The idea that the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation have opened a path for Millennials and Zoomers to take revenge on others may seem far-fetched at first. However, when one looks at the historical and cultural contexts that shaped these generations, this theory is not entirely unfounded.
Firstly, it’s important to consider the socioeconomic circumstances that the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation grew up in. Both generations experienced unprecedented economic prosperity and stability during their youth, which led to a sense of entitlement and complacency that has been criticized by subsequent generations. They also benefited from government policies and institutions that were designed to support their economic and social well-being, such as the GI Bill and Social Security. As a result, many Boomers and Silents have been accused of failing to acknowledge the struggles and disadvantages that other groups, such as minorities and women, have faced in the United States.
Secondly, the cultural values and beliefs that shaped the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation have been criticized for perpetuating inequality and oppression. For example, both generations were heavily influenced by conservative and traditionalist ideals that reinforced patriarchal and heteronormative structures. These values have been accused of perpetuating discrimination against marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals and people of color. Additionally, the Silent Generation was heavily influenced by Cold War propaganda, which fostered a culture of fear and mistrust that has had lasting effects on American politics and foreign policy.
Given these circumstances, it’s possible that the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation have unwittingly opened a path for subsequent generations to take revenge on others who are easier to attack than themselves. By failing to acknowledge and address systemic inequalities and injustices, they have created a breeding ground for resentment and anger that younger generations have channeled into social and political activism. Moreover, by perpetuating cultural values and beliefs that are seen as oppressive by younger generations, they have effectively placed themselves in opposition to the very groups that they should be supporting and nurturing.
However, it’s important to note that this theory is not a call to violence or retribution. Rather, it’s a recognition of the systemic issues that have been created by previous generations, and a call to action for younger generations to address and correct these issues in a constructive and peaceful manner. It’s also important to acknowledge that not all members of the Baby Boomer and Silent Generation share the same values and beliefs, and that many have been active in promoting social justice and equality throughout their lives.
In conclusion, the idea that the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation have opened a path for younger generations to take revenge on others is not entirely unfounded. However, it’s important to approach this theory with nuance and empathy, and to focus on constructive solutions rather than perpetuating animosity and division. Ultimately, it’s up to all generations to work together to build a more just and equitable society for all.
The concept of the Superunknown has been explored in various contexts, from the artistic to the philosophical, and even to the realm of spirituality and mysticism. It is a term that has come to represent a space beyond our everyday perception, one that is often associated with the unknown and the mystical. In this essay, I will explore why I would choose to name the mental space occupied by aliens and art the Superunknown.
The term “Superunknown” was first introduced by the American rock band Soundgarden in their 1994 album of the same name. The album was a reflection of the band’s interest in the occult, mysticism, and the supernatural, and the concept of the Superunknown was used to describe a space beyond our understanding, a realm of mystery and intrigue that could only be accessed through art, music, and other forms of creative expression.
In the context of aliens, the Superunknown can be seen as a metaphor for the vastness of space and the infinite possibilities that exist beyond our known universe. The idea of extraterrestrial life has long been a subject of fascination for humans, and the possibility that there are other intelligent beings out there in the universe is both thrilling and terrifying. The Superunknown represents the unknown and the mysterious aspects of this possibility, the idea that there is so much out there that we have yet to discover.
In the context of art, the Superunknown can be seen as a space beyond the limitations of our everyday experience. Art has the power to transport us to new realms of thought and emotion, to challenge our perceptions and expand our understanding of the world. The Superunknown represents the infinite possibilities of creative expression, the idea that art can take us beyond the limits of what we think we know and connect us to something deeper and more profound.
By naming the mental space occupied by aliens and art the Superunknown, I am acknowledging the interconnectedness of these two seemingly disparate concepts. Both aliens and art represent a space beyond our everyday understanding, a realm of mystery and possibility that can only be accessed through the imagination and creative expression. The Superunknown is a reminder that there is always more to discover, more to explore, and more to create. It is a call to embrace the unknown and the mysterious, to venture beyond the boundaries of what we think we know and connect with something deeper and more profound.
