#deleuze — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #deleuze, aggregated by home.social.
-
La question de l'avenir de la révolution est une mauvaise question, parce que, tant qu'on la pose, il y a autant de gens qui ne deviennent pas révolutionnaires, et qu'elle est précisément faite pour cela, empêcher la question du devenir-révolutionnaire des gens, à tout niveau, à chaque endroit.
Dialogues, Gilles Deleuze - Claire Parnet
#revolution #Deleuze -
La question de l'avenir de la révolution est une mauvaise question, parce que, tant qu'on la pose, il y a autant de gens qui ne deviennent pas révolutionnaires, et qu'elle est précisément faite pour cela, empêcher la question du devenir-révolutionnaire des gens, à tout niveau, à chaque endroit.
Dialogues, Gilles Deleuze - Claire Parnet
#revolution #Deleuze -
Au lieu de parier sur l'éternelle impossibilité de la révolution et sur le retour fasciste d'une machine de guerre en général, pourquoi ne pas penser qu'un nouveau type de révolution est en train de devenir possible, et que toutes sortes de machines mutantes, vivantes, mènent des guerres, se conjuguent, et tracent un plan de consistance qui mine le plan d'organisation du Monde et des Etats "?
Dialogues, Gilles Deleuze - Claire Parnet
-
Au lieu de parier sur l'éternelle impossibilité de la révolution et sur le retour fasciste d'une machine de guerre en général, pourquoi ne pas penser qu'un nouveau type de révolution est en train de devenir possible, et que toutes sortes de machines mutantes, vivantes, mènent des guerres, se conjuguent, et tracent un plan de consistance qui mine le plan d'organisation du Monde et des Etats "?
Dialogues, Gilles Deleuze - Claire Parnet
-
L’État suicidaire : quand le pouvoir détruit ses propres fondations
Deleuze et Guattari parlaient de l’État fasciste comme d’un « État suicidaire », engagé dans sa propre destruction. La formule peut paraitre excessive. Elle l’est moins lorsqu’on voit certains pouvoirs — de Trump au Royaume-Uni et à l’Union européenne — saper leurs propres institutions, normes et conditions de stabilité pour donner corps à leurs fantasmes politiques. #Deleuze #Guattari #Politics…
-
L’État suicidaire : quand le pouvoir détruit ses propres fondations
Deleuze et Guattari parlaient de l’État fasciste comme d’un « État suicidaire », engagé dans sa propre destruction. La formule peut paraitre excessive. Elle l’est moins lorsqu’on voit certains pouvoirs — de Trump au Royaume-Uni et à l’Union européenne — saper leurs propres institutions, normes et conditions de stabilité pour donner corps à leurs fantasmes politiques. #Deleuze #Guattari #Politics…
-
Panopticon or not to Panopticon
Bentham wrote it in 1787, in letters sent from a town in what's now Belarus. Cells in a ring, inspector in the middle, lit so he sees out and you can't see in. People always repeat the seeing part. The part that mattered was that you couldn't check. Is he up there right now? No way to know, so you act like he is. That's the whole trick. It runs on doubt, and doubt is cheap, which is how one guard covers a hundred cells.
Foucault took that in 1975 and turned it into a shape for modern power generally. School, barracks, factory, ward. Two things about it: you move through enclosures one at a time, and each one is trying to correct you.
Neither is true anymore, and Deleuze said so in 1992, in five pages in October. No more enclosures. No graduation, no discharge, no sentence you finish. And the individual splits into what he called the dividual - slices, attributes, fragments that travel without you. He wrote that before the web was commercial and still described a computer tracking your position and said, flatly, that this wasn't science fiction.
Zuboff filled in the money in 2019. Behavioral surplus: the exhaust off your ordinary life, kept for uses past improving the service, milled into predictions, sold. Which inverts the point of the thing. The old apparatus watched in order to fix you. This one watches in order to bet on you.
Then there's the piece Deleuze had no name for. Something has to put the fragments back together. That's data fusion, and it's why Palantir is the name people say. In February DHS signed for up to a billion over five years, Gotham and Foundry, any component agency drawing on it by task order without competing a contract. Enforcement records, biometrics, financial history, travel, resolved into one object you can act on.
The inputs aren't new. Credit bureaus are older than I am. What's new is the schema - the thing that decides your face and your rent history are attributes of the same entity. Deleuze's fragments, glued.
So there's no tower. Nothing to photograph, nothing to zone, nothing you can usefully subpoena. And responsibility spreads until nobody's holding any of it. The location broker sells to the aggregator, the aggregator to the vendor, the vendor licenses to the agency, and not one of them assembled the file.
