[ PDF / Epub ] ☀ Mil plateaux (capitalisme et schizophrénie) Author Gilles Deleuze – Tactical-player.co.uk

Mil plateaux (capitalisme et schizophrénie) Gilles Deleuze Was Professor Of Philosophy At The University Of Paris VIII He Is A Key Figure In Poststructuralism, And One Of The Most Influential Philosophers Of The Twentieth Century Felix Guattari Was A Psychoanalyst At The La Borde Clinic, As Well As Being A Major Social Theorist And Radical Activist A Thousand Plateaus Is Part Of Deleuze And Guattari S Landmark Philosophical Project, Capitalism And Schizophrenia A Project That Still Sets The Terms Of Contemporary Philosophical Debate A Thousand Plateaus Provides A Compelling Analysis Of Social Phenomena And Offers Fresh Alternatives For Thinking About Philosophy And Culture Its Radical Perspective Provides A Toolbox For Nomadic Thought And Has Had A Galvanizing Influence On Today S Anti Capitalist MovementTranslated By Brian Massumi The most difficult book ever written EVER But it s also liberating as hell Just sit back and enjoy how strange it makes you feel And then how ecstatic, confused, angry, etc., all at once But if you re ever climbing and all of a sudden you realize that you re getting it, like, really getting it, then hang on and stay with it because it will probably change your life when you get to the top And that feels pretty groovy Especially when you really have to work for the plateau It ain t easy becoming a body without organs And if you think the reading part pushes you to the limit, just wait till it s time to sew up the ol asshole The anus machine awaits the stratification of the sewing machine, the needle and thread aSSemblage, for the Dogon Egg awaits its de territorialization Whether you re Chasing Freud s patients alongside a pack of becoming wolves, or watching poor Dr Challenger evaporate, or pursuing a line of flight aboard the rhizomatic acid cloud to Dr Angrypants s Masochingdom in the Metallurgy Matrix, ATP will not disappoint Seriously Read it Don t be afraid. August 9, 2010We will be reading this for our next bookclub selection because it follows Animals Make Us Human Creating the Best Life for Animals so well Once my boyfriend finds his second copy of this I ll get started Yes, my boyfriend is the kind of person who owns two copies of this book Intentionally.I would also like to mention that I will be reading this at the mercy of the one who decided we should read this who is not my boyfriend, believe it or not apparently there are other people like him in the world And since this person has chosen this and has previously read this himself, I will be forced to read this book out of order The schedule is forthcoming I am promised that it s only appropriate to read the chapters in a non linear fashion My entire face twitched and I might have thrown up a little in my mouth, but hey You only live once, right I think reading this alongside Infinite Jest might make me the most pretentious person ever Suh weet For the record, this most certainly was not my idea March 20, 2011 I m tired This is an incredibly difficult book to rate and review, and that s probably how Deleuze and Guattari would have wanted it anyway It s also incredibly late and I m half asleep so anything I say here is really not going to give this book much credit though whether or not the book deserves much credit is still to be determined Our book club meets again next Sunday and chances are my opinion will change after we talk about this for another several hours, just like we have done at each meeting since we started this I hate spending this much time on any book So what I intend to do here is list the chapters in the order our group s moderator decided to have us read the book Reading the book in order is not necessary, nor is it even recommended Brian Massumi translator writes in his forward, The reader is invited to follow each section to the plateau that rises from the smooth space of its composition, and to move from one plateau to the next at pleasure But it is just as good to ignore the heights You can take a concept that is particularly to your liking and jump with it to its next appearance They tend to cycle back Some might call that repetitious Deleuze and Guattari call it a refrain. I hate jumping around in a book Since there s no clear direction on how this book should be read the only thing I could do was surrender my reading habits to the moderator Dude has taught classes on this book and these authors so he s the best person to come up with a plan for me I guess This was our reading plan which I hope may be helpful to someone attempting to read this book for the first time Chapter 2 1914 One or Several Wolves Introduction RhizomeChapter 14 1440 The Smooth and the StriatedChapter 3 10,000 BC The Geology of Morals Who Does Earth Think It Is Chapter 11 1837 Of the RefrainChapter 10 1730 Becoming Intense, Becoming Animal, Becoming ImperceptibleChapter 6 November 28, 1947 How Do You Make Yourself a Body Without Organs Chapter 9 1933 Micropolitics and SegmentarityChapter 12 1227 Treatise on Nomadology The War MachineChapter 13 7000 BC Apparatus of CaptureChapter 7 Year Zero FacialityChapter 5 587 AD On Several Regimes of SignsChapter 4 November 20, 1923 Postulates of LinguisticsChapter 8 1874 Three Novellas, or What Happened ConclusionThat being said there were a few things that stood out for me and or I felt the need to write down p 358 Even in bands of animals, leadership is a complex mechanism that does not act to promote the strongest but rather inhibits the installation of stable powers, in favor of a fabric of immanent relations.p 371 Slow and rapid are not quantitative degrees of movement but rather two types of qualified movementp 376 Because the less people take thought seriously, the they think in conformity with what the State wants Truly, what man of the State has not dreamed of that paltry impossible thing to be a thinker p 381 Movement