The concept of the Superunknown has been a subject of interest for artists, philosophers, and scholars for centuries. It refers to a state of being or a mode of existence that preceded the development of differentiated self-awareness. It encompasses the realms of art as such, shamanism, magic, and religion, all of which share the goal of accessing deeper and more profound levels of reality beyond the limits of ordinary perception.
According to some scholars, the Superunknown represents a kind of primal unity or wholeness that is lost when the self becomes differentiated and self-aware. In this sense, the Superunknown can be seen as a kind of preconceptual reality that is not bound by the constraints of language, culture, or ideology. It is a realm of pure experience and sensation, where the boundaries between self and other, subject and object, dissolve.
As the Superunknown developed, it eventually forked into two distinct paths: the Acceptable Known and the Adjacent Known. The Acceptable Known refers to the use of aesthetics to manipulate emotions in a predetermined manner. It includes forms of popular culture such as pornography, advertising, and generic pop songs, as well as more ideologically-driven forms such as propaganda and message films. The goal of the Acceptable Known is to control and manipulate the audience’s emotions, often in the service of commercial or political interests.
The Adjacent Known, on the other hand, uses aesthetics to reveal things in their original preconceptual “likeness”. It seeks to create art that does not reduce its content to some instrumental end, but rather reveals deeper truths about the world and our place in it. In doing so, artists create symbols that point to vast untapped regions of reality, beyond the constraints of language, culture, or ideology.
The concept of the Adjacent Known is particularly important in today’s society, where we are increasingly becoming a society without art. As the boundaries between self and other, subject and object, continue to blur, it is becoming more and more difficult for people to envision realities beyond the ideological horizon. By creating art that points to the Superunknown, artists can help to expand our vision of reality, and remind us of the deeper truths that lie beyond our ordinary perception.
In conclusion, the concept of the Superunknown represents a profound and complex aspect of human experience. While it may have preceded the development of differentiated self-awareness, it continues to be an important source of inspiration and insight for artists, philosophers, and scholars. By exploring the two paths of the Acceptable Known and the Adjacent Known, we can gain a deeper understanding of the role of aesthetics in our lives, and the ways in which art can help us to access deeper levels of reality beyond the constraints of language, culture, or ideology.
In the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, the concept of “flows” refers to the movement of things and ideas through time and space. For Deleuze, flows are not just physical phenomena, but also social and cultural ones, such as the movement of money, power, and information through society.
Deleuze sees flows as dynamic and complex phenomena that are constantly in motion and interaction with one another. They can be positive or negative, productive or destructive, depending on how they are channeled and organized. Deleuze argues that the dominant forces in society tend to channel flows in ways that serve their own interests, leading to the reproduction of social hierarchies and power relations.
However, Deleuze also sees the potential for flows to be liberated from these constraints and organized in new and creative ways. This can lead to the emergence of new forms of social organization and expression, such as the subcultures and countercultures that emerged in the 20th century.
Deleuze’s concept of flows is closely related to his notion of “desiring-production,” which refers to the positive and creative force of desire in society. According to Deleuze, desire is not just a psychological phenomenon, but also a social and cultural one that drives the movement of flows in society.
Deleuze/Guattari are probably the only theorists whose political-economic philosophy ascribes an enormous importance to the concept of flow, which in turn has a direct connection to Deleuze’s view of the mathematics of the differential quotient. First of all, every kind of current has a specific tempo, rhythm and directional direction, and in the course of time the material whose specific characteristics, be it rhythm, direction or tempo, change.
The decisive point is that flows do not flow along lines, but according to the criteria of n-dimensional, virtual, continuous and non-numerical manifolds, each of which has only one centre. And no matter whether we are dealing with vortices, spirals or whirlpools — it is always a matter of special shapes of the flows, which are indicated by a curved, continuous declination.
