British Legion Poppies

H

hundredmillionlifetimes

Banned
nomadologist said:
I have studied this stuff extensively, as has HMLT and several others here. I'm sure they will be glad to clear things up for you eventually.
Click to expand...

Next Vim will 'argue' that Marx was pro-capitalist ... bringing down the stock market is a trivial operation compared to any attempt to 'clear things up' for the dogma-crazed Vim - and his salivating lap-dog, Mr Tea.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
vimothy said:
I tried to allude to that upthread. Nomadologist either ignored it, missed it or couldn't make the connection.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You linked to some incoherent babbling on the CCRU, as if they are the final word on Deleuze or anyone else. You didn't mention Zizek at all.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
Next Vim will 'argue' that Marx was pro-capitalist ... bringing down the stock market is a trivial operation compared to any attempt to 'clear things up' for the dogma-crazed Vim - and his salivating lap-dog, Mr Tea.
Click to expand...

Mr. Tea's just here to make sure no one has opinions that damn anyone or anything entirely, you see. The truth is somewhere in between a Fox News broadcast and a day of surfing the Druge Report.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
Next Vim will 'argue' that Marx was pro-capitalist ... bringing down the stock market is a trivial operation compared to any attempt to 'clear things up' for the dogma-crazed Vim - and his salivating lap-dog, Mr Tea.
Click to expand...

There must be something wrong with your computer, Porridge, for it appears to have failed to display all the posts where I've disagreed with Vimothy on a plethora of subjects. Or could it just be that we're indistinguishable to you because we appear to be part of an undifferentiated Other? "They all look the same to me!", ahahaha. :D
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
HA from the comments on Amazon for "Organs without Bodies":

Even Mr. Zizek's most devoted fans sometimes wonder if he would do them a favor by not writing a book this month. Anyone feeling guilty for not yet having read Organs Without Bodies: On Deleuize and Consequences , published by Routledge in December, may instead want to consult Mr. Zizek's essay on Gilles Deleuze (the philospher of schizoanalysis) in the winter issue of Critical Inquiry..
–Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2004
Click to expand...

Zizek is nothing if not an outrageous and wonderful stylist, as anyone whose read him doesn't need to be told, and, to accentuate the positive, this quality is not lacking here in "OwB". Increasingly, however, for the past while, Zizek's books have taken the form of pastiches from previous books of his, and the finished product winds up being something like a series of (interesting) digressions with no main topic to bind them all together. Ostensibly, this is a book that "confronts" Deleuze as the great Frenchman confronted others, and surprisingly, Zizek is able to maintain this confrontation for more or less one third of the book (the first 70-90 pages roughly). It's all downhill from there. I won't even take issue with his reading of Deleuze, which in case you were wondering is basically Badiou's reading translated into Lacanian balderdash--that is, Deleuze lost courage in the face of his "real" insights in Logic of Sense and so capitulated to thoughtless sloganeering with Guattari---no, I'll entertain the thought. The real agony of this book is that people like Dennett and Varela get practically more space than Deleuze himself, especially in the second half, where he literally evaporates--"Like that--Poof! He's gone"---never to be heard from again except in passing references to weird cultural stuff and Empire.
The thing is, I came into this book hoping that Zizek could use all of his wisdom to smash Deleuze into something not-Deleuze, thereby challenging my own tendency to deify Deleuze. That's always a healthy and necessary thing, challenging one's own idols. But alas, it was not to be. This book is about 100 pages too long, and for someone well versed in Zizek I daresay it will be a profound waste of time, as you find him repeating long passages almost verbatim from The Puppet and the Dwarf, themselves repeated verbatim from Welcome to the Desert of the Real. And for Deleuzians--stay far away. You will learn nothing about Deleuze, but, of course, a lot about Lacan, Hegel, and Chesterton if you're interested.

In sum: like the reviewer below I think this is basically worthless and misleading as a book "about" Deleuze. But it is interesting, in places, as when Zizek tries to show how Deleuze is more Hegelian than he thought, leading Zizek into rhapsody about Hegel---very informative about the German, of course; not so informative about the Frenchie.
A highly mixed bag. All I can say is, proceed with caution
Click to expand...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Mr. Tea said:
There must be something wrong with your computer, Porridge, for it appears to have failed to display all the posts where I've disagreed with Vimothy on a plethora of subjects. Or could it just be that we're indistinguishable to you because we appear to be part of an undifferentiated Other? "They all look the same to me!", ahahaha. :D
Click to expand...

I think you mean "P. Orridge" or "P-Orridge"
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
nomadologist said:
Mr. Tea's just here to make sure no one has opinions that damn anyone or anything entirely, you see.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure I've damned idiotic generalisations, self-contradictory non-arguments and tedious autobiographica without reservation, actually.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
nomadologist said:
No you didn't. You linked to some incoherent babbling on the CCRU, as if they are the final word on Deleuze or anyone else. You didn't mention Zizek at all.
Click to expand...

Incoherent babbling - nice - only when I link to K-Punk posts are they considered "babbling".

And it's fairly easy to read a pro-capitalist D&G, surely. (Right)? That's one of the things that pisses people off about them (and their so-called "vitalism").

I've had numerous conversations with communists who dislike D&G. I doubt that K-Punk, for instance, is a big fan.

In any case it's interesting to see so many people tell me that I'm reading A Thousand Plateaus wrongly. The author is always right? Surely I can lob the brick in whichever direction I choose.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Yes, and claim D&G as one of your "influences" as you advance farther and farther into mainstream American rightwingnut ideology.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
vimothy said:
I've had numerous conversations with communists who dislike D&G. I doubt that K-Punk, for instance, is a big fan.
Click to expand...

Which "communists" would these be? "Name and shame" as they say.

K-punk is not a huge fan , but he seems like he sure used to be! He's delved more into Baudrillard lately, and that desert of the Real shit, you know.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
another great quote about Organs without Bodies:

Looking for Deleuze in this text is like trying to find grapes and nuts in grapenuts: tedious and an utter waste of time.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, if only we could have stayed on the topic at hand, viz. whether Deleuze and Guattari are anti- or pro-capitalist...
 
Mr. Cheese

Mr. Cheese

Paternal Reassurance
nomadologist said:
another great quote about Organs without Bodies:
Looking for Deleuze in this text is like trying to find grapes and nuts in grapenuts: tedious and an utter waste of time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

post-17-1157055702.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top