2004-08-31, 16:01
#1
2004-09-09, 15:19
#2
jag tror du frågar i fel forum 
FB-filosofen är sällan påläst, utan gillar mer att diskutera sina egna värden/frågor
jag tror cognito.se kan passa dig bättre
FB-filosofen är sällan påläst, utan gillar mer att diskutera sina egna värden/frågorjag tror cognito.se kan passa dig bättre
2004-09-09, 16:04
#3
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av Henkko
jag tror du frågar i fel forum FB-filosofen är sällan påläst, utan gillar mer att diskutera sina egna värden/frågor
jag tror cognito.se kan passa dig bättre
FB-filosofen är sällan påläst, utan gillar mer att diskutera sina egna värden/frågorjag tror cognito.se kan passa dig bättre
Det hade jag missat, men det verkar lite trist
...dock finns säkert en del bra krafter där som borde komma till FB istället. Filosofiforumet har jag som hastigast tittat till förut, men Flashback är det jag vill skriva lite på efter att Knutbytråden fick mig att lämna den frånvarande iakttagarens position.Deleuze är en utmaning, inte som de levande döda akademifilosofer som uppbär löner lite varstans för att de hjälpligt lyckas kväsa tänkande...ändock jobbade han inom universitetssystemet. Om han lämnat det kunde han kanske blivit än mer nietzscheanskt uppfriskande och verkligt systemfientlig, och dessutom möjligen räddat sin fysiska hälsa.
2004-09-09, 17:24
#5
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av Bleep
Knepigt blir det ibland. Jag uppskattar filosofi och tänkare, men när jag stöter på texter av det här slaget; Maj -68 ägde aldrig rum av Gilles Deleuze / Félix Guattari så får jag eksem.
Kalla mig gärna ytlig, men 'expertprosa' av det slag som återfinns i artikeln skrämmer bort mig. Jag tappar respekten för tänkaren och 'det dunkelt sagda är det dunkelt tänkta' tenderar att bli den floskel med vilken jag dömer texten.
Russel fick Nobelpriset i litteratur. Det hade aldrig skett om han skrivit som en navelskådande kratta. Så tyvärr, noll respekt till Deleuze/Guattari.
Kalla mig gärna ytlig, men 'expertprosa' av det slag som återfinns i artikeln skrämmer bort mig. Jag tappar respekten för tänkaren och 'det dunkelt sagda är det dunkelt tänkta' tenderar att bli den floskel med vilken jag dömer texten.
Russel fick Nobelpriset i litteratur. Det hade aldrig skett om han skrivit som en navelskådande kratta. Så tyvärr, noll respekt till Deleuze/Guattari.
Det var Guattari som smittade honom!
och hans många skitpratande konkurrenter i Paris! Deleuze kunde när han fick för sig det skriva klassiskt klar tankeprosa i den bästa grekiska och franska traditionen, men ibland är han abstrus, ger efter för elevernas förväntningar att få en svårpenetrerad och "gåtfull" text med avskräckande uppstyltad jargong.
2004-09-09, 18:48
#6
Citat:
Elever... hehe... en sak som slår mig när jag läser vad vissa på FB skriver är att 'här har vi en lirare som lyckats skrapa ihop 30 poäng i ett ämne och nu tror sig veta allt'. De är söta de små liven...
Ursprungligen postat av Ezzelino
Deleuze kunde när han fick för sig det skriva klassiskt klar tankeprosa i den bästa grekiska och franska traditionen, men ibland är han abstrus, ger efter för elevernas förväntningar att få en svårpenetrerad och "gåtfull" text med avskräckande uppstyltad jargong.
(Häromdagen läste jag något av en som lyckats klämma in ordet 'redundant' på, om jag inte minns fel, tre ställen i sitt inlägg. Månne hade han lärt sig ordet veckan innan?)Seriöst och 'on topic': Finns det någon god introduktionstext till Deleuze som du kan rekommendera? Gärna en svenskspråkig sådan, språkbarriären är ibland tämligen omständlig att ta sig över.
2005-02-07, 13:54
#9
Jag måste få rekommendera en rätt enastående livlig och skarpsinnig lång intervju med Deleuze som finns inspelad men här sammanfattas på ett utmärkt sätt i en tredelad text. Ett av de mest stimulerande tänkarsamtal som någonsin dokumenterats, tror jag! Ett kort utdrag:
http://www.langlab.wayne.edu/CStivale/D-G/ABC1.html
"---About his bestiary, Deleuze admits his fascination with spiders, ticks and fleas, indicating that even his hatred for certain animals is nourished by his fascination. The first thing that fascinates him, and distinguishes what makes an "animal", is that every animal has an extraordinary, limited world, reacting to very few stimuli (he discusses the restricted world of ticks in some detail), and Deleuze is fascinated by the power of these worlds. Then a second thing that distinguishes an animal is that it also has a territory (Deleuze indicates that with Guattari, he developed a nearly philosophical concept about territory). Constituting a territory is nearly the birth of art: in making a territory, it is not merely a matter of defecatory and urinary markings, but also a series of postures (standing/sitting for an animal), a series of colors (that an animal takes on), a song [un chant]. These are the three determinants of art: colors, lines, song --, says Deleuze, art in its pure state.
