Capitalism and Schizophrenia

[info]

Has anyone read either Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus or both by Deleuze and Guattari? I recently read both and would be interested in discussing if someone has.

I can't help you with these particular titles ... Deleuze and Guattari.

These books are required reading for philosophers today.

[chaz wyman]

Has anyone read either Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus or both by Deleuze and Guattari? I recently read both and would be interested in discussing if someone has.

I can't help you with these particular titles ... Deleuze and Guattari.

These books are required reading for philosophers today.

Simply not true.
First "Deleuze and Guattari" are not "titles", but names.
These philosphers are only of interest to those looking into post-modern French Philosophy or anthropology, and do not appear on core lists.
I'm not saying they are without merit but their writings are obscurantist verbal diarrhoea mainly.
They tend to use a thousand words where 10 would do and end up saying the same thing over and again.
But their main work Schitzophrenia and Civilisation is a plagiarism of Stanley Diamond's work In Search of the Primitive.. The main difference is that he made the same point in about 30 pages, whereas they took a whole book. (ibid. 1974, pp227)

[info]

I'll look at Diamond. Maybe it's true?

--------------

Okay, so it looks okay so far... I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.

Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.

What's that about?

Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?

Do you want to say something about that?

He is related to the New School of Social Research which is the American wing of the Frankfurt School; so that's good. Diamond was a Continental. He's a pomo. So I guess he's cool.

[chaz wyman]

I'll look at Diamond. Maybe it's true?

--------------

Okay, so it looks okay so far... I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.

Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.

What's that about?

Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?

Do you want to say something about that?

He is related to the New School of Social Research which is the American wing of the Frankfurt School; so that's good. Diamond was a Continental. He's a pomo. So I guess he's cool.

This entire post is a sad reflection on the poor state of your discriminating ability. I have no idea whether or not he is Jewish, and would not personally consider that of any significance.
I suggest you attend to what he said and not traduce him for his parentage.

[info]

I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.

Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.

What's that about?

Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?

Do you want to say something about that?

This entire post is a sad reflection on the poor state of your discriminating ability. I have no idea whether or not he is Jewish, and would not personally consider that of any significance.
I suggest you attend to what he said and not traduce him for his parentage.

So do you think that's unfair to disrespect people or their ideas because of tangential features, labels, etc?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5924&start=180

[chaz wyman]

I'm a bit suspicious though because you recommended it.

Not the book itself exactly, but in other mentions, it sounds pretty political and tied into Jewish politics? "chaz wyman" sounds Jewish too.

What's that about?

Diamond is himself an anthropologist? And a Jew? With all due respect to the Jews, who are obviously the good guys generally speaking, I'm sometimes a bit uncomforatable with 'Jewish anthropology'. Sorry if that sounds racist, but anthropology in Isreal is totally different from all other antropologies, anthropology in Poland, Turkey, Antarctica, anywhere, is written by and with methods that are consistent; with Jewish anthropology assumptions and angles and unexpected persons seem to be on the scene. A random piece of rock found in Israel gets a totally different treatment than anyother. Diamond is later called an 'anthropologist' and not a 'philosopher', or a 'poet' as he originally was? Why?

Do you want to say something about that?

This entire post is a sad reflection on the poor state of your discriminating ability. I have no idea whether or not he is Jewish, and would not personally consider that of any significance.
I suggest you attend to what he said and not traduce him for his parentage.

So do you think that's unfair to disrespect people or their ideas because of tangential features, labels, etc?

Of course. Whatever 'features' do not relate to the argument.
You have heard of prejudice, have you not?

[info]

Oh sure. This week I'm loving G even more. That dude had a good sense of humor. I gotta get back into Plateaus.

[chaz wyman]

Oh sure. This week I'm loving G even more. That dude had a good sense of humor. I gotta get back into Plateaus.

Who, what?

[info]

Who, what?

http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpg

[chaz wyman]

Who, what?

http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpg

Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?

[info]

Who, what?

http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpg

Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?

Why would tx- ● [15]Δb?

http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1108/ac/12cf4e2ea19e.jpg

[chaz wyman]

http://s010.radikal.ru/i312/1108/6c/092ab1e7dc71.jpg

Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?

Why would tx- ● [15]Δb?

http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1108/ac/12cf4e2ea19e.jpg

I'm not saying that. Please re-read my posting.

[info]

Yes I see what you mean. I want to post a theorm that can address that soon.

[chaz wyman]

Yes I see what you mean. I want to post a theorm that can address that soon.

I won't hold my breath

[Arising_uk]

Oh I see. But do you think the division in the 15th expression is valid given the opening statements, particularly the third which demands a delta product from the third reciprocal? Surely this is naive, given the primitiveness of the prime?