is extensive speed is intensive.p 400 Affect vs emotion Affect is the active discharge of emotion, the counterattack, whereas feeling is an always displaced, retarded, resisting emotion Affects are projectiles just like weapons feelings are introceptive like tools.Learning to undo things, and to undo oneself, is proper to the war machine the not doing of the warrior, the undoing of the subject.p 438 39 The same could be said for the last love Proust has shown how a love can be oriented toward its own limit, its own margin it repeats it s own ending A new love follows, so that each love is serial, so that there is a series of loves But once again, beyond lies the ultimate, at the point where assemblage changes, where the assemblage of love is superseded by an artistic assemblage the Work to be written, which is the problem Proust tacklesp 460 Should we then speak of voluntary servitude This is like the expression magical captive its only merit is to underline the apparent mystery There is a machinic enslavement, about which it could be said in each case that it presupposes itself, that it appears as preaccomplished this machinic enslavement is no voluntary than it is forced.p 102 03 Or the way Black Engish and any number of ghetto languages set American English in variation, to the point that New York is virtually a city without a language Further, American English could not have constituted itself without this linguistic labor of the minorities Good gravy, there s a lot of ground covered here and I m not sure there is enough space for all my different thoughts Am I glad to have read this cover to cover Oy That s a loaded question.It s fascinating stuff as in listening to two insane genius mo fo s is fascinating The idea is to take a few thoughts from one philosopher, etc., throw those thoughts into a salad mixer, dump it out and there s Deleuze and Guattari It s still lettuce, right But not quite the same kind of lettuce that you first put in.But my point throughout all of this reading is that I m not sold on the idea that salad mixers need to exist I don t own one because ding ding ding I can mix my own salad Deleuze and Guattari borrowed ideas from Freud and Marx and some other people, kind of tossed it all around, threw in some totally made up words to help cement their status as crazy assholes points, and presented it as an entirely new way of thinking.The thing I wasn t able to really get past and the thing that almost made my book club partners want to smother me with a rhizomatic pillow is that I m not certain any of this was necessary Deleuze and Guattari clearly were crazy mad geniuses, that s not the issue But I m always a little wary of someone that comes along and is all like, Hey, I have this new way of thinking listen up They re usually the same people who are handing out glasses of grape flavored Kool Aid.Then again, as stated above, there were some moments of complete clarity Some of what Delusional and Guitar had to say actually resonated with me Of course then they d go off in a complete different direction and I d still be back in the dust just patting myself on the back for actually getting something Oh, it s not just about a flying vagina, I get it nowAnd perhaps not surprisingly I have found myself making connections between this stupid book and other stupid books I was reading at the same time Especially Infinite Jest in which I found this whole passage that was obviously paying homage to DG I didn t think it could even be possible, but dude It was right there in front of my face And then the whole capitalism thing gave a little flavor to freaking Atlas Shrugged not that it mattered though I mentioned Ayn Rand in our book club meeting and tried to compare the two texts and was met with blank looks and crickets.Mostly this book pissed me off Which really just means that I need to read it like fifty times to really pick up on all the right points I suck at math and reading this book at times felt like reading one giant word problem Until tonight I wasn t even certain the word problem would ever actually end I looked forward to the Conclusion most of all, thinking that conclusions are the time to sort of re summarize all the main points, or at least the thesis, and maybe it will all come together for me Silly rabbit This conclusion wrote the whole damn book over again, but crammed it this time into just a couple of pages Geniuses Way to go, Messieurs Deleuze and Guattari.I hate you both and you have ruined my life. I hate this fucking book. You d be forgiven for walking away from Anti Oedipus thinking that deterritorialization is positive and liberatory force, and the circumscription of reterritorialization, reactionary and oppressive Anti Oedipus endorses schizophrenia, immanence and multiplicity while still using binary terms for its lavish metaphysics This is to some degree inevitable A Thousand Plateaus begins the process of ungluing these manichean oppositions but doesn t quite undo the latent hierarchies A Thousand Plateau s broadest sense is one that discourages broad sense micro revolutions in molecular fields of difference rather than overturning molar aggregates But even the most decentered register will come up against some hard limits the only way to see the vampiric reflection of capital is in a black pool of oil A Thousand Plateaus is a demimonde of ambiguity and exceptions but DG s allegiance to one side of their dualistic coinages is always clear The arborescent is bad rhizomatics are good Stratification is bad destratification is good Striated space is bad smooth space is good Suddenly, we have a power relationship, a normative claim about the general superiority of one function or entity, even if it s subtle, complex and multidirectional This is not a criticism absolute fidelity to schizoanalysis, rhizomatics, molecular politics or whatever you want to call it would lead to total incoherency DG s terms are always polyphonic