Maybe the Levinasian absolute other (as stranger, as exile) troubles totalizing discourses precisely because the subject is already always not centered, and therefore cannot attribute a mode of master-as-knower to begin with. If the Levinasian other engages another, ethically, then they are relating to another seen as fellow teacher/master-in-exile (paradox) which allows difference, avoiding self-sameness and rational mastery. So the "self" is only conceptualized through the other-as-stranger; which is to say, the point of departure is not a stable subjective self but a non-local horizon which, if ethical, overflows totality with infinite strangeness. This is transcendence for Levinas: that which is outside of me seen as outsider themselves. This reminds me of Laurelle's somewhat gnomic claims that he himself "does not exist" - sounds cryptic but if read through a Levinasian lens then it starts to make sense. There is also the aspect of femme-eros explored by Levinas in Totality and Infinity, which emphasizes the feminine position where strangeness takes us out of the driver's seat.
"Hume centers his critique on the theory of egoism. It is not guided by the psychology of human nature because it disregards equally natural phenomenon of sympathy. [...] In short, egoism can describe only determined means that man can organize to satisfy his tendencies, as opposed to other possible means. Et voilà, we have egoism put in it's place, which is not the most important." Deleuze, Empirisme et subjectivité (my shitty translation)
a few reasons: 1. he only wrote the one book. 2. Marx's critique of him in the German Ideology hurt his reputation. 3. The first translation of The Unique and Its Property isn't very good.
@@-arche-7926I had a quick read of it, to be fair Marx never published The German Ideology in his lifetime, it was published 50 years after his death, and with Nietzsche it would seem he never mention stirner in his writing more out of fear he might be accused of plagiarism
Thank you for this! I have a serious question, why would anyone still be interested in Hegel if they have already read Deleuze? My understanding is that Transcendental Empiricism is a somewhat Copernican Revolution when it comes to Ontology. It is as if we were still focusing our physics on a model with the Earth at the center of the Universe. Or still investigating Newtonian Physics without any acknowledgement to Quantum Mechanics. Hegelian logic has been discredited, why haven't our own conceptions of Hegel in academia, mainstream etc. not moved beyond Hegel as D&G did for example in "Anti-Oedipus"? Thanks in advance
I think that part of what motivated us to read through this Hegel [that of the Philosophy of Right, instead of the Phenomenology, for example] was to foreground some of the investigations we would be digging into in conjunction with other work [Stirner, Blumenfeld's new book, Schroeder's legal theories, etc.]. Also, it's not quite to ascertain whether Hegel is right or wrong [the history of philosophy has a strange temporality in this way in its various planes of immanence] but to see what problematics were highlighted and situated there, so as to take what we can from them for our own purposes [since it's never just about all or nothing take it or leave it but explicating and implicating a problem]. So even though Hegel may be an 'enemy' for Deleuze, there's still a sense in which we 'understand [Hegel's theory] in the sense of a persistence of the dialectical night coming to haunt the Deleuzian universe', as Véronique Bergen would say. Tl;DR : know your enemy.
Near the beginning Wakefield explains Gentile's fascism by saying that the civil society of Hegel is identified with the state in Gentile and Gentile subordinates the individual to the state. Yet mid way through on the topic of the relation of Gentile's philosophy and Gentile's fascism, Wakefield says they are in conflict and that anyone seriously reading Gentile would not be fascist. Seems like he just chooses to neglect the possibility of fascism having a philosophical foundation.
Hmmm this doesn’t resonate with my lived experience nearly as well as Erin Manning's phenomenological schizoanalysis of autistic perception, I'd love to hear you guys compare this with her work on the Minor Gesture
Really interesting discussion! The idea that all societies are primitive is something that Girard has an ambivalent relation to. On the one hand it is as you said. On the other, he does believe that "the west", so to say, is unique due to the Christian revelation of the "scapegoat mechanism", which for him, also made science possible. We invented science because we stopped burning witches and not the other way around. It is interesting to note that your economic interpretation of Girard is, in a way, diametrically opposite to that of Sjoerd van Tuinen in his Dialectics of Ressentiment. I think you would be interested in his Deleuzo-Nietzschean critique of Girard. For him, Girard is a priest of neoliberalism. He deflects the ressentiment of the people back onto themselves as a moral failing. I think this critique is true in so far as Girard completely ignores the socio-structural underpinnings of desire. But it misses the profound depth and nuance of Girard's theory. As he says in Evolution and Conversion, he did not believe that we live in a just world. Your interpretation provides a valuable alternative perspective. It reminds me of Adam Kotsko's Neoliberalism's Demons. I personally think Girard is wrong about the Oedipus complex and that this points towards a way in which Lacan complements Girard. For Lacan the infant desires to be as the caregiver desires it to be. Desire orbits the mother not the father. The boy wants to be like daddy because he wants to bear the phallus, to be as she desires. If P desires Q, the desire to be as P desires generates the desire to be Q. For a more elaborate explication of my views on the matter, see this post: thewindblowethwhereitlisteth.substack.com/p/rene-through-the-looking-glass-pt
With respect to the chemistry reference near the beginning, are you sure you weren't thinking of "to sublimate" (German: sublimieren oder vergeistigen)? I don't believe the words in English, which both come from Latin, are related.
