Anti-Identity: Becoming-Woman and Becoming-Imperceptible in Deleuze and Guattari w/ Claire Colebrook

Рет қаралды 5,969

Acid Horizon

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 40

@Joidhdss Ай бұрын

These subtitles are awesome! Amazing job! ❤

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

We have been working on a way to make these discussions more accessible overtime. I am glad we finally found a way to do so! One of the reasons that is able to happen is because people support us financially. So if you were reading this and you love what we do, please become a patron at any level.

@henrybemis9956 Ай бұрын

I really wish this were much longer. I shouldn't complain but it felt she was just starting to get cooking just over hallway through. Please have her again if you can.

@ed7240 Ай бұрын

Amazing! Please have her on again. I've been reading her books to understand Deleuze, and it has been the best source for me. Thank you all for this 🙏🏼.

@carlobernal5502 Ай бұрын

Thank you SO MUCH for the subtitles!

@tonigomez1855 Ай бұрын

This gave me a new perspective on becoming-woman and becoming-imperceptible. Loved it!

@Garrett1240 Ай бұрын

This was wonderful. Hopefully you two can speak again for us.

@ivan_ivankovich Ай бұрын

Massively surprised, as one of the resources I've made use of when trying to understand Deleuze is Colebrook's introductory book on him. Great convo also.

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

Thank you. It was a privilege and honor to have that discussion!

@desagesse Ай бұрын

Wonderful guest! Thank you, Craig. I love the sound of your voice btw. Becoming imperceptible and releasing attachments sounds quite similar to Buddhism, doesn't it?

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

I was very intrigued by Claire's use of the word 'attachment' in this context, to say the least. There is definitely a connection to be made for those working in Buddhism.

@ignisimber2818 Ай бұрын

This was a great talk

@_supersolar Ай бұрын

We think the term 'anti-identity politics' is already claimed and marred. May we suggest 'post-identity politics'? Interested in the book, but we can't afford it oops

@helloInternets Ай бұрын

Buddha Bodies! Anatta non-self.

@stephaniequick2683 Ай бұрын

enjoyed this conversation and will listen again! it's a treat to hear a woman's voice, as well. I would have appreciated more of a definition of 'feminism', I'm 62 and just in my lifetime there's been a number of different schools/definiteions of feminism. I recall being in elementary school and the theory (?) of feminism that was most apparent in my sphere was the idea that women's traditional work and functions in society should be valued as much as men's traditional work/roles. so for ex childcare should be compensated, given status, supported as important by society, be performed as much by men as by women. but then when I was a teen it started to shift to feminism as 'well women can do all the things men can do, ie work for wages or salaries and participate in the exploitation of the capitalist economy as earners as well as exploiters, even if it's in v small numbers by percentage, and then that will be equality yay!' so women had the opportunity to live 'male' lives in the economy and society, while the idea of valuing traditional work done by women started to fade out (around the time Reagan started referring to 'consumers' rather than 'citizens'). Anyways I would be interested to see the ideas of becoming-woman and becoming imperceptible addressed in light of these different approaches to/definitions of feminism at some point. thank you again, what a treat!!!

@TheSatBodhi Ай бұрын

I feel like Deleuze's becoming imperceptible and Simone Weil's decreation has a lot in common or at least there are some similarities in how yall kind of spoke about it. They both kind of speak to overcoming the limits of indiviuality and experiencing or reaching out towards these larger experiences whether a plane of immanence or some divine reality. Obviously Weil's is more spiritual and transcendental, but I think they both are using or talking about a similar technique to achieve I suppose different experiences. This was a great discussion. You have gained a new follower. I look forward to diving into your other discussions.

@pierre-marccote6989 Ай бұрын

Heads up ! The Spotify upload falls silent after a few minutes

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

thank you! we replaced the file but for some reason Spotify is not complying with the change:(

@friedux2065 Ай бұрын

Grerat discussion, what necklace are you wearing? Is that shungite or some other EMF related wearable?

@hermanolo Ай бұрын

And Tom Clancy's books behind!

@stagemaker8869 Ай бұрын

I think one could also add, without reducing D & G's concepts regarding becoming to an orthodox Jungianism, that there is a parallel here with Jung's own notions with respect to becoming, i.e., in his terms, 'individuation.' Becoming-woman parallels (again, without simply reducing one to the other) coming to terms with the anima in Jung's psychology. The anima is, for a male (there is also an animus for a woman!), the 'other' within himself which he is suppressing in order to maintain the (very unstable and delicate!) masculine persona. The latter might, for example, take the form of an overly-rational, anti-sentimental stance; in that case, the anima would have to do with suppressed affective dimensions. Then 'becoming-woman' would concern the male's encountering previously unexpressed or unacknowledged possibilities of feeling (of care, of tenderness, etc.), and of being able to open himself to them, as a matter of practice. None of it, certainly, has to do with 'becoming-A-woman' (a slip of the tongue on Craig's part?), or, initially, with feminism per se. But, again, all this is by way of suggesting another horizon to these concepts (for becoming-animal, the Shadow, perhaps; for becoming-imperceptible, individuation itself) -- not to negate the very useful current discussion or to reduce D & G to Jung.

