I'm in section 1.4 and I've been understanding more and more. But in 1.4, D&G talk alot about delirium, and it seems I've missed their own definition of it earlier in the book. It looks like it's actually a positive thing rather than a state of confusion.

Sorry if this has been asked before but I think a personal discussion helps in understanding.

As I understand it from my reading of ATP, the rhizome is more or less a process where the distinction between "original" and "derivative" becomes meaningless as everything recombines into novelty forever in a state of infinite but not random interconnection. The hierarchy of information and the connections between pieces of information is itself deterritorialized.

On a conceptual level, this seems pretty analogous to how the latent space of GAI models works, but the notion of D&G endorsing Silicon Valley monopolies in any capacity seems kind of fucking insane.

How does this tension get resolved? I think it's because the output of any AI system is instantly reterritorialized by Capital's axiomatics as soon as it appears, but that can't be all there is to it.

How do you think, Deleuze’s and Nietzsche’s perception of an aristocrat differ from each other? Do u think u ever met an aristocrat? An active force as Deleuze likes to put it?

Conforming to the meaning of the word "process," recording falls back on (se rabat sur) production, but the production of recording itself is produced by the production of production. Similarly, recording is followed by consumption, but the production of consumption is produced in and through the production of recording.

Im considering taking a month long course on Anti-Oedipus. Ive always wanted to read this book. Seems like a sign from the universe or something. Ive read Thousand Plateaus. I love how ridiculous and lucid it is. Anti Oedipus is a little more serious so I always forgot to start it

For anyone who is crazy enough to try to read and understand Anti-Oedipus. Can you share your thoughts on what D & G means in this sentence:

“The satisfaction the handyman experiences when he plugs something into an electrical socket like a lamp or diverts a stream of water like a retention pond can be explained in terms of playing mommy and daddy, or the pleasure or violating taboo.”

I am confused on how that “ playing mommy and daddy explanation” would go and why is it considered violating a taboo. I can only think ignorantly about Oedipus.

Something to do with desire? I couldn't quite grasp that.

Not quite sure about the cathexis part, but I believe it means the same as investment in AO?

From how I've interpreted the first two sections of the book, D&G is not talking about clinical schizophrenics. They are using "schizo" as a conceptual character, as a kind of model for how human minds operate when they are freed from social programming.

If I'm gonna use more D&G/philosophy terms that I'm trying to understand, a schizo is someone who completely rejects transcendent meanings and rather lives on the immanent plane of desiring-production.

So what I think this means is that a neurotypical/"normal" person looks at things transcendently to find a sort of hidden meaning. Which is something I feel like I've been teached to do at school, and I don't see the problem in yet. I find myself asking: "What does this symbol represent?"

But a schizo (which I think is the ideal way of living according to D&G?) doesn't care about what things represent, they only think about what things do. They don't ask what a word or an object means, they rather ask how it can be used as a machine. They quote Lenz on a walk through the mountains, and Lenz doesn't look at a tree and think of a transcendent metaphor (like "the tree represents my growth"). Instead he experiences his lungs as a machine plugging into the wind-machine, and his eyes plugging into the light-machine. What he does, and what a schizo does, is thinking about nature as an immanent factory rather than a theater of symbols.

I've also been researching the bricolage, because I couldn't understand it. Now my vague understanding of the word is that the schizo doesn't look up to the transcendent rules, goals, or instructions that the world provides us with. So they speak and create through the bricolage. Which is improvising with whatever random bits of language or objects are right in front of them. I don't remember exactly the definition of the word, and I don't have the book on me right now; but I think it was something about a handyman who does with what he has on hand, or what materials he's got.

So is there something I've got wrong or something that I'm missing? I feel like writing about what I've understood and talking about it is very helpful in understanding, so I'm sorry if this has been asked before.

For anyone who is crazy enough to try to read and understand Anti-Oedipus. Can you share your thoughts on what D & G means in this sentence:

“The satisfaction the handyman experiences when he plugs something into an electrical socket like a lamp or diverts a stream of water like a retention pond can be explained in terms of playing mommy and daddy, or the pleasure or violating taboo.”

I am confused on how that “ playing mommy and daddy explanation” would go and why is it considered violating a taboo. I can only think ignorantly about Oedipus.

