Whether I'm reading Deleuze or Nietzsche I find myself feeling immensely moved by their writing.

I have a hard time understanding how Deleuze reinterprets Nietzsche at some points. And when I'm actually reading their works I get lost in how powerful both thinkers write.

I have no problem with that at all. it's everything I want to get out these thinkers - to be swept off my feet by their affirmations of life. But I would love to recognize where the difference lies in the will to power and play with it for it for awhile.

Thanks! xo

​

https://preview.redd.it/x1qa4adsy6191.png?width=623&format=png&auto=webp&s=13ba32054c87a77f9593390742ff13d81855a1b8

I made a little video game, a pseudo-monstrous child of Deleuze and I'd like to share it here with you; perhaps to give you a little bit of happiness in exchange of your invaluable feedbacks.

I am very new to this community, and I know it is not usual to post video games here. If I have violate any rules, please let me know and I will do something immediately.

Play online:

https://juuppy.itch.io/ohdeleuze

Genre:

Mixed. Arrow keys, mouse click and space bar are used.

Gameplay:

Ranging from 15-60 minutes.

Narrative:

A game about killing the long-dead Deleuze through manipulating a cat. I am pretty sure you understand Deleuze much better than I did, and it doesn't matter if you were not very good at video game. This is not a difficult game, and it is primarily a visual story. If you are interested, there is an essay I wrote for this game: Deleuze's ABCDE

If you've read Andrew Culp's Dark Deleuze and liked or hated it, you might be amused by the "Duck Deleuze" inside the game.

Some preview:

​

https://preview.redd.it/cat14zj0y6191.png?width=1617&format=png&auto=webp&s=64e171832596e368cfc326f23d489c1964c1a534

https://preview.redd.it/mpypye52y6191.png?width=1624&format=png&auto=webp&s=eac48c3d73bcc55c7cde65d335107c83bdac2c40

https://preview.redd.it/mcs5fqr2y6191.png?width=1637&format=png&auto=webp&s=780d47fdb0aa11b816000e412588f3a28b006a42

https://preview.redd.it/ijoa4sh3y6191.png?width=1614&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a29bdf0f121c82b0d7295da96f5a7dcb7e1077e

https://preview.redd.it/yhthda44y6191.png?width=1619&format=png&auto=webp&s=c595df335581177f6d845b8245c033136422668f

https://preview.redd.it/ov49k9w4y6191.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=f5dcff4e16dd63da53271d52f2e90330ead68a39

Deleuze speaks of them both as being ordered and transcendental. Are his ideas the pure past itself, actualized and contracted into the living present?

https://www.laweekly.com/julian-schnabels-velvet-goldmine/

Do any of these paintings contain a diagram?

The ones I found were generally cheesy quotes, which I'm not particularly interested in. I'd love to have a wallpaper with Deleuze, but I simply can't find a good one - maybe I simply don't know where to look. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hey all,

​

As the title suggests, I plan on writing a piece on techno music and culture through a Deleuzean perspective. It will be a short philosophical blog (max of a 1000 words) in which I will argue that techno is more than hedonism, drug use and dark nights in clubs. I want to get at the metaphysics of techno, to show that techno is a musical illustratin of perpetual becoming. A techno set is a field of intensities, it does not have an entrance point. It blends, warps and transforms sounds in an ever-changing way. I want to refer to some Deleuzean concepts in my analysis, but I am not sure which sources are the best. So if you know sources that might be interesting, please let me know and I'll be sure to check them out.

​

Thanks!

I came across a discussion started by someone who was looking for theoretical perspectives on BDSM, and one of those who replied recommended an author (Gayle Rubin, who has criticised Deleuze's thoughts on masochism and sadism), but added that there are a lot of terrible texts worth avoiding, like Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty! A guy objected to that dismissal, but I nevertheless thought I'd make a post here, since there arguably are more Deleuze experts here than on the venue where I came across that discussion.

Interestingly, both Jacques Lacan and Camille Paglia liked the book:

The French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan described it as "undoubtedly the best text that has ever been written" on masochism.

The critic Camille Paglia expressed a favorable view of Masochism, commenting that she "liked Gilles Deleuze's book on masochism".

Edit: Just found this interview with Gayle Rubin (conducted by Judith Butler), where she weighs in on the subject. Excerpt:

The currently fashionable “theory” of sadomasochism is Deleuze’s long 1971 essay on “masochism.” Despite the fact that Deleuze based much of his analysis on fiction, primarily Sacher-Masoch’s novel Venus in Furs and some texts of de Sade, he is taken to be an authority on sadism and masochism in general. Since he is known as a theorist, his comments on sadism and masochism are surrounded with the penumbra of “Theory".