@narendrasomawat5978 Ай бұрын

Feminism is caltural gynocentrecism and transgenderism. Yes it's true that both man and woman have multiple aspects of personality but still it compliment for each man and woman. The feminist concept of gender is just absurd and authotarians. Patriarchy is gender equality and feminism is sexism.

@tes.saract Ай бұрын

I stumbled across this video as someone without much of a background in philosophy and it was all so interesting - do you have any recommendations for where to start in understanding some more of the basics of becoming-woman?

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

The chief text for this concept is A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guattari. It might seem daunting to jump in, especially once you get a glimpse of the particular chapter/plateau where they cover that concept ("Becoming-Intense, Becoming Animal..."), but it might be a rewarding endeavor for you! If you can find Claire's book, she does an excellent job of making this concept and it's relevance pretty lucid.

@tes.saract Ай бұрын

@@AcidHorizonthank you so much I'll absolutely give it a try! Fingers crossed I can maybe find her book too - the way she speaks here is so engaging.

@wooblewobble2611 Ай бұрын

@@tes.saractSince A Thousand Plateaus is an exceptionally challenging book even for someone with an extensive background in philosophy, I'd also recommend the Critical Introduction and Guide to it by Brent Adkins. Aside from clarifying the concepts, it provides a helpful summary of Deleuze's previous work and overall philosopical project to contextualize what's going on in A Thousand Plateaus. You can find the pdf of it online to see if it looks helpful before you buy

@skihik591 Ай бұрын

Towards the end when yall are talking about the importance of Deleuze on Cinema and acting as if one does not have a point of view, how does that square with the writing off of the analytic stuff (thinking ex nihilo) at the beginning? That seems like it could be a fruitful contradiction. Obviously Deleuze hated Wittgenstein, but I wonder about that discord and resonance between the ex--nihilo aspirations of the analytic philosopher and the imperceptible in terms of the value of doing philosophy.

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

Not to speak for Claire, but based on Deleuze's writings on thought and my own experience in a program that was predominantly analytic, it seems a virtue among some in analytic philosophy to think without mediators. However, the world of analytic philosophy today is marked by some common tendencies and base presuppositions which often go unexamined. For example, I recall in one of my seminars with an analytic prof we were hammering on variations of arguments surrounding "snow is white iff snow is white", and we always seemed to end up at place where we began. Often the final grounding of these arguments (especially in phil of language or metaphysics) left one wanting. In short, it seemed to me like philosophy began where we had decided to stop! This is where Deleuze seems stronger by comparison, especially in terms of his positing an outside to thought which is constitutive of thought. If we accept this contingency, it illuminates the difficulty of thinking the new. One of the conditions of creating new concepts is a refusal of commonly held presuppositions; the other side of this endeavor is being struck by the force of non-thought. In the case of cinema or art as mode of thinking, the constellation of a new perspective involves a similar rupture while navigating within and around clichés. With this in mind, it's difficult to imagine a viably pure generation of an idea. But perhaps one possible fruitful alternative, as Claire points out, is the adoption of a perspective, a thinking from the position of X, this Spinozist-Nietzschean stoicism she mentions.

@skihik591 Ай бұрын

@@AcidHorizon Thanks for the thoughtful response! that's really helpful. I highly recommend Nahum Chandler's work on "X". He's a more Derridean than Deleuzian, however, I see a great deal of overlap in terms of trying to create new conceptual outsides. Also recommend Frederic Neyrat's newest work on radical existentialism if you haven't heard of him! He's really good at navigating the Deleuzian flows and analytic scaffolds in a unique blend/conceptualization of "eccentricity"

@RazziLuix Ай бұрын

I think the conflicting relationships in environments is Man. "Becoming A Woman"...is biologically referencing atypical counter partner. This is an Ethical Inquiry. Rules for dynamics, which send to develop outcomes. An Effective, Disciplined - Wholeness. Is the security of agency guiding occurrences. That could seem dominant. ❤ Would incite Man

@boomybread9356 Ай бұрын

where is she going?

@AcidHorizon Ай бұрын

Back to Melbourne

@jamesgphillips91 Ай бұрын

I need to spend more time with this, but short answer to your click bait is no. They just acknowledge that what we normally consider an identity is a continual becoming.