Milson
Milsonian
Supporter
- 3,376
- 263
We are all phenos that grew to be the way we now are, ya know?
I miss hugs an awful lot. And cuddling/snuggling. But that part has zero to do with a pandemic .
This thing is just a giant breadstick hahaha great excuse to eat all of it tonight while it's hot!Oh no disaster i over proofed in my new oven lmfao oh well it's edible and the crust is good.
View attachment 1056762
Oh no disaster i over proofed in my new oven lmfao oh well it's edible and the crust is good.
View attachment 1056762
We are operating more on a spread concept atm....Nothing cheese can't fix
Honestly dude. That's what is so nuts. You can't.I'm already a little scared going into Capitalism and Schizophrenia, that it might be a bit of circle-jerk of "look how much I've read and how I can poke fun at these men by poking holes in their outdated rhetoric."
Being illiterate, I fear I might not keep up. Although, I do see where you're drawing connections to much of my own rhetoric and thusly recommending it to me. I'll press on. But, I'd be lying if I said my skepticism (and maybe illiteracy) wasn't smashing the glass case around that eject button already.
(also might just be a bit much to swallow with the morning coffee...)
(also, I have this crippling tendency to need to know all of the backstory/reference of something before I get into that thing. So, in this case, I feel like I'd need to read all of Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Reich, Hitler, Miller, Kafka, Lawrence, Proust, Burroughs, Ginsberg, Laing... All Of It!.. to really be able to approach this with any kind of legitimate opinion)
Well put.Honestly dude. That's what is so nuts. You can't.
It's designed to thwart that.
You NEED to let go of that to get anything. NOBODY can get it "completely" because it's like, half poem.
It's metaphors, not concepts. They aren't not explaining to be dicks.
If you believe quantum theory, then it's possible for something to be both there and not there.
Do you need to 100% "get" a complex joke to laugh?
Is a joke true or false?
Is life about as serious as a poignant joke?
Hell of a lot easier to just let go and ride it out after practicing with drugs??????!??!
Honestly dude. That's what is so nuts. You can't.
It's designed to thwart that.
You NEED to let go of that to get anything. NOBODY can get it "completely" because it's like, half poem.
It's metaphors, not concepts. They aren't not explaining to be dicks.
If you believe quantum theory, then it's possible for something to be both there and not there.
Do you need to 100% "get" a complex joke to laugh?
Is a joke true or false?
Is life about as serious as a poignant joke?
Hell of a lot easier to just let go and ride it out after practicing with drugs??????!??!
I never read it more than one section at a time. It's too dense. But again, there is no need and not necessarily any advantage....Well put.
On, I press.
I have a knack for generating really left-field interpretations for shit that the authors never came close to meaning.I never read it more than one section at a time. It's too dense. But again, there is no need and not necessarily any advantage....
It's worth noting that Deleuze wrote before this on david hume, a Scottish philosopher who basically patiently showed the limitations of "i think, therefore I am" as being a not great starting point for philosophy because you can't even get causation from there.
And Deleuze was like "lol that's because the delineation of "I" is basically stupid as is an insistence on Truth"
So he tried to work it out from there.
Literally if all you do is steal one metaphor from the text, it's worth the start. And the authors would agree you don't need to read anymore lmao is it nonsense or great or neither?
Depends what you take. But if you take nothing that's cool and they are sorry you didn't like the show.
There is no normal interpretation! Draw a picture!!!!I have a knack for generating really left-field interpretations for shit that the authors never came close to meaning.
I think it comes from my asociality, rejection of narratives and persuasives, and extreme fondness of the dictionary.
It makes me worse than illiterate... more like hypo-literate, where the individual inputs branch off into a menagerie of possible outcomes. Organizing that shit into anything coherent is like piecing together a play-doh jigsaw puzzle of source code.
Probably one of the reasons I was drawn to expository and descriptive texts... don't leave anything to interpretation, please
I'm ever working through that. This may help curb that a bit.
Basically, I'll get something out of it. Will it be anything close to a normal interpretation? Probably not.
Yeah... a very hara hachi bu approach seems necessary for this one to not bloat you.I never read it more than one section at a time. It's too dense.
(This might have come off a bit arrogant. Trust me, it's a disability. I'm probably "on the spectrum" as people have classified it these days.)
I never read it more than one section at a time. It's too dense. But again, there is no need and not necessarily any advantage....
It's worth noting that Deleuze wrote before this on david hume, a Scottish philosopher who basically patiently showed the limitations of "i think, therefore I am" as being a not great starting point for philosophy because you can't even get causation from there.
And Deleuze was like "lol that's because the delineation of "I" is basically stupid as is an insistence on Truth"
So he tried to work it out from there.
Literally if all you do is steal one metaphor from the text, it's worth the start. And the authors would agree you don't need to read anymore lmao is it nonsense or great or neither?
Depends what you take. But if you take nothing that's cool and they are sorry you didn't like the show.
which introduction?Sorry to keep going back to this, but... man, that intro is really fucking discouraging in contrast to the content of their writing (and the translator - who does a phenomenal job with their reference notes, etc.)
It's definitely convoluted, but it's very fluid once you get past the bad taste in your mouth from the introduction. For me, at least.
It's like... yeah, it contextualizes it. But it does it in such a superfluous and elitist manner as to kind of say, "you'll be left in the dust if you're not keen to these philosophies." That's how I took it, at least. And one of the reasons I've always been repulsed by academia - that elitism that sees peoples' noses pointed high to the sky up each other's asses.
Thanks for the persistent recommendation! (I'll touch back when I consume and process a larger portion of it.)