“People tend to not believe you when you say things like this” haha. Listening to this is giving me so much strength to keep writing and thinking myself through a phase shift that I know in my heart is not “psychotic”. I am deeply moved by everything happening in this moment. Once I finish my book I will remember this moment. ❤
The cuteification of ATP through the edited illustrations and chapter titles was a nice touch. The acute intensity of the UwU (BwO) to allow virtual potentialities to be actualized through a form of "eggscape" to the outside is a Cthulhuian call from the future. Cat-boys are fanged technocapital creatures who embrace the feminine zero to reprogram psychoanalytically-inclined and traditional (1-based) patriarchal systems of oppression through schizoanalytic and machinic desires that allow them to become Other (or animal). 2d anime characters are "lines" of flight to the outside. Shame they missed the opportunity of making the joke of "putting the cat back in catatonic." Also, shocking Nick has not watched Serial Experiments Lain. Then, again, it is heavily influenced by Jungian psychoanalytics. ^_^ Their comments on not resisting (and giving in) essentially is their way of embracing the Kantian noumenon, which is fine as long as it operates within contexts where ORGANization and powerfully ordered systems are being deterritorialized (again, this is the ambivalence and dual articulation of the Lobster God, where reterritorialization and deterritorialization operate hand-in-hand or claw-in-claw). Capitalism hijacked cuteness (as was brought up with Konrad Lorenz), using us for its own purposes, evolving us onward while, again, calling to us from the future. So, yeah, we're all time-traveling in some sense. The templexity is a spiral, asymptotically inclined, forever open and unending (it never "cums" to an end). Still, a fun book over all. Flipping back and forth between the text and footnotes reminded me of reading Infinite Jest by DFW. Great interview by the way! Amy and Maya really convey their ideas quite clearly, simplistic enough for most to understand regardless of their philosophical background. Cheers!
Wtf? Circle jerking psychoanalyst enemy!? It's a thin line between sublimation and sublation! Unretrievable loss of 1 hour of my life listening to animals with long ears that say I-A!
I would love to listen Prof. Maclean's take on Von Balthasaar's reading on early Christian philosophy (particularly Patristic) and the aesthetic/theological turn he proposes. I feel there is much coincidence in the deterritorialisation of many dogmas and what was discussed in this pod.
Did you just say that most SF isn't about losing touch with reality or humanity? I have heard so much BS said about SF recently its inane. It's like everyone (re)watched Elysium or something and thought "this is how all SF must be" simultaneously looking past all the bad works puboshed in all other genres. Also, also, 1984 is great (and DUNE is science fantasy, but of course, whether you think so depends on your metaphysical convictions). It's like you approach fiction in a way where you want to decide how it should be, you want to control it and decide what a worthwhile "goal" with literature is or should be. Let it be horrible dammit (I'm not being sarcastic, but I am trying to convey my frustration in a not too unfriendly manner).
I elaborate further on some of the themes discussed in this interview in this talk I gave last year ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GCzycV8Nfl8.htmlsi=NcwDZT9LWmNB9nDA
I'm really glad I found this, as someone with a mathematics background and a passing interest in these kinds of philosophical questions this makes me super excited to explore these ideas more and serves as a pretty accessible jumping off point. Thank you!!
what a weirdly judgmental take about the translation of agencement from the host... I'd recommend reading how Erin Manning makes use of it in her work involving what she calls Autistic Perception, a phenomenologically oriented counterpart to schizoanalysis
I apologize if it came off that I was being judgmental toward Massumi-I was trying to discuss that option perhaps out of context-I actually admire the alternative he uses and did not mean to be dismissive.
That was interesting and elucidating, thanks. It would be great if you could get Manuel DeLanda on to present his approach to assemblage theory (and/or other aspects of his work), and to get his response to Ian Buchanan’s criticisms.