and encase an sprawling system of internal difference But the schism from Hegel and psychoanalysis especially Lacan is less dramatic than it is presented, the terms and claims of dialectics and psychoanalysis do, after all, possess identities which are multiple and variegated Some of Capitalism Schizophrenia s pugilistic oppositions seem operatic than theoretical Before anyone corrects me to say deterritorialization can be destructive etc, I have heard this from many avid Deleuzians and I don t doubt their sincerity but I don t believe that most people of a schizoanalytical persuasion think that the unwriting of territories is a bad thing except in certain specialized cases A Thousand Plateaus also backtracks some of the extravagant claims of Anti Oedipus, stratifying indexes which delimit the acceleration of deterritorializing flows These black holes are fascistic traps which coil inwards toward the installation of binaries, hierarchies and the dialectical deletion of new lines of flight I ve spoken interminably about acceleration ism recently, so all I ll say is my deepest sympathies to Nick Land I have a certain level of confusion and dismay over the affirmationist vitalism at the morphogenetic heart of DG I think to some degree the negative is inscribed onto either the topology of our perception or whatever contours of the real are accessible by that perception The Capitalism Schizophrenia books model desire as machinic along with the unconscious, the social body and most other things and machines burn fuel and cough tubercular exhaust They are built with their expiration and obsolescence in mind Deft and dexterous theoretical maneuvers are prosecuted to try and extirpate dialectical negativity and the death drive but I don t know that they can be quashed by a patchwork monism The negative is resilient and competition entropy possess an undeniable even affirmative presence How can we get past that Anti Oedipus is a supremely Oedipal book Capitalism Schizophrenia wants to vanquish the choreographed arborescence of their father s law and rejoin to the oceanic univocity of the maternal monism or, kill Daddy Hegel and return to Mommy Spinoza I want to restate that I don t think this is a bad thing Recently I ve found Deleuze extremely useful for understanding a wide variety problems But it ll be a cold day in the climate catastrophe holocene before you get me to substitute Bergson for Freud A Thousand Plateaus is somehow fun to read than Anti Oedipus despite being immensely difficult There are single paragraphs that cascade across multiple pages referencing a remit of inconceivably diverse knowledge It reads like nonsense at first blush But when I read these sections back I always I understand a little , the coiled digits begin to articulate If you have the patience to reread a paragraph three or four times, the reticent typologies WILL unfurl into ontogenetic dynamisms The gift that keeps on becoming On the other hand, there are individual sentences carved with the precision of a jeweller s hands which can overturn everything you thought you knew prior to reading them, even upon glancing contact Someone told me that Guattari wrote the Capitalism Schizophrenia books on drugs and Deleuze edited refined them on even drugs I don t know if that s true but I really hope it is The concept salad from Spinoza, Nietzsche and Bergson accretes into molar aggregates which can be picked apart, reconfigured and developed, perhaps indefinitely I think the popularity of DG well into the time of my writing this at the end of 2018 over 50 years since May 1968 which will always be remembered alongside these books has to do with the insistence upon the contingency of structures and the importance of outlying flows, energies, data, etc which escape the architecture of the structure These books are a project which invite universal participation This isn t much of a review, just some disorganized thoughts I had while reading A Thousand Plateaus which is a book containing erudition vast beyond my comprehension with each plateau embedded with singularities it could take a lifetime to understand My complaints may seem quibbling, and in some sense they are, as I m just thinking aloud while I try to understand the points of dispute in two dominant currents of continental philosophy This book is stunningly brilliant and probably lapped me several times while I wittered but the dialectic Oh and it s actually like 15 plateaus. Tired of seeing everything from the point of view of the individual Bored of anthropomorphism This might be the book for you This book changed the way I think about thinking Swirls in your pot of boiling water will seem as complex and contingent as hurricanes The migration of humans will look like the crawling of ants Most importantly, though, Deleuze and Guattari show everything as a process of strategic movement through territory, whether it be the formation of layers of sediment or nomads trekking through the desert plains Like a roving spiderweb over the Cartesian grid of your window screen and your city, their thought shows us how to capture new territory while evading capture ourselves But be wary, because capitalism has been doing just that for longer than we ve been alive, and it s much better at it than we are. The idea Society is a vertically organized enterprise Different concepts are used to attempt to implement a sort of control over others the control of language, and of grammar itself, could be considered a type of imperialismto paraphrase, there s no quicker way to implement a sort of control over a group of people than to ensure that they cannot have a voice within a society without adhering to strictly delineated guideline regarding how to write how to speak In response to the vertically oriented, top down society, a nomad thought emerges in response, one that refuses to settle down within the predominant format, one that chooses to countermand the society