Thus, flows would be understood as directed and rhythmic, a-metric and irreversible, they can flee in all directions and, as dynamic-temporalized flows, they are in balance and imbalance at the same time, they can connect or unite, they can originate from a collision or an encounter in which a current meets a counter current and bounces off, resulting in congestion and, consequently, new localizations in an open topological space.
Pure flows have a real and at the same time ideal status. The corresponding topological space refers to a vectorial and smooth space, traversed by uncountable lines, to the unpredictable distribution of events that function without centres, even following lines that deviate from the diagonal.
It also seems possible that in the vortex several currents flow together, thus creating a figure of the manifold, in which nature and culture mix indistinguishably; there are multiple currents, whereby turbulence can arise from many eddies, up to cascades, differentiating and at the same time towering unstable eddies with blurred edges,
In fact, one can imagine an extraordinarily large number of different types of streams and rivers, which in their diversity and directionality, their counter-currents and turbulence — just think of the fluid mechanics of Lucretius — are always controlled or codified in some way or another.
“In the literary machine that Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” constitutes, we are struck by the fact that all the parts are produced as asymmetrical sections, paths that suddenly come to an end, hermetically sealed boxes, noncommunicating vessels, watertight compartments, in which there are gaps even between things that are contiguous, gaps that are affirmations, pieces of a puzzle belonging not to any one puzzle but to many, pieces assembled by forcing them into a certain place where they may or may not belong, their unmatched edges violently forced out of shape, forcibly made to fit together, to interlock, with a number of pieces always left over.”
Thus, there is the river and the dams or dikes that control and channel the river,
Deleuze and Guattari were critical of Freud’s concept of sublimation because they saw it as a way of reinforcing existing power structures in society. According to Freud, sublimation refers to the process by which individuals redirect their sexual or aggressive impulses into socially acceptable activities such as art, science, or intellectual pursuits.
However, Deleuze and Guattari argued that this concept of sublimation was flawed because it assumed that sexuality and aggression were inherently negative or destructive impulses that needed to be controlled or redirected. Instead, they believed that these impulses were inherently creative and productive, and that by sublimating them, individuals were limiting their creative potential.
Moreover, Deleuze and Guattari argued that Freud’s concept of sublimation was ultimately a form of social control. By encouraging individuals to redirect their impulses into socially acceptable activities, Freud’s theory served to reinforce existing social hierarchies and power structures. Instead, Deleuze and Guattari proposed the concept of “desiring-production,” which saw desire and creativity as inherently productive forces that could be harnessed to create new forms of social organization and transformation.
According to Sigmund Freud’s, the id is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs, and desires operating on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification.
“Psychoanalysis was from the start, still is, and perhaps always will be a well-constituted church and a form of treatment based on a set of beliefs that only the very faithful could adhere to, i.e., those who believe in a security that amounts to being lost in the herd and defined in terms of common and external goals”
In summary, Deleuze and Guattari opposed Freud’s concept of sublimation because they saw it as a way of limiting individual creativity and reinforcing existing power structures in society. Instead, they proposed the concept of “desiring-production” as a way of harnessing desire and creativity to create new forms of social organization and transformation.
Reframing the Oedipal complex
The “anti-” part of their critique of the Freudian Oedipal complex begins with that original model’s articulation of society based on the family triangle of father, mother and child. Criticizing psychoanalysis “familialism”, they want to show that the oedipal model of the family is a kind of organization that must colonize its members, repress their desires, and give them complexes if it is to function as an organizing principle of society.
Instead of conceiving the “family” as a sphere contained by a larger “social” sphere, Deleuze and Guattari argue that the family should be opened onto the social, as in Bergson’s conception of the Open, and that underneath the pseudo-opposition between family and social, lies the relationship between pre-individual desire and social production.
