What Deterritorialization ACTUALLY Means | Deleuze and Guattari Concept In Focus 

@@nikomasi130 Thanks for making this clarification! I do intent to cover Land at some point, although everyone I know who likes Land is annoying so that turns me off a little, ya know?😅😂

​@@gavinyoung-philosophy Accelerationism as an objective, analytic thesis based on the inertia of the structural tendencies of the techno-capital complex (object = x), and without some of Land's romantic portensions toward death and destruction (which is what makes him over-prioritize deterritorialization), is simply true in my view (e.g., see Baudrillard, Zizek's commentary on Land, Byung Chul Han, etc.). Capital absorbs and integrates every value system that seeks a path outside its contricting gaze. The accelerationist thesis understands the inhuman potential of the techno-capital relation as outweighing any possible line of flight created by 'humans' that seeks to contradict it, and so the singularity of the future AI (a peak embodiment of the techno-capital tendency), which will exert more productive power than any human or human organization, is currently pulling all other lines of flight around it (like a black hole, into which we are invariably sinking without there being some unforeseeable, mass catastrophe event). Now, what to do about this issue sprouts an endless series of political objectives (nihilism, right-acc, left-acc., etc.), but the structural integrity of the accelerationist thesis remains relatively consistent across each ideology. In doing so, I'd argue most of these ideologies are faithful to the logical roots of D&G's original project, and have only extended D&G to their proper conclusions (assuming those theorizing understand what structural positions their political viewpoint should entail if it is to be an intelligible and possible course of action or reaction).

⁠that's what he meant about y'all being annoying ❤

​@@zamplify 🤷hey i don't want to talk to me either, doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

​@@gavinyoung-philosophy That's what they said of Socrates :D

@@zamplify Most relatable comment I’ve gotten in a while lol

@@lsobrien This comment made my day. Thank you for your kind words :)

@@matthewglenguir7204 Thanks! Another commenter explained that it’s from an early 2000s PlayStation ad!

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Oh yeah! I've totally seen that ad before, great choice.

I’m glad I could help, my friend :)

@@francis5518 Thanks a lot my friend!

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Thank you for your dedication and for sharing some of its fruit!!

@@francis5518 It’s my pleasure! Knowing others enjoy it, especially enough to let me know, helps make my (and our) world go round!

@@isabelkolonel8066 Thank you for these kind words! It means a lot :)

I’m so glad!

Such kind words! Thank you :) I have yet to read them and don’t feel particularly compelled to, but I imagine I will delve into Deleuze’s entire oeuvre by the time my graduate studies are completed 😜

@@pichirisu Appreciate the remarks. I apologize if it comes off as pretentious, I just like to make a conscious effort to pronounce people’s names as they actually are. Then again, pobody’s nerfect so my French is doubtless sub par.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy nothing wrong with that i mean the names are in the title of the video i dont think its any more difficult to understand than if you mispronounced them

@@sssurreal It’s not a mispronunciation. That’s what their names are, it’s just not American enough for him.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy exactly what I’m saying id rather hear a albeit more rough, accurate names than “easier to understand” Mispronounced names 👍

@@gavinyoung-philosophy That's not what I was saying at all and that was very insulting. Please grow up. I will remember to not recommend any of your work to students, my peers, and coworkers, from here on out. Thank you.

@@ted_umeh I’m glad you think so!

You’re correct; there’s much overlap here. I’ve always found Kuhn’s paradigm shift very closely allied with D&G’s work, at the very least implicitly. Foucault was interested in understanding science as a discourse that doesn’t allow for certain kinds of knowledge, and it’s clear that D&G are operating in a very similar vein. It seems that much of this work in epistemology is building off of many of the discoveries regarding relativity and inertial reference frames, thus calling into question the objectivity of knowledge both inside and outside of scientific discourses. I couldn’t comment on the others you mentioned because I’m not familiar, but they’re doubtless interrelated.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Thanks!

@@rodrigofernandezvillela I’m glad!

@@martin_quarto If you like Nietzsche, you’ll find it highly valuable. His essay on Nietzsche in “Pure Immanence” is exceptional for its biographical content, Deleuze’s philosophical contributions explaining the eternal return, and its concise list of Nietzsche terms defined in a very coherent fashion. I have yet to read “Nietzsche and Philosophy” but I’ve heard only good things about it!