The development of a counter reactive force to society, however, a society that attempts to eradicate nomad thought , thought that does not organize into hierarchies and the idea of the have and the have not, requires a rhizomatic form of connection Imagine a set of differentiated cells that, rather than resting on a vertical plane, are organized horizontally, with the formation of different shapes, different types of conformities that help upend the tyranny of the dominant language, the dominant order The rhizome is a dendrite that allows the players and actors in this philosophical field to connect outside the field of the hierarchy, in a way that could be effectual than that of the nomad for the nomad cannot by the sheer definition form an alternate to what DeLeuze and Guattari call the war machine the manner in which a society exerts control and the war machine itself is much effective if coercion can exist without war These horizontal connections among those who have learned to become organs without bodies, that is, banished the internal hierarchies within their own personal thinking and concept of organization of their own bodies, are a potential counteractive force against coercionOK Beyond that, a few words The book has chapters, called plateaus, but I d have to say that there doesn t seem to be any great degree of organization Indeed, DeLeuze and Guattari indicate that one could read the book in any order, skip large parts, etc The most pivotal chapters are probably the first simply to become acclimated to the writing, which is somewhat inscrutable, exhortational, and didactic all at the same timetruly remarkable, though it wears a bit thin after 400 pages of it , then How to Become a Body Without Organs, then Nomadology The War Machine Under no circumstances in my opinion should the chapter on Nomadology be read before the body without organs chapter best flow is reading the ones that focus on the individual reaction to the linguistic implements of imperialism, then the ones that deal with group reactions Anyone who is expecting some sort of detailed critique of capitalism and, if you re reading this to begin with, you re probably notie, you probably know what you re in for, or are familiar with DeLeuze and Guattari, who are brilliant if a bit discursive , this isn t the book Finally, the book does reward patience, but if philosophy is not your primary interest in your reading you will need itit is not an easy read, and the plateaus often ramble for 10 15 pages before they get to their core insight Remember that, at their core, and amidst all of their other intellectual interests, what you have here is a philosopher linguist and a psychiatrist who collaborated in the end, everything is somewhat seen through the filter of language and how the use of language and other types of communication could possibly bring about changes of a society at its margins while their posturing may suggest otherwise, I d posit the idea that DeLeuze and Guattari are savvy enough to realize that most people aren t going to be able to read this book and understand it well enough to translate the concepts into potential society changing thoughts on a large scale But, if you really love DeLeuze, this is of course indispensablethough you ll probably already have read it. This is basically a nonreview like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I d move to the next one Same for the next chapter and the next Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it Here re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write Why have we kept our own names Out of habit, purely out of habit To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I We are no longer ourselves We have been aided, inspired, multiplied Sigh How easy it is to date and place such writing it could only be sixties spawned poststructuralist theory The way the book seeks to undermine structured or phallocentric of course thinking is humorlessly rigorous There s one chapter comparing States to chieftans, and there is not one mention of any country and hardly any reference to a single specific example references to the Orient don t count Such breezy abstractions are the antithesis of Foucault s fine grained analyses of actual social structures The main philosopher they rail against and neatly simplify is Plato, who was writing philosophy 2,400 years ago Plato is like Satan to these theorists Everything is his fault.Like many theorists, the authors are at their worst when they turn their maniacal gaze onto fiction But they can t resist, they must say something Here is a representative sentence concerning literature they re talking about Moby Dick and Kafka s Josephine the Singer It is always with the Anomalous that one enters into alliance to become animal SIC This will sound brisk and simplistic like most of this review, perhaps , but I really do think that theorists in general just don t get fiction They have no taste See, for a chilling example, anything Frederic Jameson has said about literature I exclude Foucault, an insanely original thinker, from the above critical statements about theorists. wrote my MA thesis on these fuckers Fucking wow I read Deleuze for the first time when my sopho year of college, and found him impenetrable and obnoxious, but now, after falling in love with some people inspired by Deleuze Edward Soja, Antonio Negri, etc , I m back on the bandwagon Not only does it provide a phenomenal perspective on the world that will help any student of literature, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, art, etc., but also is extremely good at curing internal fascist malaise Lovely

About the Author: Gilles Deleuze

Deleuze is a key figure in postmodern French philosophy Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought His thought locates him as an influential figure in present day considerations of society,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *