Deleuze & Guattari Desiring Machines October 21, 2016 · by dmf · in Uncategorized. · Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading... Related
One day we will be able to admit that delivers and guitar he took a bunch of acid and was way too close to the experience. We can’t admit that right now everyone wants to stay there some sort of intellectual genius which they may be but they also took some LSD and wrote these never ending passages of virtual nonsense. Lol. I mean come on; anyone who is entered and LSD trip with any sort of intellectual capacity at all must see deleted and guitar he in reference to that trip. If you don’t or you haven’t then I think you’ve missed their meaning. But I don’t think we’re at a point where we can admit that and I don’t think we ever will because it’s too sacred there like a type of Cleric of some modernist religion.
I mean really how they’re doing in through all their books is saying there’s some sort of fundamental basis some universal natural process that just does and then there is the human being consciousness that appears separate but really isn’t separate, and then they describing the ramifications of this kind of tripartite existence.
I tend to set aside Deluze and Guitari because it’s like reading a fourth grade book on literature. Maybe for their time they were really advanced in thinking, but it was only advanced because everyone was tripping on acid. It is only once we separate ourselves from the “intoxicant” and gain some distance from its effects that we begin to really see what was occurring.
Anyways it’s all about making careers isn’t it?
…i mean, its not that they are wrong necessarliy, its just that they were to close to the experience. Too submerged in its influence. One day we will b able to admit people get high and we will b able to incorporate what various intoxicants produce as an effective reality into approaches on tbeoretical proposal. And I mean this in the sense that right now everything is really taken on a level playing field of ‘rational-sobriety’, some sort of common reality in which all of humanity and all of existence resides.
they read as quite sober to me, just trying to talk about the more-than-subjective/ego-centric aspects of life without falling back into structuralisms.
The merry pranksters appeared just as odd ‘sober’ people until people caught on about lsd.
Do not think that I’m discrediting them because somehow they may have been intoxicated, like I’m saying what they have to say is no good because they were intoxicated or on acid. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that they were too close they were to under the influence. It doesn’t mean they can’t appear as if they’re sober for that can’t speak coherently just because they’re intoxicated. How many people conduct business over a scotch or a beer? Can you tell they’re intoxicated when their business deal goes through and they make a bunch of money? How many people are smoking pot every single day conducting business as usual at all levels? And those are just the legal and semi legal ones.
I’m saying the different intoxicants might possibly yield different ways of thinking and different ways of proposing things. I’m saying that it’s possible that if we begin to admit that everyone’s taking intoxicants of all sorts without some sort of ethical stigma attached to it, we might be able to actually get at what it is to be human, that is instead of arguing all the time about human beings being ethical creatures and such.
I’m saying that it is because I’ve taken a fair amount of LSD in my day that I see exactly what they’re saying. That I don’t even need to read three sentences before I understood all of Anna Oedipus. That reading 1000 plateaus was if they were just reiterating an acid trip. I’m saying if you’ve never been strung out on heroin then you don’t know how people on heroin perceive reality; and their reality just confirms yours it makes the sense that the sober person is making of the hair when attic’s reality. We don’t really have a clue about what people on heroin actually perceive as real existence because they’re being has already been ethically compromised into some sort of standard or some sort of unitive reality of some true humanity.
We don’t know what smoking pot how it influences reality because we just take reality is reality and we take different states of intoxication as subsets of this common reality.
And in the same sense, what sounds insane, is we don’t even really know what it is to be human because of our blind spots because we create arguments that demand our limitation that argue with sensibly into reality. We see our intuition and our thinking and our rationality upon things as automatically arising from some unknown source of truth in the universe tempered by our negotiations with other human beings, yeah even while we argue and understand that these ethical constructions and these cultural constructions and all these other matters that serve to limit our ability to perceive reality are in place.
It is we argue one thing but then totally don’t believe it in the next instance, even while we are relying upon it to come to this notion that we are going to use while we argue for its limitation. This is not a human limit; it is an argued limit it is a herd limit it is a real limit.
Anyways I ramble I’m sorry😜
there is a tangential going everywhere but nowhere quality to yer comment that is reminiscent of the kinds of insights that people come to while tripping but I don’t find that at all in D&G, the closest I can come to making the association is Kerslake’s excellent book on Deleuze and the Unconscious, ramble away no harm no foul…
Im so negative. 😝
Oh.. and I’m not saying they are necessarily high on acid all the time. Tripping on acid can be a very intense experience sometimes a life-changing experience; A person doesn’t have to take it all the time for the effects of LSD to be lasting. I met a guy who drank a glass of LSD in 1965 (keep in mind effective dose of LSD is almost a vapor molecule, and this guy unknowingly drank a glass full of it). I met him in 1995 and in 1997 I actually got to know him well enough that we had a conversation. For 25 years he could not do anything for himself. He was completely in another space. He had a full-time aide who had to do everything for him feed him wipe his butt everything. He said it was in the late 80s that he realized that he had come down enough because he said he remembered he said something and his aid looked at him and responded in such a way that he knew that that person had understood what he said. Still it was another six or seven years until he could get his own apartment and live by himself. I met him when he had been living by himself and his apartment for two or three years.
Any effects of LSD are commonly known that is for those who know and for those who care. For those who don’t care they take the effects of LSD as something substantial and essential, of a special knowledge or the communicating of special knowledge upon reality and existence, generally speaking, and excluding those whose sole purpose of taking any drugs is just to get buzzed.
But for those who do care about the experience about finding out about the expanse as the experience itself is a finding out about the experience, LSD and psychedelics in general including THC offer a specific types of experiences, specific effects or specific types of experiences that can be categorized into various sorts. But in order for there to be a categorization of the type I’m talking about one cannot be invested in the experience as if it is any essential type of experience communicating special knowledge; in fact in order for the special knowledge this feeling of special knowledge should be dismissed another kind of event has to occur, which is to say that the communication of special knowledge has to be let known to the person that it is not very special.
D and G did not have this latter type of experience they were still caught up in the specialness that the experience conveys, and that to an intellectual type. They could not foresee the future of the special communication, which is to say a person cannot imagine that his or her reality will fail.
But in a certain sense we are dealing with a certain universal continuum, as well a kind of common humanity. But this kind of common humanity taken and such can be manipulated, and this is exactly because people do not view the drug experiences as exceptional or is granting exceptional experiences; people who have not taken these various intoxicants to have the special experiences cannot possibly understand what is moved or what is motivated through these experiences.
The perfect example of this is a schizophrenic of D and G. This is how they are translating this type of discrepancy. Just like the original people who took LSD in the very early years under government special experiment, Who report as being able to see through the scientist who are studying them as subjects who took the LSD, so the same way D and G speak in a particular manner to deceive those people who do not understand the experience, even while they are viewed in the attempt of describing that very experience. In their description of the rhymizone, they are talking about their unique experience but in the context as if it’s an experience of all beings. It is not an experience of all beings it’s an experience of being on LSD, it’s an experience that you have where no matter what is spoken to you you can use discourse in such a way to create an argument for the rebuttal that will make sense and or disapprove the rebuttle at every juncture.
I could go on. But thats a book , eventually.
Sorry; your post has inspired me.
( btw. My time line is a little off with the lsd guy. Lol)
Cosh. This thread misses the attempt at Jung to decenter both the subject and subjectivity and how D+G tried to finish that work through theory. Yes, I know, magical thinkers all on the surface but scratch away a little.
did you miss the Kerslake reference?
Admit to not being familiar with Kerslake or the import of Kerslake on D+G.
On a non-de-materialist level, where it is possible to misstate Quantum theory as one may be energy or matter but not both and yet it may be, why is schizophrenia even a ‘thing’ if we are all not relentlessly grounded in analytic philo? D+G were daring to not be consistent.
Loved landzek’s story of the lsd guy seing through the observer btw