Moreover, one must consider behavior in the territory as the domain of property and ownership, territory as "my properties" in the manner of Beckett or Michaux. Deleuze here digresses slightly to discuss the occasional need in philosophy to create "mots barbares", barbaric words, even if the word might exist in other languages, some terms that he and Guattari created together. In order to reflect on territory, he and Guattari created "deterritorialization" (Deleuze says that he has found an English equivalent of "the deterritorialized" in Melville, with "outlandish"). In philosophy, he says, the invention of a barbaric word is sometimes necessary to take account of a new notion: so there would be no territorialization without a vector of leaving the territory, deterritorialization, and there's no leaving the territory, no deterritorialization, without a vector of reterritorialization elsewhere. In animals, these territories are expressed and delimited by an endless emission of signs, reacting to signs (e.g. a spider and its web) and producing signs (e.g. a wolf track or something else), recognized by hunters and trackers in a kind of animal relationship.
Here Parnet wonders if there is a connection between this emission of signs, territory, and writing. Deleuze says that they are connected by living an existence "aux aguets", "ętre aux aguets," always being on the lookout, like an animal, like a writer, a philosopher, never tranquil, always looking back over one's shoulder. One writes for readers, "for" meaning "ā l'attention de," toward them, to their attention. But also, one writes for non-readers, that is, "for" meaning "in the place of," as did Artaud in saying he wrote for the illiterate, for idiots, in their place. Deleuze argues that thinking that writing is some tiny little private affair is shameful; rather, writing means throwing oneself into a universal affair, be it a novel or philosophy. Parnet refers parenthetically to Deleuze and Guattari's discussion of Lord Chandos by Hoffmanstahl in A Thousand Plateaus. Deleuze says that writing means pushing the language, the syntax, all the way to a particular limit, a limit that can be a language of silence, or a language of music, or a language that's, for example, a painful wailing (cf. Kafka's Metamorphosis). Deleuze argues that it's not men, but animals, who know how to die, and he returns to cats, how a cat seeks a corner to die in, a territory for death. Thus, the writer pushes language to the limit of the cry, of the chant, and a writer is responsible for writing "for", in the place of, animals who die, even by doing philosophy. Here, he says, one is on the border that separates thought from the non-thought.---
Ett kort utdrag:http://www.langlab.wayne.edu/CStivale/D-G/ABC1.html
"---About his bestiary, Deleuze admits his fascination with spiders, ticks and fleas, indicating that even his hatred for certain animals is nourished by his fascination. The first thing that fascinates him, and distinguishes what makes an "animal", is that every animal has an extraordinary, limited world, reacting to very few stimuli (he discusses the restricted world of ticks in some detail), and Deleuze is fascinated by the power of these worlds. Then a second thing that distinguishes an animal is that it also has a territory (Deleuze indicates that with Guattari, he developed a nearly philosophical concept about territory). Constituting a territory is nearly the birth of art: in making a territory, it is not merely a matter of defecatory and urinary markings, but also a series of postures (standing/sitting for an animal), a series of colors (that an animal takes on), a song [un chant]. These are the three determinants of art: colors, lines, song --, says Deleuze, art in its pure state.
Moreover, one must consider behavior in the territory as the domain of property and ownership, territory as "my properties" in the manner of Beckett or Michaux. Deleuze here digresses slightly to discuss the occasional need in philosophy to create "mots barbares", barbaric words, even if the word might exist in other languages, some terms that he and Guattari created together. In order to reflect on territory, he and Guattari created "deterritorialization" (Deleuze says that he has found an English equivalent of "the deterritorialized" in Melville, with "outlandish"). In philosophy, he says, the invention of a barbaric word is sometimes necessary to take account of a new notion: so there would be no territorialization without a vector of leaving the territory, deterritorialization, and there's no leaving the territory, no deterritorialization, without a vector of reterritorialization elsewhere. In animals, these territories are expressed and delimited by an endless emission of signs, reacting to signs (e.g. a spider and its web) and producing signs (e.g. a wolf track or something else), recognized by hunters and trackers in a kind of animal relationship.
Here Parnet wonders if there is a connection between this emission of signs, territory, and writing. Deleuze says that they are connected by living an existence "aux aguets", "ętre aux aguets," always being on the lookout, like an animal, like a writer, a philosopher, never tranquil, always looking back over one's shoulder. One writes for readers, "for" meaning "ā l'attention de," toward them, to their attention. But also, one writes for non-readers, that is, "for" meaning "in the place of," as did Artaud in saying he wrote for the illiterate, for idiots, in their place. Deleuze argues that thinking that writing is some tiny little private affair is shameful; rather, writing means throwing oneself into a universal affair, be it a novel or philosophy. Parnet refers parenthetically to Deleuze and Guattari's discussion of Lord Chandos by Hoffmanstahl in A Thousand Plateaus. Deleuze says that writing means pushing the language, the syntax, all the way to a particular limit, a limit that can be a language of silence, or a language of music, or a language that's, for example, a painful wailing (cf. Kafka's Metamorphosis). Deleuze argues that it's not men, but animals, who know how to die, and he returns to cats, how a cat seeks a corner to die in, a territory for death. Thus, the writer pushes language to the limit of the cry, of the chant, and a writer is responsible for writing "for", in the place of, animals who die, even by doing philosophy. Here, he says, one is on the border that separates thought from the non-thought.---
2008-04-08, 22:06
#10
Deleuze
2008-12-18, 23:26
#11
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera
