/lit/ - Literature

>>7787089
More ad hominem attacks from people who are unwilling to explain themselves? Way to contribute to the discussion.

I've been posting here for three days, and each time I ask a person to explain themselves, they scurry off and run away from the debate, or simply issue out more ad hominem statements. I thought /lit/ would be slightly better than some other forum sites, but it’s not. Honestly, I sort of expected this and am not really surprised by any of it.

I conclude that there are no serious discussions to be had here. This is simply a shit-posting site where people come to derail threads for the lulz. I thought that maybe a few people would be interested in having discussions, but no... this is clearly not the case.

Farewell /lit/. I barely knew thee.

>>7787089
More ad hominem attacks from people are unwilling to explain themselves? Way to contribute to the discussion.

I've been posting here for three days, and each time I ask a person to explain themselves, they scurry off and run away from the debate, or simply issue out more ad hominem statements. I thought /lit/ would be slightly better than some other forum site, but it’s not. Honestly, I sort of expected this and am not really surprised by any of it.

I conclude that there are no serious discussions to be had here. This is simply a shit-posting site where people come to derail threads for the lulz. I thought that maybe a few people would be interested in having discussions, but no... that is clearly not the case.

Farewell /lit/. I barely knew thee.

>>7787061
>try to understand what is said (or may be said, or can't be said) in a text
Yes. Words are reflective of culture. As Barthes said: "To rob a man of his language is the first step in all legal murders." Language is very much alive in the cultural sense, and we need to understand that culture in order to understand how the words are being used. Is this what you mean?

>>7787013
>Artaud
Yes. The whole Body Without Organs comes from Artaud to begin with.

>working with schizophrenics
Also, I would recommend "The Mary Barnes' Trip" by Guattari. I think it's found in his book Chaosophy. You can read it here: http://www.aaronvandyke.net/summer_readings/Guattari_Felix-Mary_Barnes_Trip.pdf

>>7786993
He's not going to explain anything even though he is a professor in the field (allegedly). I already asked multiple times.

>>7786991
Yes, yes, I understand. We are using technical terminologies here. And those terms have specific definitions that must first be defined before we can use them in discussion. I get it. I apologize for the confusion. I've been typing too much and my eyes are going.

>>7786974
>I don't think s/he was saying anything at all about semantics
>S/He was saying that the way you are understanding the words is different from how the rest of us are understanding them.

Yeah. That would be semantics. The MEANING of the word itself. Our meanings clearly differ, thus it is a semantics issue. I don't deny this, though, as I stated in my previous post.

>>7786945
>talking about how to comprehend a text/work's internal coherence
Ah, I see. I'm sorry. I misinterpreted what you said. And, yes. It is difficult to understand Deleuze. I think (like Derrida ) the style is a great part of the message itself (like McLuhan stated, "the medium is the message"). Hoe you convey something is just as important as what is being conveyed. Deleuze & Guattari write like schizophrenics in the book, and it is clearly intentional.

>because as the very core I think it would be a massive disagreement about root definitions of used words.

You think it's just semantics, then? I admit that communication is difficult with words since we can defer different meanings between them, making communication an act that always results in some level of misinterpretation. But I don't think that's enough reason to stop speaking and/or communicating all together. Shouldn't we still work with the tools we have even though they are flawed?

Also, thank you for actually responding and discussing these things with me. It's nice to have a friendly chat.

>>7786923
> I am trying to point out that your reading is by no means an accurate one.

And I am simply asking for you to explain why. Working at a university, you should be more than capable of doing that. Especially when the work in question is in your main field of expertise.

>I'm aggressive because I'm from an older gen.

That's an accuse your making for yourself. if you want to be aggressive and confrontational it's because you choose to be.

> You think I'm being a pussy

I never said that. I just think it's hypocritical to say someone is completely wrong about something and then outright refuse to explain why.

>>7786896

I don't have an ego. As I said, I don't believe in interpreting things to be true. And I don't believe in petty power struggles between people.

I'm not mad. In fact, this thread has given me some nice chuckles. I'm not saying I'm surprised by any of it either. I just find it slightly disheartening that no one wants to talk about anything.

Amazing writer. One of our favorite poets. Wintering Out is our favorite work of his.

Quentin is my favorite Faulkner character. That 2nd part (the shadow of the sash) is brilliant.

If you think TSATF is good, then you really need to read Absalom, Absalom! It's even more fun. And I think it's Faulkner's best.

And get some whisky while you're at it!

>>7786863
I agree that we are probably using the term ideology in different ways.

> I don't think this person told you "he won't sit here and tell you" to win a debate or despise you on a argument of authority

I'm not looking to have a debate, but a discussion. Debates usually have winners and losers (things that I consider to be false dichotomies). Winning and losing purely egocentric and based on Power.

> "read with the thinker"

Yes. There is the Death of the Author aspect to any work. But the poster (1) said everything I said was incorrect and (2) outwardly refused to explain why. That's just nonsense.

>>7786837
>I'm not going to explain anything to you, but I know what I'm talking about

What bullshit. You haven't explained yourself one bit. Your entire response can be summed up as follows: "I am not going to explain anything. Read it yourself."