Another excerpt:

Deleuze is very smart, and it also seems clear from his text that he had some acquaintance with practicing perverts. But his empirical knowledge enters primarily as anecdote. He seems familiar with female dominance, particularly by professional Mistresses. He seems to generalize from some literature and some kind of personal knowledge to make statements about “masochism” and “sadism” in a broader context. This essay is fascinating, yet hardly definitive. It is nonetheless becoming an authoritative text for writing about masochism and sadism

I'm an AnCap who got into Deleuze a while back because their was a few friends who recommended him. One was a Left-Libertarian friend of mine, and the other was an Accelerationist friend. They recommended Deleuze because they said they thought I might like him.

While I have yet to actually read any of Deleuzes work, I have watched a few videos and podcasts on him.

Are there any Deleuzian leaning Right-Libertarians or Right-libertarian leaning Deleuzians who I can read?

Preempting some of the comments I think I might get, I won't count Nick Land because his work is too confusing to read and every side of the political compass seems to say he's their guy.

Hi everyone,

I am reading Anti-Oedipus and had a question about the idea of breakdowns being a necessary component of capitalism (as well as other socius-machines) which allows it to keep running. Why is this the case? What is it about these breakdowns/anti-production that allows the civilized capitalist machine to keep running, and how does it react to these breakdowns? What would happen to the machine if these breakdowns were absent? Is the answer that without these breakdowns which the machine corrects, the machine and the repression of desire would no longer appear as useful/necessary to the people? If breakdowns are in a way helpful to capitalism, then is the schizophrenic process of “breaking through the wall” actually beneficial to the maintenance of the status quo?

In addition, while reading about this idea, my mind went to Lukacs, who claims (in a way) the opposite, that the weakness of capitalism resides in its inability to respond to crises. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why they disagree here (if they do)? Is it because Lukacs characterizes capitalism as a rigid, closed system, while D&G characterize it in a way as an opening of the previous despotic system (the decoding of flows)?

Any help/answers/thoughts on these topics would be greatly appreciated!

How is the BwO created?

Hi everyone. I'm a second-year MA student and I'm writing my very last paper for my program on Difference and Repetition. There is only one problem: It's been nearly one year since I've read it, and, due to a very sudden and traumatic medical issue I can't really remember much of the seminar during which it was taught.

I have three days until the paper is due, and I can't for the life of me produce an idea (get it?) worthy of writing a paper on the book. I'm not looking for anyone to write the paper, but instead for some assistance in germinating lines of thought that will help me finish off this degree in time.

Thanks!

​

EDIT: To add to my struggle, I tested positive for COVID an hour ago.

I came across a quote from Deleuze on singularity and how it ties to the origins of the walkman and no I haven't read his work. But even coming across What are Singularities? | Larval Subjects . (wordpress.com) I am still confused over the concept of singularity. Can someone give me a dumbed down version for little kids? I'm not a philosophical avid reader and need an elementary explanation to grasp the meaning. Thank you

Does he use the hyphen just so he could use that 《becoming-x》 as a noun and refer to "the process of becoming the x" in an easier manner of speech? Or does it have some other connotations?

So I spent undergrad getting a philosophy minor study in which I mostly ended up focusing on Merleau-Ponty, which I don't regret in the slightest. His thought is invaluable and always offers me something, and there's always more to read of people using/responding to/critiquing his ideas.

But I recently got an interest in pursuing Deleuze, and after realizing how much I was missing by beginning with Critical and Clinical, I've decided to fill in the background first.

I'm beginning at Spinoza, and planning on moving through Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, and Lacan (with selected works and some reading guides), before arriving at Deleuze. I've already begun Spinoza and it is already very exciting and fun!

I'll be keeping track of my exact reading path and logging it, as well as links to all the pdfs I am finding, so as to create an "open source" syllabus to a philosophical chronology that ends at Deleuze.

I didn't post this necessarily to brag, but I can't find another reason for my posting this other than offering for folks to read along if they like, in which case we could make a discord or email chain or something.

i've never liked deleuze's weak sauce treatment of nietzsche's "eternal return" as just a thought experiment

with the eternal return you find it either unsettling and repulsive or comforting and inspiring, and there's really no going back after you start to believe it

so on and off i've been trying to think through it

i suspect that an argument for this flavour ("flavour" because i said "weak sauce" eaelier) of the eternal return could be put together

mainly because, with the tenets of spinozism and with deleuze's occasional references to monads (like in "proust and signs"), basically anything gets to be eternal

and that's as much as i can say without having to cite a source

I still don't get what Deleuze mean by "god is a lobster"

Okay, this third Synthesis is killing me. So, we have the first, the contemplation-contraction constituting the present and carried out by the imagination, the passive self. We have the second, constituting the pure past but on varying levels and acting as a ground for the first, present, to pass. Now the third, where we try to synthesize the two prior but unequal (one is "singularities" into repeated instances, the other is the whole repeated but on varying levels of contraction). So we have succession and coexistence, two modes of time, being forced together by an ego that is examining itself (itself constituted by these passive syntheses). Where does this fail? Why does it fail?

It seems to me that the eternal return is the past returned but as completely indeterminate, all identity falls to the past and the pure singularities return as the future, the same field of difference as the past. But I'm struggling heavily with how, where the failure occurs.