About Deleuze - Lecture 2_2 and 3

[@BatOrgilBatsaikhan]

Love his enthusiasm and care for clear thought!

[@hmena9934]

We love american Foucault!!!!

[@DelandaBaudLacanian]

Todd May even contributed material to Michael Schur's The Good Place!

[@counterr6750]

The guy participates in the idea of Foucault

[@bodhicitta111]

Never thought I'd hear Jerry Seinfeld talking about the difference in itself....

[@beckyisza]

Hahaha I had that same feeling!

[@lukehall8151]

Not that there's anything wrong with that

[@fangednominals1785]

"What's the deal with substantialist metaphysics?"

[@lexparsimoniae2107]

Todd is a magnificent teacher! Thank you for uploading these.

[@jackjohnson7037]

Might be the best thing on youtube

[@ophelia6997]

He's literally just bald and wearing glasses and everyone is like: OMG HE IS IMITATING FOUCAULT?!??!

[@disneylandonfire3538]

Word

[@questioningheart]

thank you for series...

[@Signforfame]

Thanks this talk is uplifting and helpful

[@gocomcast]

continue with Nietzsche 28'55 plato; 44'44 begins lecture 3 2:15:3 6 transcendental expiricism

[@kruledrew]

When you bang your hand against the wall in different ways, remarkable, interesting and important things might happen. It is truth. But what kinds of truth might happen when you bang your hand on the wall? Who wouldn't want to see you accidentally knock the whole whiteboard over. This is why I think art is so essential and love Neitzsche's conception of the ancient Greeks and their tragedies. Create new truths that reflect difference and through dramatic performance and portray difference in itself through a drama.

[@LucBoeren]

I like this a lot. Thank you Todd May!

[@snakeweirdo]

It's interesting, because I see a parallel between this Deleuzian understanding of difference and the Tao in the Tao Te Ching. Here's a stanza: 1 The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery. Here's another one: 2 Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is evil. Therefore having and not having arise together. Difficult and easy complement each other. Long and short contrast each other: High and low rest upon each other; Voice and sound harmonize each other; Front and back follow one another. This to me illustrates the difficulty of naming that which is the source of creation, because otherwise it will be essentialized, turned into identity. It illustrates difference, not in term of contradiction, but in terms of a creative mutuality, a complementarity.

[@snakeweirdo]

The difference is just that there is no need for affirmative action in Taoism, since acting with purpose goes against the very thing that is acted upon, by inscribing identity into it, this is why one should act as though not acting (wu-wei).

[@cheers6043]

Interesting because Deleuze & Guattari discuss the Tao in A Thousand Plateaus on the “How To Make Yourself A Body Without Organs” chapter (or plateau as they’d call it)

[@snakeweirdo]

@@cheers6043 Aha. Thank you for the reference, I will have to look into it.

[@blake9541]

so so glad I am not the only one. my current conclusion is that the Dao is this 'creator' of difference.

[@danstratford5599]

So, when Todd said, okay let's stop for 5 mins, I was like THANK GOD, still trying to process which was good sense and which was common sense... forgetting, of course, that I'm watching on KZbin and could actually stop the recording whenever I want.

[@gocomcast]

"i put my soul out here in front of you" 1:40:22

[@wezzuh2482]

Mange tak for at uploade dem her!

[@thisisfractopia]

When May says the thing that eternally returns is not the same but rather the difference, is he not referring to something like a "dynamic" or a (perhaps 4-dimensional) "template" or even a "branching narrative structure" in which different identities play the valent roles? Because that's how I understand it, and yet I wonder why he never uses any words like "template" or "dynamic" or "narrative structure." Am I misunderstanding?

[@MatthewLowery]

This Is Fractopia the whole point is that if you say that what returns is a “template” or “structure” you’re negating difference in advance and confining it to pre-established categories. Deleuze was a post-structuralist.

[@yuanlin8959]

"we should follow the lead of who don't know what everyone knows, who take the encounter, who is worthy of the event.." does this sounds a Deleuze's identity?

[@yuanlin8959]

Kant's transcendental idealism is "in our minds" "we bring the conditions to and impose them on our experience", so does Deleuze's transcendental empiricism still "in our minds", the difference are also imposed on our real experience? or the differences can be both in our minds, but also out of our minds--intersubjective?

[@MAAEEULAZ]

Probably more accurately transcendentalism can be described as things that express the possibility of experience. Though it’s kind of an odd way of putting it, Kant believed the a priori were the conditions for experience and Deleuze probably though the same for difference in itself

[@jean-claudepopot208]

For me its unclear, what the story of the selling of the car, the sincere with background of deception, the machinery of that imperative etc... what exactly that exemplifies, is he still referring to the structure of thought from before: remarquable, important the intereseting. Or is it simply the point, that that imperative doesnt create any new consequences?!

