Such kind words! Glad I could be of use :) virtually all my background is just personal reading; I’m not educated in this stuff so just annoy being an autodidact!

This warms my heart. Glad I could be a part of your process :)

It’s my pleasure!

I’ve yet to read any of Land or the serious accelerationist guys, although from what I know of them they all fundamentally misread Deleuze (and Guattari) and opt for a sort of watered-down notion of Deleuze’s project as one of “tentacle philosophy” (“Just follow lines of flight as radically as you can and go schizo bro! Surpass all limits and destroy to create!”). I certainly will likely do Fanged Noumena sometime in the future and will definitely do Bataille (probably Story of the Eye).

@@gavinyoung-philosophy there's a lot to be said for the faults of the theory, I also had heard the same things before I read Land and I was prepared to dismiss him but the books were way way better than I expected. They have fantastic pieces of deleuzo-guattarian analysis which on their own are useful conceptualizations imo. And they are so fun, the prose of Land is really enjoyable and certifiably crazy. Also its really not a misinterpretation of deleuze imo, when D&G caution against deterritorializing yourself too fast or too violently, they sort of betray a humanistic ghost that lingers in their thought. One that tries to preserve the human subject. But Land doesn't mean the inverse of this, saying you should go schizo and destroy your subjectivity, because that its also a anthropocentric strategy of subjectivity. Lands point is that the schizo will overtake you regardless, as an inhuman noumenal force, and that your perception of your will and subjectivity in this matter is irrelevant. Certainly he gives D&G a monstrous child (much like D&G did to other thinkers) but one that is compelling and theoretically strong. Certainly among the most interesting post-deleuzoguattarian books I've come across. Imo for left deleuzians we have to go THROUGH these texts and not ignore them as misreadings because they are far more nuanced and interesting than that and discounting them strikes me as a kind of reaction to their potent radical force. I'd recommend the Accursed Share by Bataille. That one has the most theoretical juice and Land has a lot of fun with in in Thirst for Annihilation.

@@RupturedGrid These are very important considerations I’ll keep in mind. I agree, they deserve their fair shake and time taken to understand what they glean from D&G. However, it is certainly not a humanist impulse that drives the idea of not deterritorializing in one leap or too fast/slow, but rather a necessary ontological point. Deterritorializing too fast falls into what they call in 1000 Plateaus an “abstract line of death”; instead of taking care to implement concepts with a careful eye to the sober way in which it will function, one assumes you can just raze the landscape and escape subjectivity by “shizzifying” it. This is not only wrong, but it leads to problematic political implications of D&G as upholding capitalist and imperialist strategies to “surpass all limits” and attain a global network of “contact” under the banner of the abstract signifier, that being exchange-value, freedom and democracy, etc. D&G make their point regarding the speed of deterritorialization to point out that becoming is a “sober gesture”, “a homemade atom bomb” as they so eloquently put it. Simply passing limits and accelerating in an effort to de-organize a tied-down body (as Artaud intimates but not necessarily in a totalizing manner) doesn’t actually lead to any life-affirming consequences, it just leads to a catatonic body that, in response to a sudden deterritorialization, folds in on itself and becomes a schizophrenic in the clinical sense. This isn’t a productive strategy - in fact, it is insensitive to the fact that the concepts we talk about in philosophy are connected to real struggles and consequences. These are just my thoughts regarding my limited understanding of their interpretations, so I’d love to be proven wrong in reading them and find some important nuance, but hopefully it’s clear what exactly makes me apprehensive.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy I was wrong to use the term humanism, when I really meant to say that D&G's focus is on the subject and our ability to create concepts, affirm life etc. with Schizoanalysis Where lands is focused on the object and how schizoanalysis is really a post-human and object oriented ontology. Where the machinic unconscious is Kant's noumena. And that in the machinic flux of desire the human subject is not a privileged object. Meaning the attempt to control the amount of schizz you let in is an illusion as the machinic flux will schizz around you and take you with. The idea you could give yourself schizophrenia by intentionally deterritorializing yourself is MAYBE possible but I sort of doubt it you'd probably kill yourself first. But you certainly can get schizophrenia from the machinic flux altering your assemblage without your consent. This is how schizophrenia happens as we typically know it, the onset of a disease from "outside" which was not willed by the schizo But yes the fundamental problem with acclerationism is how it treats capitalism as the only BwO that can occupy a privileged position of being able to redeploy machinic flux towards its own expansion over all other BwOs. The trouble for us is not saying that the theory is wrong for this but discovering how we could create or discover a more liberatory BwO that can usurp capitalisms cybernetic loop of capital expansion. Which we already know from D&G but Land gives us new concepts such as "zero" to think about the contact point between the BwO and the virtual You are in for a treat I swear. Even in proving it wrong you gain something imo

@@gavinyoung-philosophy I think my reply got ghosted for using the shortened version of schizophrenia so I'm reposting it. I was wrong to use the term humanism, when I really meant to say that D&G's focus is on the subject and our ability to create concepts, affirm life etc. with Schizoanalysis Where lands is focused on the object and how schizoanalysis is really a post-human and object oriented ontology. Where the machinic unconscious is Kant's noumena. And that in the machinic flux of desire the human subject is not a privileged object. Meaning the attempt to control the amount of schizz you let in is an illusion as the machinic flux will schizz around you and take you with. The idea you could give yourself schizophrenia by intentionally deterritorializing yourself is MAYBE possible but I sort of doubt it you'd probably kill yourself first. But you certainly can get schizophrenia from the machinic flux altering your assemblage without your consent. This is how schizophrenia happens as we typically know it, the onset of a disease from "outside" which was not willed by the schizophrenic But yes the fundamental problem with acclerationism is how it treats capitalism as the only BwO that can occupy a privileged position of being able to redeploy machinic flux towards its own expansion over all other BwOs. The trouble for us is not saying that the theory is wrong for this but discovering how we could create or discover a more liberatory BwO that can usurp capitalisms cybernetic loop of capital expansion. Which we already know from D&G but Land gives us new concepts such as "zero" to think about the contact point between the BwO and the virtual You are in for a treat I swear. Even in proving it wrong you gain something imo

Thanks a lot! Will do :)

Thanks man, will do :)

Preciate it!

I wish I knew! I looked up “difference art” and found it after scrolling for a moment. Hopefully you can do the same and have better luck but it’s unknown to me! 😬And thank you!

For Plato, there is a whole other realm where the Forms reside. I think it’s rather silly. It’s an abstract, almost virtual plane where pure universals exist. Deleuze and others contend with this because it “explains” reality by explaining away reality; instead of explaining difference it merely postulates an infinite difference (since there’s no way to grasp the Forms except in their deficient modes as they exist as a property of an ones or action).