I'm fairly sure "who's watching" is the wrong question, though. Nobody's watching? Which is worse?
#Surveillance #Panopticon #Foucault #Deleuze #Palantir #SurveillanceCapitalism #Privacy #DataFusion #Philosophy
-
Panopticon or not to Panopticon
Bentham wrote it in 1787, in letters sent from a town in what's now Belarus. Cells in a ring, inspector in the middle, lit so he sees out and you can't see in. People always repeat the seeing part. The part that mattered was that you couldn't check. Is he up there right now? No way to know, so you act like he is. That's the whole trick. It runs on doubt, and doubt is cheap, which is how one guard covers a hundred cells.
Foucault took that in 1975 and turned it into a shape for modern power generally. School, barracks, factory, ward. Two things about it: you move through enclosures one at a time, and each one is trying to correct you.
Neither is true anymore, and Deleuze said so in 1992, in five pages in October. No more enclosures. No graduation, no discharge, no sentence you finish. And the individual splits into what he called the dividual - slices, attributes, fragments that travel without you. He wrote that before the web was commercial and still described a computer tracking your position and said, flatly, that this wasn't science fiction.
Zuboff filled in the money in 2019. Behavioral surplus: the exhaust off your ordinary life, kept for uses past improving the service, milled into predictions, sold. Which inverts the point of the thing. The old apparatus watched in order to fix you. This one watches in order to bet on you.
Then there's the piece Deleuze had no name for. Something has to put the fragments back together. That's data fusion, and it's why Palantir is the name people say. In February DHS signed for up to a billion over five years, Gotham and Foundry, any component agency drawing on it by task order without competing a contract. Enforcement records, biometrics, financial history, travel, resolved into one object you can act on.
The inputs aren't new. Credit bureaus are older than I am. What's new is the schema - the thing that decides your face and your rent history are attributes of the same entity. Deleuze's fragments, glued.
So there's no tower. Nothing to photograph, nothing to zone, nothing you can usefully subpoena. And responsibility spreads until nobody's holding any of it. The location broker sells to the aggregator, the aggregator to the vendor, the vendor licenses to the agency, and not one of them assembled the file.
I'm fairly sure "who's watching" is the wrong question, though. Nobody's watching? Which is worse?
#Surveillance #Panopticon #Foucault #Deleuze #Palantir #SurveillanceCapitalism #Privacy #DataFusion #Philosophy
-
Panopticon or not to Panopticon
Bentham wrote it in 1787, in letters sent from a town in what's now Belarus. Cells in a ring, inspector in the middle, lit so he sees out and you can't see in. People always repeat the seeing part. The part that mattered was that you couldn't check. Is he up there right now? No way to know, so you act like he is. That's the whole trick. It runs on doubt, and doubt is cheap, which is how one guard covers a hundred cells.
Foucault took that in 1975 and turned it into a shape for modern power generally. School, barracks, factory, ward. Two things about it: you move through enclosures one at a time, and each one is trying to correct you.
Neither is true anymore, and Deleuze said so in 1992, in five pages in October. No more enclosures. No graduation, no discharge, no sentence you finish. And the individual splits into what he called the dividual - slices, attributes, fragments that travel without you. He wrote that before the web was commercial and still described a computer tracking your position and said, flatly, that this wasn't science fiction.
Zuboff filled in the money in 2019. Behavioral surplus: the exhaust off your ordinary life, kept for uses past improving the service, milled into predictions, sold. Which inverts the point of the thing. The old apparatus watched in order to fix you. This one watches in order to bet on you.
Then there's the piece Deleuze had no name for. Something has to put the fragments back together. That's data fusion, and it's why Palantir is the name people say. In February DHS signed for up to a billion over five years, Gotham and Foundry, any component agency drawing on it by task order without competing a contract. Enforcement records, biometrics, financial history, travel, resolved into one object you can act on.
The inputs aren't new. Credit bureaus are older than I am. What's new is the schema - the thing that decides your face and your rent history are attributes of the same entity. Deleuze's fragments, glued.
So there's no tower. Nothing to photograph, nothing to zone, nothing you can usefully subpoena. And responsibility spreads until nobody's holding any of it. The location broker sells to the aggregator, the aggregator to the vendor, the vendor licenses to the agency, and not one of them assembled the file.
I'm fairly sure "who's watching" is the wrong question, though. Nobody's watching? Which is worse?