Furthermore, they argue that schizophrenia is an extreme mental state co-existent with the capitalist system itself and capitalism keeps enforcing neurosis as a way of maintaining normality.
So, this is the reason the first volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is titled Anti-Oedipus. To Deleuze, just as there’s no transcendent governing body that dictates the rules of ontology there’s no transcendent governing body external to you like Freud’s Oedipus that dictates what desires you feel or what connections you’re going to seek as a desiring machine.
Like their contemporary, R. D. Laing, and like Reich before them, Deleuze and Guattari make a connection between psychological repression and social oppression. This Oedipal way of looking at desire has very real consequences on the societies that believe in it. Because in these societies desire becomes something that gets turned inward, towards your immediate family, what you think of as your desires is really just you misinterpreting some a psycho-sexual framework that you don’t quite understand.
The result of this on a social level being that the vast majority of the desire of the individual gets interpreted inwardly with any excess desire that someone might have, spills over into the social and political realms always subject to their limitations which are themselves controlled by the forces of Capitalism.
Richard Lindner’s painting “Boy with Machine” (1954) demonstrates the schizoanalytic thesis of the primacy of desire’s social investments over its familial ones: “the turgid little boy has already plugged a desiring-machine into a social machine, short-circuiting the parents”
Desiring-production is explosive:
“there is no desiring-machine capable of being assembled without demolishing entire sectors of society”.
The concept of desiring-production is part of Deleuze and Guattari’s more general appropriation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s formulation of the will to power. In both concepts, a pleasurable force of appropriation of what is outside oneself, incorporating into oneself what is other than oneself, characterizes the essential process of all life.
“D.H. Lawrence had the impression – that psychoanalysis was shutting sexuality up in a bizarre sort of box painted with bourgeois motifs, in a kind of rather repugnant artificial triangle, thereby stifling the whole of sexuality as a production of desire so as to recast it along entirely different lines, making of it a dirty little family secret, a private theater rather than the fantastic factory of nature and production”
As to those who refuse to be oedipalized in one form or another, at one end or the other in the treatment, the psychoanalyst is there to call the asylum or the police for help. The police on our side! — never did psychoanalysis better display its taste for supporting the movement social representations, and for participating inenthusiasm.
Schizoanalysis
“Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?”
One of the central theses of Anti-Oedipus is that libidinous and political economy are structurally one and the same thing, which means that the desire always remains a constituent part of the political-economic infrastructure of capitalism.
Deleuze/Guattari develop a sophisticated theory of the three syntheses of the libidinous and the socio-economic unconscious: while the desiring machines produce an immanent synthesis (local connections), the socio-economic machines represent transcendental syntheses (global and specific connections.
Deleuze and Guattari’s “schizoanalysis” is a militant social and political analysis that responds to what they see as the reactionary tendencies of psychoanalysis. It proposes a functional evaluation of the direct investments of desire — whether revolutionary or reactionary — in a field that is social, biological, historical, and geographical.
In contrast to the psychoanalytic conception, schizoanalysis assumes that the libido does not need to be de-sexualised, sublimated, or to go by way of metamorphoses in order to invest economic or political factors. “The truth is,” Deleuze and Guattari explain,
“sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on. […] Flags, nations, armies, banks get a lot of people aroused.”
Unconscious libidinal investments of desire coexist without necessarily coinciding with preconscious investments made according to the needs or ideological interests of the subject (individual or collective) who desires.
Schizoanalysis seeks to show how “in the subject who desires, desire can be made to desire its own repression — whence the role of the death instinct in the circuit connecting desire to the social sphere.” Desire produces “even the most repressive and the most deadly forms of social reproduction.”
They credit capitalism with drastically improving the lives of almost everyone on the planet by abolishing the hierarchical rules and power structures of the middle ages.
“The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism’s natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way.”
