Deleuze Le Pli Pdf

[Sabel Kantah]

Deleuzeis the future. He is almost the now, but not yet. Just out of reach, just over the horizon, he is akin to the force that makes the sky pink after the sun sets and pink again right before the sun rises. He is both pre and post everything, like the feeling before a meal of being famished followed by the feeling after the meal of being stuffed. He does what no other thinker before him could do: he upends Plato, he quiets Hegel, he puts all the little thinkers to bed.

Consider it this way: if we imagine the past as a hallway full of doors marked dualism, binary thinking, either/or, mind/body, transcendence, then Deleuze makes philosophy contemporary by drawing a series of escape hatches on the ceiling of that hallway and marking them multiplicity, schizoid thinking, both/and, non-dialectical materialism, immanence. Deleuze is open, associative, connective. Deleuze is digital, affirmative, productive, innovative. In him, we have a blueprint for navigating the 21st century.

Like the avant-garde or experimental or innovative artist/writer, Deleuze is a philosopher of the new. He is all about thinking in new ways, which seems like a damn fine reason in-and-of-itself to read him, in my opinion. Of course, that also makes him difficult, which makes your Finnegans Wake comparison truly apt.

How can we use his philosophy in everyday life? Does he supply new or preferred ways of not only thinking but being? In other words: if I was looking for philosophy to guide me ethically and aesthetically, how does Deleuze show me how to live?

That sort of speaks to the ethical issue. In terms of the aesthetic, I think Deleuze can help us in everyday life by encouraging us to foreground difference, to find beauty in difference, to seek heterogeneity rather than homogeneity, to focus our desire toward the unfamiliar, the strange, the new. A Deleuzian aesthetic is predicated, at least in part, on change, movement, transformation, repositioning, shifting, flowing, mutating, multiplying, generating, and, of course, magic.

Wow, tough question. There is so much good stuff out there, so many options. And it really would depend on what angle a person was particularly interested in exploring. Thinking in general terms, here is a bundle of five possible entry points:

You know, I sometimes think of thinkers as Medusas. One should not look directly into their faces at first, but should instead look at them through the eyes of another, and then swing the sword to lop the head and examine the carcass of their thought thereafter.

Deleuze is fabulous! Thanks for this post. The Deleuze I most admire is not the one of Anti-Oedipus, but the one of Thousand Plateaus and some of the lesser-known books. His book on Proust is fantastic, too, as well as the Baroque book called _The Fold_. Brian Massumi has also written some great accompanying books to much of what Deleuze has done. And you kind of gotta love the long fingernails and whatnot, too.

Good points, all, Ian. But since Deleuze died before completing his last book, which is said to have been his ode to Marx, I think we will unfortunately be left with only a partial picture of his position in the Marxist assemblage.

the series from edinburgh press in which deleuze is stapled to everything is very helpful! he would have approved for isn;t he the famous inventor of n+1 and rhizomatic affirmation? i will dispute all his rigor for he has occasionally written an interesting sentence and it seems like he would like me to have some fun at work and to enjoy the marijuana cigarettes at the weekend.

he does not deserve the time and attention of someone like kant who is very systematic. deleuze is not systematic is he? after all his books are full of many complicated feelings and i get the sense enjoyment is at stake not concepts.

who should read his books? are artists fond of them? are engineers? i am concerned he may have been some kind of dissident. i would like a clear assessment of his politics please! just what did he say about marx anyway?

isn;t commentary the tradition of the medievals and ourselves too? therefore it is very good all this work which purports to explain deleuze for he had no sense in the ordering and presentation of his thoughts. if he was a scholastic it was after all a very ponderous joke!

what we need are jobs! not more imposture in the imponderable francophone style. after all they curse and make love with their faces. also, he was probably a homosexual with his odd companion the militant tactician of unemployment, felix the luck of disorder.

thank you sir! this deleuze poison must be met and countered with all the means at our disposal! I propose a moral calculus extracted from the good intentions of philosophers who work in the sober traditions of semantics and evolutionary epistemology! or maybe a return to aristotle as has been suggested by some. aristotle is the truly untimely figure here! as long as there is a neat arrangement of figures in their little taxonomies i feel capable of a deep and deathly sleep.

Ween started off with a real statement (GWS), then retreated behind extremely clever reworkings of the musics that permeated popular consciousness up until each album. Gifted as they are, they have failed to create genuine sonic art since that first explosion.

With Royal Trux, you have a nonpareil cipher who absorbed pretty much all of the great music (and some not-so-great) which came before, then shattered it and baited you in with recognizable shards to his explorations of the furthest sonic realms still tenuously anchored to the canon.

Hopefully you can see the difference between those two equations. If you can, then please omit my empirical data from academia and replace it with the formula. This should be enough for you to understand why it might piss off a few Marxists. (Badiou would certainly be down with a good ole fashion math formula as proof of difference.)

Is it that everything is flowing and informing and arriving from one plane, that everything has the same intensive origin, so maybe agency is created by action bereft of projection/goal? The only pure exercise of agency is that of the amnesiac or sleepwalker. (That last sentence/sentiment feels Deleuzian.)

heh heh, said the mathematician to the philosopher, I can only hope you are being sarcastic. In the future, we will not read for comprehension, but osmosis, for there are no provably correct constructs. This philosophy seems a French/Western mindthunk adaptation of conclusions arrived at centuries ago in martial arts, particularly Judo (no fight, no flee, yes flow)

This extends to the real world, as well. Agency comes from action, not reaction. Framing (or, if necessary, re-framing) an argument rather than allowing someone else to set the terms. Knowing when inaction is the best choice of action. Recognizing that reaction is not agency. Reaction is motor fuel for the action of someone or something else.

should anti-oedipus be read before a thousand plateaus?is the latter better? working my way through the former, thought i should be reading that first, have read some of the recommended intro stuff before

Thanks Chris and Ken for this study guide. I really appreciate the birds eye view on Deleuzian thought provided here, and the links are extremely helpful. I am currently working on an illustrated interpretation of 10,000 BC from 1000 Plateaus. The structures they are describing in the 2nd chapter/plateau are much more complex than in the the Intro and the 1st chapter/plateau. Your discussion here has been most illuminating.

Like you, I am going to be interested in what others have to say about D & G and this book. In particular I would be interested in a discussion about how their ideas are relevant to the philosophy of education.

terima kasih atas tulisannya, jenny. karena tulisanmu, saya bisa selangkah lebih dekat dengan pemikiran deleuze, khususnya yang membahas metafilsafat. saat ini, saya sedang menyelesaikan tulisan ilmiah sebagai syarat lulus dari kampus. adapun tema tulisan ilmiah saya bertemakan metafilsafat, apakah kamu punya rekomendasi buku untuk saya? terima kasih

3a8082e126