#Surveillance #Panopticon #Foucault #Deleuze #Palantir #SurveillanceCapitalism #Privacy #DataFusion #Philosophy
-
Panopticon or not to Panopticon
Bentham wrote it in 1787, in letters sent from a town in what's now Belarus. Cells in a ring, inspector in the middle, lit so he sees out and you can't see in. People always repeat the seeing part. The part that mattered was that you couldn't check. Is he up there right now? No way to know, so you act like he is. That's the whole trick. It runs on doubt, and doubt is cheap, which is how one guard covers a hundred cells.
Foucault took that in 1975 and turned it into a shape for modern power generally. School, barracks, factory, ward. Two things about it: you move through enclosures one at a time, and each one is trying to correct you.
Neither is true anymore, and Deleuze said so in 1992, in five pages in October. No more enclosures. No graduation, no discharge, no sentence you finish. And the individual splits into what he called the dividual - slices, attributes, fragments that travel without you. He wrote that before the web was commercial and still described a computer tracking your position and said, flatly, that this wasn't science fiction.
Zuboff filled in the money in 2019. Behavioral surplus: the exhaust off your ordinary life, kept for uses past improving the service, milled into predictions, sold. Which inverts the point of the thing. The old apparatus watched in order to fix you. This one watches in order to bet on you.
Then there's the piece Deleuze had no name for. Something has to put the fragments back together. That's data fusion, and it's why Palantir is the name people say. In February DHS signed for up to a billion over five years, Gotham and Foundry, any component agency drawing on it by task order without competing a contract. Enforcement records, biometrics, financial history, travel, resolved into one object you can act on.
The inputs aren't new. Credit bureaus are older than I am. What's new is the schema - the thing that decides your face and your rent history are attributes of the same entity. Deleuze's fragments, glued.
So there's no tower. Nothing to photograph, nothing to zone, nothing you can usefully subpoena. And responsibility spreads until nobody's holding any of it. The location broker sells to the aggregator, the aggregator to the vendor, the vendor licenses to the agency, and not one of them assembled the file.
I'm fairly sure "who's watching" is the wrong question, though. Nobody's watching? Which is worse?
#Surveillance #Panopticon #Foucault #Deleuze #Palantir #SurveillanceCapitalism #Privacy #DataFusion #Philosophy
-
Panopticon or not to Panopticon
Bentham wrote it in 1787, in letters sent from a town in what's now Belarus. Cells in a ring, inspector in the middle, lit so he sees out and you can't see in. People always repeat the seeing part. The part that mattered was that you couldn't check. Is he up there right now? No way to know, so you act like he is. That's the whole trick. It runs on doubt, and doubt is cheap, which is how one guard covers a hundred cells.
Foucault took that in 1975 and turned it into a shape for modern power generally. School, barracks, factory, ward. Two things about it: you move through enclosures one at a time, and each one is trying to correct you.
Neither is true anymore, and Deleuze said so in 1992, in five pages in October. No more enclosures. No graduation, no discharge, no sentence you finish. And the individual splits into what he called the dividual - slices, attributes, fragments that travel without you. He wrote that before the web was commercial and still described a computer tracking your position and said, flatly, that this wasn't science fiction.
Zuboff filled in the money in 2019. Behavioral surplus: the exhaust off your ordinary life, kept for uses past improving the service, milled into predictions, sold. Which inverts the point of the thing. The old apparatus watched in order to fix you. This one watches in order to bet on you.
Then there's the piece Deleuze had no name for. Something has to put the fragments back together. That's data fusion, and it's why Palantir is the name people say. In February DHS signed for up to a billion over five years, Gotham and Foundry, any component agency drawing on it by task order without competing a contract. Enforcement records, biometrics, financial history, travel, resolved into one object you can act on.
The inputs aren't new. Credit bureaus are older than I am. What's new is the schema - the thing that decides your face and your rent history are attributes of the same entity. Deleuze's fragments, glued.
So there's no tower. Nothing to photograph, nothing to zone, nothing you can usefully subpoena. And responsibility spreads until nobody's holding any of it. The location broker sells to the aggregator, the aggregator to the vendor, the vendor licenses to the agency, and not one of them assembled the file.
I'm fairly sure "who's watching" is the wrong question, though. Nobody's watching? Which is worse?