[@bryannoonan5454]

Fuck yeah. This is wonderful, thank you.

[@lukehall8151]

Lovely, but am I supposed to not notice the extent to which this gentleman has cultivated his appearance to be like Foucault's?

[@DragonZombie2000]

By being bald and wearing glasses?

[@lukehall8151]

@@reeseriley225 @@reeseriley225 what nonsense you let slip from your fingers! It appears 'your' breathtaking arrogance can't apprehend a joke. 'I' love Foucault, 'I' love Todd, why 'I' even love 'you'! Reread that last comment of 'yours'-can't you see how it reeks of priggish negativity, cold hate? On the other hand, love loves to love love.

[@jobebrian]

I think we are supposed to notice this-as a Repetition. And then we’re supposed to look for the Difference.

[@jobebrian]

He’s presenting the Dogmatic Image of Post-Structuralism.

[@jobebrian]

And it isn’t easy!

[@onceuponatimeinhongkong8576]

if what returns is difference, then can it be considered a "return" in the first place?

[@firebolt6306]

the "difference" here has a different meaning for Deleuze, not the one understood as something between two identities.

[@lukeskirenko]

@@firebolt6306 It doesn't work though, it's not a move that can be made. If the domain of Deleuzean difference can be assigned temporary identities via thought it presupposes that difference has a structure, and structure already presupposes identity. To use the wanky term, identity is always already present in the notion of difference. If conceptualisation is the act of imposing identities on difference, the only way there could be a criterion as to whether they were correctly imposed is if the thing on which it is imposed already has a structure, and then we're back at the fact that structure presupposes identity. He appears to have conflated specific conceptualisation with Identity as an abstract absolute, as if to say that if current conceptualisation is shown to be inadequate by new experience it must be the fact that Identity in itself is a construct. But there's no need to go that far, the only step required is to say that certain 'identities', or concepts are inadequate. Seems to me that Deleuze thinks he's gotten to the noumena with the move to call it difference, and that phenomena are accounted for by identities, but really by trying to instantiate this realm of difference it was necessary to pressupose identity in it, which really comes back to the Kantian observation that the only way to conceive of the relation between thoughts and an external world is to accept that all accounts of an external world presuppose certain base concepts, and that's the limit of thought.

[@o.s.h.4613]

@@lukeskirenkoBrother, no. Any identity you apprehend in difference is an ontic claim that comes from the already-constituted subjectivity; that you can talk about identity in difference as (non)-being doesn’t say anything about (non)-being itself, as if words alone could conjure things into existence.

[@lukeskirenko]

@@o.s.h.4613 This raises the question, what concepts are pressuposed by the claim that there is a 'constituted subjectivity'? Can the claim be made merely with reference to metaphysics, or can it only be made be going beyond metaphysics and into science?

[@Yash42189]

Isn't it rather absurd to talk about difference, its creativity, how it eternally returns and so on, without first establishing what difference is?

[@BatOrgilBatsaikhan]

establishing difference in itself, without involving any sorts of identities, is difference in itself. It does feel a bit elusive, because establishing difference as X, difference as Y, cannot escape X and Y as identities. We can only try to establish difference as something like X (as kind of like a myth, through copies, or Simulacrums), and I think that is precisely what he seems to be doing as difference in itself. I'm not Deleuze expert, take my word with a grain of salt.

[@maxwellabarbanel8471]

I think he sorts of defines it as intensity. He sort of uses Kant's idea of intensity (as opposition to rationalist theories about extension) "The expression 'difference of intensity' is a tautology. Intensity is the form of difference in so far as this is the reason of the sensible." An example of an intensity would be temperature. No two things can ever be exactly the same temperature because there is infinite room for error. However something like quantity would be an extensity because you can have definite amounts. Because there is infinite room for difference within intensity, Deleuze thinks of them as the same thing. Difference is sort of the thing that drives sensation.

[@harris9766]

todd cool

[@tomio8072]

Why does Deleuze think a reactive dialectic of difference is “bad”?

[@counterr6750]

Just because it is reactive. It is all in "Nietzsche and philosophy", his rather readable book. I can't put it all here, but it comes down to dialectics being the final form of nihilism. Edit: deeper reason that can be put in a comment - according to him, Max Stirner is right on dialectical grounds

[@tobincharles8651]

because a reactive dialectic relies entirely on negation rather than affirmation, and negation means identities precede difference, while deleuze wants to make a thought which affirms difference by making difference primary instead of identity, if you watch the lecture before this he says all this in the last hour or so

[@tomio8072]

@@tobincharles8651 thanks :)

[@tobincharles8651]

@@tomio8072 no problem, even if it's a comment a year old I'll take the chance to btfo hegel.

[@HybridHalfie]

@@counterr6750 love this comment “the dialectic is the final form of nihilism” I am totally stealing that sometime