But just because somebody has the freedom to change jobs and not be subjected to the rules of a landowner does not mean that they’re free or that Capitalism as an economic system is impervious to criticism. Yes, Capitalism has deterritorialized feudalism, but then after deterritorializing these rules Capitalism then reterritorialized it with an axiomatic world of banking and finance, dictating every narrow parameter how you live your life.
Hacking Deleuze machines can be a challenging task, as it requires a deep understanding of assembly language, operating systems, and terminal commands. However, with the right tools and techniques, it is possible to gain access to these machines and create chaos or gain control.
The following is an outline for hacking Deleuze machines:
Must know assembly language: Assembly language is the low-level programming language used by most operating systems. To hack Deleuze machines, you must have a solid understanding of assembly language and how to manipulate it.
Determine OS: Determine the operating system running on the Deleuze machine you want to hack. This will inform your approach to hacking and the tools you’ll need.
Nix terminal for package management: If the Deleuze machine runs on a Nix operating system, you can use the Nix terminal for package management. This tool will allow you to install any additional software needed for the hack.
Prepare plausible deniability: Before you start hacking, prepare a plausible deniability plan in case you’re caught. This may include creating fake accounts or having an alibi for your activities.
Find an open path: Look for an open path into the system, such as an unsecured port or a vulnerability in the software.
Crack authentication: Once you have found an open path, you’ll need to crack the system’s authentication measures. This may involve brute-force attacks, phishing scams, or other techniques.
Get super-user privileges: Once you have cracked the system’s authentication, you’ll need to gain super-user privileges. This will give you complete control over the machine.
Create chaos: Depending on your goals, you may want to create chaos on the Deleuze machine. This could involve deleting files, altering settings, or disrupting the system’s operations.
Create backdoor: If you want to maintain access to the Deleuze machine, create a backdoor that will allow you to bypass authentication measures in the future.
Cover your tracks: Finally, cover your tracks to avoid detection. This may involve deleting logs, obscuring your IP address, or using other tools to hide your activities.
In conclusion, hacking Deleuze machines requires a deep understanding of assembly language, operating systems, and terminal commands. With the right tools and techniques, it is possible to gain access to these machines and create chaos or gain control. However, it is important to prepare plausible deniability, find an open path, crack authentication, gain super-user privileges, create a backdoor, and cover your tracks to avoid detection. Hacking Deleuze machines can be a risky endeavor, but with careful planning and execution, it can be done.
Desiring machines refer to the idea that desire is not just a subjective experience but is actually a productive force that operates on a social and cultural level. According to Deleuze and Guattari, desire is not a lack or a deficiency that needs to be filled, but rather it is a creative force that drives individuals and societies to produce new forms of organization, expression, and experience. Desiring machines are not just limited to human beings but can also be found in animals, plants, and other forms of life.
Desiring machines can be understood as a complex assemblage of parts that work together to produce desire. These parts include the human body, social institutions, cultural artifacts, and even the natural environment. When these parts come together in a specific configuration, they create a desiring machine that produces desire and creativity.
Social production, on the other hand, refers to the way in which society produces and reproduces itself through the collective labor of individuals. According to Deleuze and Guattari, social production is not just limited to economic production but also includes cultural, artistic, and intellectual production.
Social production is closely linked to desiring machines because it is through the production of desire that individuals and societies create new forms of social organization and expression. Social production can be seen as the materialization of desire, as individuals work together to create new forms of social organization and expression that reflect their collective desires and aspirations.
Overall, desiring machines and social production are two key concepts in Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy that emphasize the creative and productive nature of desire and the collective labor of individuals in shaping society. These concepts challenge traditional notions of desire as a lack or deficiency and provide a new framework for understanding the complex interplay between individuals, society, and culture.
The name desire production is pretty transparently just a mash up of “desire” from Freud and “production” from Marx but Deleuze and Guattari aren’t looking for some sort of synthesis. Anti-Œdipus was thus an attempt to think beyond Freudo-Marxism.
The traditional understanding of desire – which stretches from Plato to Freud and Lacan – assumes an exclusive distinction between “production” and “acquisition” insofar as desire seeks to acquire something that it lacks. Traditionally see how people have been thinking about attraction is that people always want something that’s missing in their lives. The lack of something is what produces the individual’s drive for growth. Consequently our usual understanding implies that desire is something that can be resolved through satisfaction.
In this model, desire describes an exterior relationship between two terms: the subject and the object of desire. That is, in our maternal satiation as child at the breast, we lack all desire, and lack a differentiated subjectivity. A psychoanalytic approach then posits our ongoing desire for this original state as the defining characteristic of differentiated human persons. We gain subjectivity only through our differentiation from an original blissful state.
“Psychoanalysts are bent on producing man abstractly, that is to say ideologically, for culture. It is Oedipus who produces man in this fashion and who gives a structure to the false movement of infinite progression and regression”
“The great discovery of psychoanalysis was that of the production of desire, of the production of the unconscious. But once Oedipus entered the picture, the discovery was soon buried beneath the new brand of idealism: a classical theater was substituted for the unconscious as a factory: representation was substituted for the units of production of the unconscious; and an unconscious that was capable of nothing but expressing itself — in myth, tragedy, dreams — was substituted for the productive unconscious”
Yet Deleuze and Guattari dispute this, they will say that in general desire and development are natural, basic properties of what it is to be a machine at all which involves what it is to be a human being echoing principally Nietzsche’swill to power and Spinoza’sconatus. They argue that desire is a positive process of production that produces reality.
Desire is not a relation between terms based on lack, but rather desire is evidence of life’s constant and “difference”production. There is a plane of desire and flows of experience, and this desire produces subjects.
Desire isn’t something dictated by some standard of living outside of yourself and what you need in relation to that standard, desire is a natural process of experimentation. What this implies is that desire is not something that is located deep inside the psyche of the individual.
We tend to see desire as grounded in a specific, “desiring subject.” In confrast, Deleuze would say that the positive production of desire anticipates our formation of the subject, and hence opens out onto the world. On the basis of three “passive syntheses” (partly modelled on Kant’ssyntheses of apperception from his Critique of Pure Reason), desire engineers “partial objects, flows, and bodies” in the service of the autopoiesis of the unconscious. In this model, desire does not “lack” its object; instead, desire
“is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it.”
Consequently, organisms are formed through desiring machines, which connect various elements of flow, where each desiring machine is connected to others: that is, no one desiring- machine can describe an organism’s complete being.
“There are no desiring-machines that exist outside the social machines that they form on a large scale; and no social machines without the desiring machines that inhabit them on a small scale.”
“It is not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality.”
During the 20th century, philosophers from the Frankfurt School, including Horckheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, and Fromm, attempted to synthesize Freud’s and Marx’s work. Freud’s introduction of the concept of the unconscious mind demonstrated that basic aspects of personality could be unknown to an individual. Desires and motives could originate from an area of which the individual was unaware. In Marx’s theory of superstructure, he explained how societal creations, including theories, were initially influenced by the economic environment in which individuals were born.
However, Deleuze and Guattari disagreed with this viewpoint. They believed that, similar to Christianity, modernity encouraged individuals to see reality from a singular perspective. This form of knowledge projects an image of reality at the expense of actual reality. They spoke of figures, icons, and signs, yet they failed to perceive forces and flows that bound individuals to alternative realities. These alternative realities, in turn, resulted in the fabrication of docile and obedient subjects.
By relegating oneself to an “ism,” such as Freudianism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Post-Modernism, Serialism, Marxism, or Capitalism, an individual limits themselves to a single point of view, which they will continuously debate for the rest of their life.
To contrast other political philosophies based on the contract (Hobbes), the spirit of the law (Montesquieu), a theory of the state (Plato), or the problem of legitimation (Durkheim, Habermas), a theory of the state, Deleuze and Guattari declared,
“Shit on your whole mortifying, imaginary, and symbolic theater!”
MACHINES
Deleuze’s notion of machines is a central aspect of his philosophy, and it refers to a way of understanding the world that goes beyond traditional dualities such as subject/object or nature/culture. According to Deleuze, machines are not merely technological devices, but rather are a fundamental aspect of the way the world works.
Deleuze argued that machines are not only physical entities but also abstract ones, meaning that they can be understood as systems of relations and processes that connect things together. Machines are not static entities, but rather they are constantly evolving, adapting and changing as they interact with their environment.
For Deleuze, there are two main types of machines: technical machines and abstract machines. Technical machines are the familiar type of machines that we encounter in our daily lives, such as cars, computers, or other devices. These machines are designed to perform specific functions and are typically composed of various physical parts.
On the other hand, abstract machines are more difficult to define. They are not physical objects, but rather they are systems of relations and processes that operate on a more abstract level. Abstract machines are not designed to perform specific functions but rather to create new possibilities and connections between different things.
Deleuze argued that abstract machines are always at work in the world, creating new connections and relationships between things. These machines are not just a product of human activity, but rather they are a fundamental aspect of the way the world works. By studying the operation of machines, Deleuze believed that we could gain a better understanding of the underlying processes and relations that shape the world around us.
Overall, Deleuze’s notion of machines is an important aspect of his philosophy, and it offers a unique way of understanding the world that goes beyond traditional dichotomies and dualities. By viewing the world through the lens of machines, Deleuze believed that we could gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity and interconnectedness of the world around us.
Imagine a bicycle. By itself the bicycle just kind of sits there by itself in a garage purely virtual in terms of its potential, it doesn’t become actualized in any way. What the bicycle needs are other machines around it to make connections with. Say that the bicycle connects with the machine of a human being. That person could do a thousand different things, they could ride it around, they could take it apart and sell it as parts, they could give it to charity or see as a work of art and put on display, they could name it, they could beat somebody to death, the point is they insist that life is actually a machine made up of multiple machinic connections. Machines are multiplicities and not definable by the sum of their parts.
“Everywhere it is machines — real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. The breast is a machine that produces milk, and the mouth is machine coupled to it.
The breast of the new mother can be thought of as a machine just as the mouth of the newborn baby can be thought of as a machine each seeking connections with other machines and each using the connections with other machines to actualize themselves.
They oppose Freud’s concept of sublimation, which posits an inherent dualism between desiring-machines and social production. Their concept of sexuality is not limited to the interaction of male and female gender roles, but instead posits a multiplicity of flows that a “hundred thousand” desiring-machines create within their connected universe;
“Making love is not just becoming as one, or even two, but becoming as a hundred thousand. Desiring-machines or the nonhuman sex: not one or even two sexes, but n sexes.”
While individuals are representations of one specific machine type. An example of another type of machine would be a group. These two things are instances of machines in the sense that they are organizations finding relations with other machines trying to bring about an actuality.
Can we apply the same principle to political revolutions, historical events, super structures, as devices in their own right? Some sort of hyperobject? Global warming is perhaps the most dramatic example of what Timothy Morton calls “hyperobjects” – entities of such vast temporal and spatial dimensions that they defeat traditional ideas about what a thing is in the first place and their impact on how we think, how we coexist, and how we experience our politics, ethics, and art.
According to Sigmund Freud’s, the id is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs, and desires operating on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification.
“Psychoanalysis was from the start, still is, and perhaps always will be a well-constituted church and a form of treatment based on a set of beliefs that only the very faithful could adhere to, i.e., those who believe in a security that amounts to being lost in the herd and defined in terms of common and external goals”
Identity is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been the subject of much philosophical debate. One of the most fundamental questions about identity is whether it is situated in time. In other words, do we have a single, unchanging identity that persists throughout our lives, or is our identity constantly changing and evolving?
