good as their accomplishments are, were by necessity somewhat archeological, in that they were able to describe a natural process, but from within the confines of an all-too-artificial environment. Thank you for this conspectus of theories of colonialism. Looking forward to whatever you do next. PS Your digs to Marx and Freud are noted, as always.
As I've learned more about Indigeneity and the long standing opposition to Settler-Colonialism, I've definitely found myself noticing resonances with Deleuze and Guattari but in a way that felt somewhat out of place. The discussion about the rhizome existing within indigenous perspectives already was something I found interesting in part because of this. Also, the antagonism against identity in relation to Indigenous Sovereignty is a concern I've brushed up against, but I couldn't really figure out how I felt about it. Your coverage of this essay is pretty valuable to me, and I'm going to have to think about this further. I'm definitely starting to see hints of some of the limits of Deleuze and Guattari after a few years of strong interest. They seem very keen on many points yet somehow slightly out of touch
Curious, does she say anything about the BwO and methods of escaping subjectivity to the Outside? I must admit that ever since studying D&G I've become very skeptical of disciplines that don't include theories of the human organism and insist on inner structures forming reality and behavior and not exterior and historical discourse.
Desire is already agentic for Deleuze, but he expands the concept of agency. It is not limited to the subject, but precisely how you have described it as machines capable of connecting to other machines or assemblages. It appears that Eve Tuck is moralizing Deleuze's idea of Desire which is against the core of his philosophy or ethics as ethology. It is inadequate to say that for Deleuze and Guattari, Desire is not historical. Although, in a sense, it is true, only to the extent that Desire in itself is ahistorical even if it plays out as historical, having a context, social organization, and flows. The historical content and context of Capitalism and Schizophrenia are enough proof, but for Deleuze and Guattari, Desire escapes history. Desire is a historical, even political version of Difference from his earlier works. Maybe the problem is with her idea of purpose or teleology. If there is any teleology in Deleuze, it is related to immanence and creativity, not something transcendent and predetermined like traditional moral judgments. His ethics are about productive engagements and becomings. Maybe she broke up too early in the relationship. In any loving relationship commitment, understanding, forgiveness, and forbearance are critical. But her breaking up with Deleuze is valid and perhaps even productive. But the question remains, who broke up first? Hehehe
Hi David (@TheoryPhilosophy), sent you 15.55 CAD through PayPal. This is my first time donating to you, and I feel like with all the good content I've watched from you over the time, you finally deserved some financial support. Keep up the good work!
Ok eve sedgwick is not boss and has nvr understood deleuze as attested by her colleagues and its clear as day in her scholarship. Paranoid and reparative readings are used to rehab fascists and sedgwick was a prototerf who wd glibly remark that she was a gay man in a womans body. her theories in general were obsessed w gay men to a fetishistic level. queer theory overall is bologna and theres much better scholarship like emma heaneys the new woman and transgender studies as a whole
I would like to see you do a video where you talk about your reading, research and study habits-your approach to taking on these texts, comparing them etc. That would give everyone a sense of the amount of reading that goes into doing stuff like this. As my old prof used to say, you cannot eat like a bird and expect to 💩 like an 🐘. I’d also like to hear you speak on what making these clips do for you, why you make them, and whether or not doing these videos help you master the material itself.
I would like to second this I think it’s a fantastic idea ^
I would love that!
I'm so organicism pilled from federici and carolyn merchant that ive always been a little weirded out by d&g referring to these desiring parts as "machines" although I do understand the urge to compare the workings of reality to a mechanism, with how smoothly nature seems to propagate itself. I dont know if youve read bruno latour but he uses the term 'actants' to refer to the desiring, alive nature of matter in the universe, basically what I think d&g were getting at. also so true about the rhizomatic being understood by indigenous and non western societies before d&g, actually when i first came across the conceot of the rhizome i was shocked by its similarity to the teachings of the tao te ching.
i cant wait to read this essay thanks!!
It’s insane how you managed to upload this right as I was writing a paper that deals with ligmatic desire- one of the sources I’m working with cites Delouse at great length. Great video. Cheers
what's ligmatic?
@@shollyboster9115 In Peter Sloterdijk's 2009 work, Spheres, he develops a notion of connectedness that emerges from this will to ligma balls
It’s insane how you managed to upload this right as I was writing a paper that deals with object oriented schizo-hegelianism- one of the sources I’m working with cites guitar-E at great length. Great video. Cheers
it's insane, william, it truly is in - sane. but hyposubjects do be subscending..
Does Grant pop up anywhere?