That's a BS cop-out. If you are going to say I am wrong, you need to tell me why. Saying my understanding of ideology is ultimately wrong without even offering the slightest explanation as to why is intellectually lazy.

> If you can't tell, I'm familiar with Deleuze.
No, I can't tell because you refuse to explain anything. All you are doing is citing works. You aren't explaining anything.

>>7786726
>understand how he reads the "non-place."
Heterotopia? That relates with the idea of the Other and the idea of difference and identity. But, as I said, these are all illusions driven by language. It's purely symbolic. Therefore, it's fundamentally nonsensical. Thus my advocacy of the nihilist in such systems. If it's all socially constructed BS, then why believe in it? One who frees himself from ideological dispositions: that's what a nihilist is.

>>7786726
>(the smaller individually focused works as well as D&R
I have also read Difference & Repetition. I understand how the sense of difference relates to the concept of identity. Deleuze rejects dualism and focuses on unities.

Identity is an illusion driven by associating with petty symbolic differences that we see in people. It is purely symbolic and based in semantics. When we see beyond this sense of difference, we fundamentally remove any person identity (or sense of self), thus de-centering the subject.

This is why I relate Deleuze's ideas so much to nihilism. He is showing us how these ideas (like identity) are socially constructed by language, and are, at great lengths, illusory.

Lacan talked about this in a similar light with his psychoanalytic triptych: The Real; Symbolic; and Imaginary Realm.

The Symbolic is the subconscious association of symbols. The Imaginary is the cultural realm that we create for ourselves when we interpret certain symbols and signs as forms of truth (this is ideology). And the Real is that which cannot be attained since we do not have the language to convey it. This could be seen in line with Korzybski's quotes: "The map is not the territory." We can talk about the territory, but we can't access it with words.

>>7786726
>Read Foucault
I’ve read Foucault's intro to Anti-Oedipus (as well as several of his other works). He talks about the mental fascist in all our minds (how people like to crown themselves king or queen in their own little fascist lands of illusion based on Power ideology). This is a dangerous form of power, where people see themselves as being above others (a hierarchical system of Order: a root system that is non-node-like or rhizomatic).
>I'm not going to sit here and tell you where exactly you're wrong and how you ought to be reading him
So, you can’t explain it then? I am well aware of why Anti-Oedipus was created. To show the absurdity of psychoanalytic theories. Hence the creation is schizoanalysis (if that is what you are referencing). I didn’t talk about this since that wasn’t OP’s question.
>Desire is not linked to ideology
Then why do Deleuze & Guattari say desire is a productive force? Also, why do D&G say (in What Is Philosophy?) Philosophy is the discipline involved with creating concepts. Pretty sure, when you create a concept that concept is an ideology of some kind. Like I said, philosophers create concepts (like the full body does). It’s a productive force linked to ideology.
>Considering the debt that Deleuze owes to Nietzsche
Even though Nietzsche was one of the most famous existential philosophers, making the statement that “there are no truths, only interpretations”? Or are you referencing his Will to Power? Because, yes, this would have a huge influence on what I already mentioned about Foucault.

I’m interested in having a discussion. Pretty sure that’s what this place is for.

>>7786661
Please explain it to me then. I am more than willing to listen.

It's a sad tale, but one of my favorite childhood books. Personally, looking back on it as an adult, it reads more as a suicide note from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry than anything else. He was pretty eager to go on suicide mission while flying for the French Air Force.

>>7786612
>I'd rather think it's the exact opposite regarding the first post
I suppose it could be the opposite as you state. After all, if one has a desire, they could then use that desire to create a set of new ideologies for themselves.

Desires and ideology play off each other. This is why Lacan and Zizek in particular talk about desire with relation to ideology.

For example, Zizek talks about why diet soda sells so well due to the fact that their is less guilt generally associated with consuming it (since there are no calories).

We can play off people's ideologies in order to generate a consumer society. In fact, many of our values and beliefs come from our economic systems. As the old saying goes: If you can control how people think, you can covertly control how they act.

not /lit related.

/end thread

saged

>>7786545

False dichotomy.

I do like Sexton's "The Truth the Dead Know," though.

>>7786002
>Sublime Object of Ideology
Shocked more people don't recommend this. It's one of his earliest; but, still, one of his best books.

>>7785740

This is a separate post I made elsewhere on this site. But, it also pertains to this discussion, so I'll drop it here, too:

Zizek is talking about how people act in certain ways in cultural systems because they are being manipulated by ideology. We create ideals in our heads (which we interpret to be true). These ideals then motivate us to do things because we find meaning in them.

Ideology makes us act based on things we find meaningful (even though meaning is simply a social construction brought about by ideology).
Ideology is like the strings on a puppet. The puppet thinks he is moving of his own accord, when, in fact, he is being manipulated by ideology.

As Zizek states (and I am paraphrasing): Ideology is the shit we flush down the toilet. We all have different kinds of shits (different relative things we interpret to be true), but all of them are still just shit; and they should be flushed down the sewers just the same. This is what he also means when he talks about the trashcan of ideology.