There is no easy answer to this question. On the one hand, it seems clear that our identities are shaped by our experiences and the choices we make throughout our lives. For example, the person I am today is very different from the person I was when I was a child. I have different values, beliefs, and goals. I have made different choices, and I have had different experiences. All of these things have contributed to the person I am today.
On the other hand, it also seems clear that there is some continuity in our identities. We can still recognize ourselves as the same person we were years ago, even though we have changed in many ways. This suggests that there must be some core aspect of our identity that remains constant over time.
So, what is this core aspect of our identity? Some philosophers have argued that it is our memories. Our memories of our past experiences help to shape our sense of self. They provide us with a sense of continuity and identity. Without our memories, we would be like a ship without a rudder, drifting aimlessly through time.
Other philosophers have argued that our identity is based on our character traits. Our character traits are the enduring dispositions that make us who we are. They include things like our personality, our values, and our beliefs. Our character traits are relatively stable over time, and they provide us with a sense of consistency and identity.
Still other philosophers have argued that our identity is based on our relationships with others. Our relationships with our family, friends, and loved ones are some of the most important things in our lives. They help to define us and give us a sense of belonging. When we lose someone close to us, it can feel like a part of us has died. This is because our relationships are so central to our identity.
So, what is the answer to the question of whether identity is situated in time? The truth is, it is both and neither. Our identities are shaped by our experiences, our memories, our character traits, and our relationships. All of these things contribute to the person we are today. However, our identity is also constantly changing and evolving. We are not the same person we were yesterday, and we will not be the same person we are tomorrow. Our identity is a work in progress, and it is always evolving.
The death of an archetype can anchor us as young forever. When we lose someone who we admire and identify with, it can feel like a part of us has died. We may feel like we can no longer relate to the world in the same way. We may feel lost and alone. However, the death of an archetype can also be a time of growth and transformation. It can be a time to reflect on our own lives and to decide who we want to be. It can be a time to let go of the past and to embrace the future.
In Hitchcock’s Vertigo, James Stewart’s character is unable to accept the loss of his loved one. He keeps looking for her, finds a look-alike and then sets about transforming her, Pygmalion-like, into a reincarnated version. His identity thus lives on, in the clay golem he recreates.
The death of an archetype can be a difficult time, but it can also be a time of growth and transformation. It is a time to reflect on our own lives and to decide who we want to be. It is a time to let go of the past and to embrace the future.
In his book “Air Guitar,” cultural critic Dave Hickey made a distinction between two types of individuals in the realm of spectatorship: the Spectators and the Participants. This distinction can be applied to the world of Twitter, where the behavior of users aligns with Hickey’s characterization.
According to Hickey, Spectators tend to align themselves with authority and established norms. They do not have the time or inclination to make decisions for themselves, and instead, they seek out spaces that have been confirmed by institutional and corporate blessings. These spaces are often marked by blue checkmarks, professors, and celebrity endorsements. By associating with these sources of authority, Spectators derive a sense of sanctioned pleasure or virtue that makes them feel secure.
In contrast, Participants do not find this sense of security appealing. They do not lose interest in a topic once it has been accredited by a respected source, as they always assume there is something better out there. Participants continue searching for the next best thing that aligns with their personal agendas, even if it means rejecting established norms and authorities. They persist in their search, and are not easily swayed by corporate endorsements or blue checkmarks.
While it is possible that Participants may be wrong in their rejection of established norms and authorities, true Participants remain committed to their search. Unlike Spectators, who must be lured into following a trend, Participants actively seek out new ideas and perspectives. They are motivated by their own curiosity and desire to uncover something new and exciting.
In conclusion, Hickey’s distinction between Spectators and Participants provides an insightful lens through which to view the behavior of Twitter users. While Spectators align themselves with authority and established norms, Participants reject these sources of security and seek out new and exciting ideas. While both groups may have valid reasons for their behavior, it is the Participants who drive the conversation forward and push the boundaries of what is possible.
