Anti-Oedipus - Part 1 | Desiring-machines & the Body Without Organs

[Thumbnail image includes an altered version of a painting entitled "Twins" by artist David Delruelle]
This video is the first of a three-part mini-series dedicated to Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari.
In this video, I address the following concepts:
04:05 Machines
06:42 Flows and Partial Objects
08:32 Desiring-machines
11:06 The Body Without Organs
To become a Patreon member:
/ singularsublime
#deleuze #antioedipus #bodywithoutorgans

[@SingularityasSublimity]

To support this work, please consider providing a one-time tip through the "Super ThankYou" option above. You can also be an ongoing supporter as a Patreon member where you can obtain transcripts and unedited materials.

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

Brian, what, in your opinion, is the best way to define the “socius”?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

The hard part for me was distinguishing between the socius and social machines. How I’ve come to understand the difference is that the socius is that field in which desiring-machines invest their energies, forming a collectivity of desiring machines. Social machines are a kind of organized superstructure that emerges from the socius which enacts set of inscriptions, proscriptions, and axioms (depending on the machine) to regulate and repress the subversive flows of desiring production that make up those machines. Part 2 will be all about this.

[@davidtanphilosophy]

I am currently going through Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus for my class. Thank you for this summary of AO. I have always found D&G fascinating cultural critics. It is always a pleasure to view your healthy thought-out videos.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

your welcome David! hope to get to Thousand Plateaus at some point.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

I am left to wonder what is so fasinating about their work?

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

Really great work, Brian!

[@ruvindrasathsarani6064]

you explain it so well and i must say you have very beautiful blue eyes!

[@24434sa]

Good to have you back!

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Its good to be back!

[@cynicalkiwi9366]

Oh yeah, It's all coming together /\ I I I I Doesn't know what the fuck is going on

[@thevanishingmediators]

Thoroughly enjoying this series! ❤

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Glad to hear it. Next video we return to Seminar IV

[@tbry9376]

This is so helpful, thank you!

[@OH-pc5jx]

woah! what a twist!

[@Naypa11]

amazing next step

[@vrixphillips]

oh wow, thanks so much. I'm reading this for class and this is SUPER helpful.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

You're very welcome!

[@ibralderas]

thank u so much for this vid!!

[@viktorbraa]

great work!🎉

[@alish4498]

Very clear video, best Ive seen. I wish you made a longer more detailed one

[@MrMittomen]

The cover is great too! :D

[@arturnienartowicz5278]

Thanks for the video. - extremely approachable way of delivering ideas.

[@bogdanandone9022]

This channel is it !

[@danielbrockman1221]

Thanks!

[@nejlaroutsong2847]

Thank you so much for these excellent video synopses of Anti-Oedipus in Deleuze and Gattari. I’m reading Zizek’s Surplus Enjoyment now and he mentions anti-oedipus as a more authentic radical position for political movements to articulate themselves in, so that has brought me to learn more about Deleuze and Gattari’s work on this subject. Why do you say that psychoanalysis “inadvertently” established The Oedipus Comolex / desire and lack as the basis of the psyche which undermines and subverts radical movements? I mean it seems likely that it wasn’t completely inadvertent and at least somewhat intentional and strategic as capital interests still largely control the psychological and medical institutions in our society. Thanks again for the wonderful videos and clear explanations of these very important concepts!

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you for your comments and support. I say “inadvertent” only because it seemed as though D&G suggested as much and that psycho analysts often think they are being revolutionary in their theoretical approach (at least in my experience). But, either way, intentions matter little when it comes to the perpetuation of ideology since social machines promote them regardless of any degree of intention. All that to say, I should have left that word out because what matters is the function of machines and not the aims of conscious subjects.

[@goodleshoes]

Great videos. I'm watching this series a few times. It helps me understand the book a lot easier. Have you considered doing videos on Nick Land? He's the reason I'm trying to learn about Deleuze.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

I’ve not read Nick Land but since seeing your post, I’m now noticing that name popping up several places on the internet. Will look into this thinker. thank you.

[@AngeUhhLina]

Me too LOL

[@inbfu1513]

Would you please make a video on the essay 'The Autonomy of Affect' by Brian Massumi? Thanks!

[@ieronim272]

From your presentation of it, the body without organs is literally just the idea of "matter" since Aristotle

[@SingularityasSublimity]

I'm sure there are several points of connection and overlap. The question that interests me is always this: How does such a seemingly similar concept function differently in this context/philosophy than in the other? Or what subtle nuances are there that distinguish the idea of matter in these two presentations of the concept?

[@stanimirstoyanov1673]

@@SingularityasSublimity The Aristotelian matter/hyle is passive and inactive (matter is seen as a 'potency' activated by the form/morphe - hence the name of the whole doctrine is called hylomorphism), while the Deleuzian BwO is active and self-organizing (it 'fights' against its organization by the desiring machines). I don't think that the parallel is very accurate.

[@1alopezg]

very cool and helpful vid! where does that wonderful/revolting image come from?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Its an altered version of a painting entitled "Twins" by artist David Delruelle

[@kishorekulchandra9384]

Can you apply lacan theory to the lambda Google. It has signifiers and say's things like human brain

[@ocnus1.61]

"Well, except for having been cooked on a frying pan" HAHA

[@Eta_Carinae__]

Man Deleuze really frustrates me sometimes. This all sounds to me like a mechanistic/functionalist description of desire and it's emergence. That's fine, and actually valuable too, but it seems so overly wrought - we don't need to invoke much of this language to get at the main point.

[@johnmccrae52]

totally get where you're coming from but d&g use these concepts to take their ideas much further than the scope of this video, which does an excellent job of introducing key terms/themes etc but as a result lacks the depth of the source material (not a criticism as it's what makes the prior possible)

[@ongobongo8333]

I think the complexity of the text hints at concepts that fundamentally cant be communicated through languages.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@johnmccrae52 eli5

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@ongobongo8333 complicating things just to amuse the intelligentsia

[@batch2000]

What's 'parallergisms' ?

[@PISTOLAS98]

Do you think that lacan gave a better explaination for the ontology and orgin of desire, and also for the logics of capitalism in the Capitlaist discourse ?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

I struggle to get on board with the idea that there is revolutionary potential in the unfettered flows of desiring machines. I also struggle with the idea that lack is something distinct to the capitalist machine as it appropriates and deploys elements of the totalitarian machine. I see lack having a far longer and more encompassing history in humans. Lacan seems to me to be less sanguine toward the possibility of any reality (symbolic or otherwise) that does not maintain some hierarchical expression of power and alienation. I'm temperamentally inclined to agree, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if I come across a strong enough argument. In general, I like what Zizek has argued concerning excess and lack or drive and desire that demonstrates their dialectical relationship.

[@PISTOLAS98]

@@SingularityasSublimity Thank you so much for your explaination, you earned a sub

[@Nimue_Hexadragon]

According to Chomsky, this kind of talks is “the diarrhea of pen”…🤣

[@franceso5266]

i need your notes lol

[@scum1979]

fog off cedar bonnet

[@ScottBurton11]

This mic placement is driving me crazy, invest in a lavalier or something

[@ScottBurton11]

quite simply one does not place a large diaphragm dynamic mic off-axis