Cyclonopedia

sus

sus

Moderator
I might start hand-drawing my diagrams arrows & connectors with a felt-tip pen just because of how beautiful this Spinoza 'gram is
 
line b

line b

Well-known member
I think something intimidating about the writing is its so meta it foregoes the initial referent. Suspended is always talking about the systems that are making the surface move but not always illuminating what the surface is. Sometimes this is an alluring technique though. But just now I clicked over to the blog and started the 'subjugation' post and because I'm on mobile and in a laddish mood couldn't be bothered to read far enough to find some solidified representation of subjugation and stopped.
 
versh

versh

Well-known member
suspended said:
index.php
Click to expand...
Yeah, see these are too bland and cartoony (in a bad way). They look like they should be printed on the back of a kettle or router.
 
line b

line b

Well-known member
linebaugh said:
I think something intimidating about the writing is its so meta it foregoes the initial referent. Suspended is always talking about the systems that are making the surface move but not always illuminating what the surface is. Sometimes this is an alluring technique though. But just now I clicked over to the blog and started the 'subjugation' post and because I'm on mobile and in a laddish mood couldn't be bothered to read far enough to find some solidified representation of subjugation and stopped.
Click to expand...
Foucault is always starting similar analysis with a graphic case study and it's an effective technique.

But again I dont think theres anything wrong with the current style just that it's not so appealing to all moods, if thats something you care about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
versh

versh

Well-known member
linebaugh said:
I think something intimidating about the writing is its so meta it foregoes the initial referent. Suspended is always talking about the systems that are making the surface move but not always illuminating what the surface is. Sometimes this is an alluring technique though. But just now I clicked over to the blog and started the 'subjugation' post and because I'm on mobile and in a laddish mood couldn't be bothered to read far enough to find some solidified representation of subjugation and stopped.
Click to expand...
I recently read some criticism of Deleuze along these lines,

One doesn’t have to be a disciple of Wittgenstein to conclude as a practical matter that understanding the meaning of a new term (or, what amounts to the same thing, a new use of a familiar term) requires seeing how the term is used. If I say “tallow is usually white” a single time, and you don’t already know what tallow is, my single use of the word “tallow” won’t shed a lot of light on what it is. My single statement won’t be enough to give you the sense that you understand the meaning of “tallow” at all. If I start to discuss tallow at length, however, including how it’s prepared by rendering beef or mutton fat, or how it’s used to make shortening, you will probably feel increasingly confident that you understand what tallow is in at least some basic sense—even if, of course, you still don’t know everything about it, and might not know how to answer definitional questions relating to marginal uses of the term (can tallow be made from goat fat?).

The trouble with Deleuze, at least for a novice reader, at least in his non-historical works such as A Thousand Plateaus, is that he frequently fails to provide sufficient linguistic materials to form the basis for even a very limited understanding of the terms he introduces. Even under the best of circumstances, the process of understanding a rich new philosophical term of art will never come to an end. It will always be possible to ask how a term should be used in some unfamiliar context to which one’s present understanding does not clearly, consistently extend. But Deleuze provides so little guidance, at least for the uninitiated reader, that it is often difficult to reach much of any understanding at all of the terms he introduces. To the extent that we sometimes speak of understanding as though it were a binary property—do you understand what I’m saying or not?—Deleuze often provides so little guidance that one could only pass the indefinite threshold between “not understanding” and “understanding” through a fairly precarious, and usually arbitrary, leap of the imagination. One is often left guessing how he would answer even the most basic and obvious questions about many of his terms, or (in other words) how he would use the terms in some of the contexts that would seem most obviously relevant to the discussion in which the terms appear.
 
versh

versh

Well-known member
The sea scroll images in the PKD post are good, but they don't pop out enough due to being a sort of off-white on a white background. You could break it up with images from the film or anything else that seems appropriate, e.g. it would have been funny to chuck in this when you mentioned Kafka,

scanner-2.jpg
 
line b

line b

Well-known member
version said:
I recently read some criticism of Deleuze along these lines,

One doesn’t have to be a disciple of Wittgenstein to conclude as a practical matter that understanding the meaning of a new term (or, what amounts to the same thing, a new use of a familiar term) requires seeing how the term is used. If I say “tallow is usually white” a single time, and you don’t already know what tallow is, my single use of the word “tallow” won’t shed a lot of light on what it is. My single statement won’t be enough to give you the sense that you understand the meaning of “tallow” at all. If I start to discuss tallow at length, however, including how it’s prepared by rendering beef or mutton fat, or how it’s used to make shortening, you will probably feel increasingly confident that you understand what tallow is in at least some basic sense—even if, of course, you still don’t know everything about it, and might not know how to answer definitional questions relating to marginal uses of the term (can tallow be made from goat fat?).

The trouble with Deleuze, at least for a novice reader, at least in his non-historical works such as A Thousand Plateaus, is that he frequently fails to provide sufficient linguistic materials to form the basis for even a very limited understanding of the terms he introduces. Even under the best of circumstances, the process of understanding a rich new philosophical term of art will never come to an end. It will always be possible to ask how a term should be used in some unfamiliar context to which one’s present understanding does not clearly, consistently extend. But Deleuze provides so little guidance, at least for the uninitiated reader, that it is often difficult to reach much of any understanding at all of the terms he introduces. To the extent that we sometimes speak of understanding as though it were a binary property—do you understand what I’m saying or not?—Deleuze often provides so little guidance that one could only pass the indefinite threshold between “not understanding” and “understanding” through a fairly precarious, and usually arbitrary, leap of the imagination. One is often left guessing how he would answer even the most basic and obvious questions about many of his terms, or (in other words) how he would use the terms in some of the contexts that would seem most obviously relevant to the discussion in which the terms appear.
Click to expand...
In anti oedipus he doesnt define terms but constantly introduces throughout the book new terms that mean essentially the same thing as some old term. It feels very intentional. So after you read for a bit you dont have a stable definition but a word cloud that forms a general concept. The terms attract alot of attention but you get the sense tbe writing isnt overly attached to any of them and in a weird way actually becomes a very common sense and paradoxically anti-academic way of delivering a message if you stick with it
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
craner was the first person to ever use images on his blog. part of his beef with Hatherly is he says Hatherley copied him by using images on his blog
 
versh

versh

Well-known member
linebaugh said:
In anti oedipus he doesnt define terms but constantly introduces throughout the book new terms that mean essentially the same thing as some old term. It feels very intentional. So after you read for a bit you dont have a stable definition but a word cloud that forms a general concept. The terms attract alot of attention but you get the sense tbe writing isnt overly attached to any of them and in a weird way actually becomes a very common sense and paradoxically anti-academic way of delivering a message if you stick with it
Click to expand...
That was something I felt was missing from that person's post. They didn't seem to consider form might be following content.
againstthelogicians.com

Philosophy after Wittgenstein: Deleuze’s production of concepts

For those who find Wittgenstein’s critique of contemporary philosophical problem-solving compelling, but who resist the idea that philosophy should be nothing more than Wittgensteinian therapy, whe…
againstthelogicians.com againstthelogicians.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top