#Surveillance #Panopticon #Foucault #Deleuze #Palantir #SurveillanceCapitalism #Privacy #DataFusion #Philosophy
-
How much of the current partial critique of #Deleuze and Guattari that I see is because of their atheism? (See page 92 in What is Philosophy (english translation)) #philosophy
-
How much of the current partial critique of #Deleuze and Guattari that I see is because of their atheism? (See page 92 in What is Philosophy (english translation)) #philosophy
-
How much of the current partial critique of #Deleuze and Guattari that I see is because of their atheism? (See page 92 in What is Philosophy (english translation)) #philosophy
-
How much of the current partial critique of #Deleuze and Guattari that I see is because of their atheism? (See page 92 in What is Philosophy (english translation)) #philosophy
-
@homohortus31 Actually communism at its most practical is a pure critique of democracy. For it is a pure critique of both bourgeois democracy .and the naivety of anarchism. The point you might say is that if we do not address the Spinoza question that #Deleuze reopenned then who will? #philosophy
-
@homohortus31 Actually communism at its most practical is a pure critique of democracy. For it is a pure critique of both bourgeois democracy .and the naivety of anarchism. The point you might say is that if we do not address the Spinoza question that #Deleuze reopenned then who will? #philosophy
-
@homohortus31 Actually communism at its most practical is a pure critique of democracy. For it is a pure critique of both bourgeois democracy .and the naivety of anarchism. The point you might say is that if we do not address the Spinoza question that #Deleuze reopenned then who will? #philosophy
-
@homohortus31 Actually communism at its most practical is a pure critique of democracy. For it is a pure critique of both bourgeois democracy .and the naivety of anarchism. The point you might say is that if we do not address the Spinoza question that #Deleuze reopenned then who will? #philosophy
-
48 years ago i picked up the copy of Deleuze and Guattari. Anti-Oedipus with its constructivist covers from Collets London Bookshop…#Deleuze thinking about it this morning I was bemused to remember the complexity and ever changing nature of the philosophical adventure it began, unfinished of course, only death will end that line of thought.
-
48 years ago i picked up the copy of Deleuze and Guattari. Anti-Oedipus with its constructivist covers from Collets London Bookshop…#Deleuze thinking about it this morning I was bemused to remember the complexity and ever changing nature of the philosophical adventure it began, unfinished of course, only death will end that line of thought.
-
48 years ago i picked up the copy of Deleuze and Guattari. Anti-Oedipus with its constructivist covers from Collets London Bookshop…#Deleuze thinking about it this morning I was bemused to remember the complexity and ever changing nature of the philosophical adventure it began, unfinished of course, only death will end that line of thought.
-
AI is a Prostitute
The video shook me up, like no other video on AI had. Since it handled the problem at its root, at what reality this AI was: radical opposition to despair of enforcement. It tackles the problem of having a select few channels of information, providing only limited subset of what may be of specific interest to one, by providing only questions.
-
Now I tried to understand the #BodyWithoutOrgans term of #Deleuze and #FélixGuattari . So far I guess it's an anti idea of unorganized things. It's just for orientation. A potential and unspecific. This to all who search this term as a hashtag ;-)
-
Now I tried to understand the #BodyWithoutOrgans term of #Deleuze and #FélixGuattari . So far I guess it's an anti idea of unorganized things. It's just for orientation. A potential and unspecific. This to all who search this term as a hashtag ;-)
-
Now I tried to understand the #BodyWithoutOrgans term of #Deleuze and #FélixGuattari . So far I guess it's an anti idea of unorganized things. It's just for orientation. A potential and unspecific. This to all who search this term as a hashtag ;-)
-
Now I tried to understand the #BodyWithoutOrgans term of #Deleuze and #FélixGuattari . So far I guess it's an anti idea of unorganized things. It's just for orientation. A potential and unspecific. This to all who search this term as a hashtag ;-)
-
Now I tried to understand the #BodyWithoutOrgans term of #Deleuze and #FélixGuattari . So far I guess it's an anti idea of unorganized things. It's just for orientation. A potential and unspecific. This to all who search this term as a hashtag ;-)
-
Deleuze: Die Wirklichkeit ist ein Rhizom, offen, ohne Zentrum, ohne Anfang und Ende.
Mein Wochenende: auch offen, frei, ohne Struktur.
Mein Montagmorgen: Kommt recht linear daher. -
Deleuze: Die Wirklichkeit ist ein Rhizom, offen, ohne Zentrum, ohne Anfang und Ende.
Mein Wochenende: auch offen, frei, ohne Struktur.
Mein Montagmorgen: Kommt recht linear daher. -
Deleuze: Die Wirklichkeit ist ein Rhizom, offen, ohne Zentrum, ohne Anfang und Ende.
Mein Wochenende: auch offen, frei, ohne Struktur.
Mein Montagmorgen: Kommt recht linear daher. -
Deleuze: Die Wirklichkeit ist ein Rhizom, offen, ohne Zentrum, ohne Anfang und Ende.
Mein Wochenende: auch offen, frei, ohne Struktur.
Mein Montagmorgen: Kommt recht linear daher. -
Deleuze: Die Wirklichkeit ist ein Rhizom, offen, ohne Zentrum, ohne Anfang und Ende.