@@af-ne5re Wish I knew exactly what it was! Search “Deleuze and Guattari” on Google and it should be near the top of images.

@@gavinyoung-philosophyIt’s an early 2000s PS2 ad (:

@@andreimaria979 Haha thanks for the identification!

@@catrielnievas4668 Thank ya!

@@ageofbumfires5216 Just adding some context within the larger philosophical paradigm and situating the concept among his others. Nothing wrong with clearing the air :)

He was doubtless influenced by them. He’s wrote some stuff critiquing D&G, but it seems that based on that he has never actually sat down and read them.

You’re right about this liminal, in-between space; Homi Bhabha plays with a similar concept in “The Location of Culture”. But a line of flight “in itself” isn’t useful or valuable at all. It all depends on the becomings it helps facilitate. So when one is met with such a liminal space, the goal in not just to sit in that space and fester, since this would be to treat the destruction of previous identities/values as an end in itself - it would be to treat lines of flight as having some inherent value. But lines of flight are only valuable or desirable insofar as they can help direct us towards a space to be filled creatively. So a line of flight isn’t positive or negative; it’s just a description of where the holes/rough edges are in an assemblage. Now a line of flight can lead to both positive (creative, affirmative, etc) becomings or the reterritorialization onto the tree or the abstract like of death.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy We agree on the whole, but the problem lies I think with the use of the term "destruction". "since this would be to treat the destruction of previous identities/values as an end in itself" I think what D&G want to avoid is the Hegelian opposition. They don't want to "oppose" the State, or any hierarchy for that matter, with their lines of flight. They don't want to to destroy the State (and thus become it). The point is to always go "between", not to destroy. To inhabit the liminal space between binaries, etc. This liminal space is not the result of destruction. But of perpetual flight or evasion. Of "creation" in the Deleuzian sense (which is very close, I might add, to the Derridean "text" and "writing").

Yeah you’re right that it’s a very subtle distinction. I think if we want to understand Deleuzian theory in any meaningfully applicable sense, then, for example, flying between the imposed gender binary and coming up with new, creative modes of gender expression is effectively destroying the gender binary, precisely insofar as, by revealing the liminal space yet to be occupied, we have destroyed the traditionally-supposed efficacy of those categories as absolute. So it’s great to talk about creation in the abstract, but when it comes down to it, every act of creation takes with it some necessary destruction, even though it may be (and it) a positive, productive act that uplifts previously ignored differences.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy "every act of creation takes with it some necessary destruction, even though it may be (and it) a positive, productive act that uplifts previously ignored differences." But that is Hegelianism, that is precisely what they want to avoid. For D&G you have to maintain yourself in this liminal BwO space composed strictly of vectors and intensities, etc. or get "rooted" back.

That’s not Hegelian. That is thoroughly Nietzschean, one of the principle influences on Deleuze. Remaining within that liminal space means that some actions will be immediately creative and some immediately destructive, even in a larger creative project of becoming-x

I’m engaged

I do.

@@SolvableMattB haha so has been the prevailing sentiment of those who have made their voices known on my comments section…

@@gavinyoung-philosophy im only kidding around. had i read the comments i would have made a more original joke tho.

@@SolvableMattB Haha no worries that was an effort on my part. Reading again, the comedic effect is palpably obvious🤦‍♂️

Reading is the foundation for a well-lived, intentional life. Without it, one is blind.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy phenomenological investigations. I grew up in South Africa I was educated in Britain they were so uninformed it was scary.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Westerners are very uninformed sorry to say it.

That’s quite the generalization and frankly a bit racist, don’t you think?

@@gavinyoung-philosophy racism is a western construct.. Back to the enlightenment you go if you are a Marxist,you group think. I will give you some fingerprints and blood splatter Deleuze and Guattari are blinded by Marx to merge Marx and the coke head Freud (Nietzsche) they are incompatible. Herbert Marcuse attempted it.

@@kylelumpkin7517 Thanks for the compliment and suggestion. I certainly consider it, so we’ll see how my thought process develops throughout my career :)

@@gavinyoung-philosophyplease don’t listen to them. It’s very respectful to pronounce other languages properly if you can. “Westerners” should learn from you if anything!

@@ted_umeh I appreciate your words of encouragement :) Thanks!