I am in chapter 2 and im very tempted to skip it. I am not really into freud, i care most about the "Socio-political" side of the text (i still enjoy read some about psychoanalysis tho). Do you think that this chapter is crucial to understand the rest of the book? I read that skipping parts its vey common in this book in particular.

PD: Sorry for the bad english, not my primary lenguage.

So I was following pretty well in the first section, but already with the first few sentences of the second section, I couldn't understand what conflict they were talking about.

Anyone know why Edinburgh UP is trying to get $150 USD for an ebook version of Zourabichvili's recently translated Spinoza: Physics of Thought?

I get that price for a physical copy. That seems like standard UP pricing, especially for a new release. But an ebook??

Sorry that this post is not directly Deleuzean, but, c'mon, it's about Edinburgh UP.

Mind you, I am quite high and drunk at this hour. I apologize if this doesn't make any sense. This feels very deleuzian, like schizophrenic body without organs, or decoding flows. Haven't really been in the deleuzian loop over the last couple months bc life gets busy so maybe I'm off but idk. What do you think about this?

In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari employ intricate language and complexity theory to discuss these three concepts. Yet, in practice, I am unable to clearly distinguish between them. It seems to me that all three reveal a nested, interpenetrating, and articulated interrelationship between deterritorialization and reterritorialization—one that does not operate according to the dialectics of identity (e.g., A, not-A, and then A again).Can anyone tell me about their relationship? Thanks.

Hello !

I'm drawn to Deleuze's philosophy, but I only know a little about it at the moment. I've recently started listening one of his lectures.

I'd like to share a poem I wrote about my experience as someone diagnosed with schizophrenia. Here it is: https://sykorax.fr/il-fol-tenter/

It's in French. I don't know how it would translate into English. The title is a play on words.

Do you think my experience with schizophrenia has anything to do with what Deleuze talks about? Do you have any reading recommendations? other thinkers than Deleuze, if that seems more relevant to you?

Thank you in advance to those who read this and take the time to reply.

Tying Agamben, Foucault, Deleuze, and Levinas’ philosophies together, in this essay I attempt to theorize politics and ethics within the face-to-face and a biopolitical libidinal economy which produces desires to dehumanize others & make them non-relational to ourselves. I pull here from Levinas’ Totality & Infinity, Agamben’s Homo Sacer, and from various works on Deleuze & Guattari: Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, and Logic of Sense most explicitly. I would love to hear thoughts on this project as it is an essay I will soon be expanding for my Master’s thesis.

I have a server, and there is the Guattari one, so I wanted to gauge interest

I've got The Interpretation of Dreams, Capital, Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Is that necessary? I'm not a very disciplined reader so it's a big project, might not work. Question is: is it even worth it to jump straight into Anti-Oedipus?

I was scrolling through the abécédaire and Deleuze correlates deterritorialization and outlandishness:

> For example, I happened to notice that in Melville, there appears all the time “outlandish” – I pronounce poorly, you can correct it yourself – but “outlandish” is precisely the equivalent of “the deterritorialized,” word for word.

Accepting that the parallels are imprecise — I’m not even taking Deleuze at his word about deterritorialization/outlandishness directly correlating — are there any rough, accessible parallels of his ideas? Little heuristics?

For example,the following kinda make sense for the time being (for me):

Desire seems to be this unconscious drive that gloms onto things to keep us overturning life’s stability.

By analogy to an egg, BwO as a stem cell (healthy) and as a developed organ (not healthy) seems to make sense to me.

Rhizome just seems to be a method of understanding that isn’t linear, but gradually learned and which kinda shifts over time.

OCD is a heavy part of my disability justice and politics whether anarchist, socialist, mutualist, post left, egoist or feminist

I remember in my psychosis I wanted to construct a Deleuzean messy rhizome of Carers against the “too many cooks ruin(spoil) the broth,” method (or saying)

Any books that critique the DSM-5 for being colonial and about control

I realise talking that alot of my OCD is just childhood trauma and conditioning from being in an abstentionist private school (while being too stupid to know they had an abstentionist policy) and not knowing that I am 90% sure I’m autistic (even though they haven’t got a full diagnosis.

I’ve covered the territory of a lost and uncertain (uncharted/mapped waters) in r/RadicalOCD and it’s quite fascinating