Mein Wochenende: auch offen, frei, ohne Struktur.
Mein Montagmorgen: Kommt recht linear daher. -
Commento a #Intellighenzia de #IlNemico:
O non hanno capito Deleuze e Guattari, oppure l'hanno capito magistralmente.
La canzone sembra un autentico gesto deleuziano quando prende in giro le correnti culturali, le etichette ideologiche, il bisogno di avere sempre un'opinione o l'intellettuale che cita Deleuze e Guattari per fare bella figura.Dicono "non ci ho capito niente di Deleuze e Guattari..." ma poi continuano a far saltare i confini semiotici tra teoria, politica, desiderio, amore, lavoro e vita quotidiana.
Le possibilità sono due, o veramente non hanno capito per niente Deleuze e Guattari oppure li hanno compresi così bene da scrivere una canzone che praticamente prende per il culo chi pensa di averli capiti!
Cosa ne pensate? Qua il link alla canzone: https://inv.nadeko.net/PZH8B6Y1AH0
-
Commento a #Intellighenzia de #IlNemico:
O non hanno capito Deleuze e Guattari, oppure l'hanno capito magistralmente.
La canzone sembra un autentico gesto deleuziano quando prende in giro le correnti culturali, le etichette ideologiche, il bisogno di avere sempre un'opinione o l'intellettuale che cita Deleuze e Guattari per fare bella figura.Dicono "non ci ho capito niente di Deleuze e Guattari..." ma poi continuano a far saltare i confini semiotici tra teoria, politica, desiderio, amore, lavoro e vita quotidiana.
Le possibilità sono due, o veramente non hanno capito per niente Deleuze e Guattari oppure li hanno compresi così bene da scrivere una canzone che praticamente prende per il culo chi pensa di averli capiti!
Cosa ne pensate? Qua il link alla canzone: https://inv.nadeko.net/PZH8B6Y1AH0
-
Commento a #Intellighenzia de #IlNemico:
O non hanno capito Deleuze e Guattari, oppure l'hanno capito magistralmente.
La canzone sembra un autentico gesto deleuziano quando prende in giro le correnti culturali, le etichette ideologiche, il bisogno di avere sempre un'opinione o l'intellettuale che cita Deleuze e Guattari per fare bella figura.Dicono "non ci ho capito niente di Deleuze e Guattari..." ma poi continuano a far saltare i confini semiotici tra teoria, politica, desiderio, amore, lavoro e vita quotidiana.
Le possibilità sono due, o veramente non hanno capito per niente Deleuze e Guattari oppure li hanno compresi così bene da scrivere una canzone che praticamente prende per il culo chi pensa di averli capiti!
Cosa ne pensate? Qua il link alla canzone: https://inv.nadeko.net/PZH8B6Y1AH0
-
Commento a #Intellighenzia de #IlNemico:
O non hanno capito Deleuze e Guattari, oppure l'hanno capito magistralmente.
La canzone sembra un autentico gesto deleuziano quando prende in giro le correnti culturali, le etichette ideologiche, il bisogno di avere sempre un'opinione o l'intellettuale che cita Deleuze e Guattari per fare bella figura.Dicono "non ci ho capito niente di Deleuze e Guattari..." ma poi continuano a far saltare i confini semiotici tra teoria, politica, desiderio, amore, lavoro e vita quotidiana.
Le possibilità sono due, o veramente non hanno capito per niente Deleuze e Guattari oppure li hanno compresi così bene da scrivere una canzone che praticamente prende per il culo chi pensa di averli capiti!
Cosa ne pensate? Qua il link alla canzone: https://inv.nadeko.net/PZH8B6Y1AH0
-
Commento a #Intellighenzia de #IlNemico:
O non hanno capito Deleuze e Guattari, oppure l'hanno capito magistralmente.
La canzone sembra un autentico gesto deleuziano quando prende in giro le correnti culturali, le etichette ideologiche, il bisogno di avere sempre un'opinione o l'intellettuale che cita Deleuze e Guattari per fare bella figura.Dicono "non ci ho capito niente di Deleuze e Guattari..." ma poi continuano a far saltare i confini semiotici tra teoria, politica, desiderio, amore, lavoro e vita quotidiana.
Le possibilità sono due, o veramente non hanno capito per niente Deleuze e Guattari oppure li hanno compresi così bene da scrivere una canzone che praticamente prende per il culo chi pensa di averli capiti!
Cosa ne pensate? Qua il link alla canzone: https://inv.nadeko.net/PZH8B6Y1AH0