It’s insane how you managed to upload this right as I was writing a paper that deals with fucking around from a queer monadological perspective- one of the sources I’m working with cites Deleuze at great length. Great video. Cheers
Tuck's paper seemed only tangentially related to Deleuze. It had a lot of autobiographical narration, some of it rather rambling imo, and Deleuzian desire was treated in terms of some traits extracted from the Guattari collaborations, interviews etc., treated in isolation rather than in their systematic interlinkages with Deleuze's thought as a whole. Of course, one could always argue that commenting on extracted snippets in isolation stays true to the emphasis on iterative "recontextualisation," deterritorialization etc. in "poststructuralism," but this would be a rather sophistic point and far from a sufficient justification for this kind of commentary.
Very good points in your account of Eve's critique. My takeaway is that Deleuze and Guattari, good as their accomplishments are, were by necessity somewhat archeological, in that they were able to describe a natural process, but from within the confines of an all-too-artificial environment.
Thank you for this conspectus of theories of colonialism. Looking forward to whatever you do next.
PS
Your digs to Marx and Freud are noted, as always.
As I've learned more about Indigeneity and the long standing opposition to Settler-Colonialism, I've definitely found myself noticing resonances with Deleuze and Guattari but in a way that felt somewhat out of place. The discussion about the rhizome existing within indigenous perspectives already was something I found interesting in part because of this. Also, the antagonism against identity in relation to Indigenous Sovereignty is a concern I've brushed up against, but I couldn't really figure out how I felt about it. Your coverage of this essay is pretty valuable to me, and I'm going to have to think about this further. I'm definitely starting to see hints of some of the limits of Deleuze and Guattari after a few years of strong interest. They seem very keen on many points yet somehow slightly out of touch
Now this is something I’ve been waiting on
Curious, does she say anything about the BwO and methods of escaping subjectivity to the Outside? I must admit that ever since studying D&G I've become very skeptical of disciplines that don't include theories of the human organism and insist on inner structures forming reality and behavior and not exterior and historical discourse.
It's insane how many bots start their post with the phrase "It's insane how (...)" in this comment section. Cheers.
it truly is insane… maybe even schizophrenic
Would you explain how different
Deleuze's 'virtuarity' from Fucault's transcendent?
Desire is already agentic for Deleuze, but he expands the concept of agency. It is not limited to the subject, but precisely how you have described it as machines capable of connecting to other machines or assemblages. It appears that Eve Tuck is moralizing Deleuze's idea of Desire which is against the core of his philosophy or ethics as ethology. It is inadequate to say that for Deleuze and Guattari, Desire is not historical. Although, in a sense, it is true, only to the extent that Desire in itself is ahistorical even if it plays out as historical, having a context, social organization, and flows. The historical content and context of Capitalism and Schizophrenia are enough proof, but for Deleuze and Guattari, Desire escapes history. Desire is a historical, even political version of Difference from his earlier works. Maybe the problem is with her idea of purpose or teleology. If there is any teleology in Deleuze, it is related to immanence and creativity, not something transcendent and predetermined like traditional moral judgments. His ethics are about productive engagements and becomings. Maybe she broke up too early in the relationship. In any loving relationship commitment, understanding, forgiveness, and forbearance are critical. But her breaking up with Deleuze is valid and perhaps even productive. But the question remains, who broke up first? Hehehe
Thank you man
what is philosophy would be great, it would require multiple episodes though but i hope one day :)
Hey David, you are a very helpful source 🙏. Would you please do “Liberation theology” by Leonardo Boff?
I would find Guattaris later works as well as deleuzes relationship to nietzsche interesting, if your looking for subjects ;)
Tem algum link para ler este artigo da Eve Tuck? ps: abraços do brasil
Be great if you could do What is Philosophy!
lovely
Hi David (@TheoryPhilosophy), sent you 15.55 CAD through PayPal. This is my first time donating to you, and I feel like with all the good content I've watched from you over the time, you finally deserved some financial support. Keep up the good work!
Wow thank you!! But just so you (and everyone else) knows, you don't owe me anything!!!
We can call it ( its already called ) Queer psychoanalysis !
There is no democracy in capitalism, except maybe somwhat in Switzerland. Other than that it is oligarchy.
Ok eve sedgwick is not boss and has nvr understood deleuze as attested by her colleagues and its clear as day in her scholarship. Paranoid and reparative readings are used to rehab fascists and sedgwick was a prototerf who wd glibly remark that she was a gay man in a womans body. her theories in general were obsessed w gay men to a fetishistic level. queer theory overall is bologna and theres much better scholarship like emma heaneys the new woman and transgender studies as a whole